Puppet

[barmar]

I think that this is a case that shows one should never assume that an alert means what you expect it to mean. ACBL does not have (anymore? - my age makes me forgetful) "special alerts". If you want to know, you should ask.

Correct, special alerts were only in existence very briefly. They went away when announcements were added (special alerts were intended for unusual meanings of the bids that became announceable).

 

But I'm not sure how your response applies to this situation. The relevant bid was NOT alerted, so how does "assume an alert means what you expect it to mean" apply?

[barmar]

Not exactly, I know that a 3♦ response to puppet needs an alert.

My question if you look back at post#1 was that if the 3♦ bid carries a "special meaning" that your opponents are unlikely to know, should this be disclosed before the opening lead.

Yes.

 

Law 20F5 applies here. Part a says that failing to alert an alertable bid counts as a misexplanation. Part bii says that if you become declarer or dummy, you call the TD and correct the misexplanation at the end of the auction, before the opening lead.

[blackshoe]

From Jilly's post #7 in this thread:

I am interested in the disclosure requirements, had the call in fact been alerted and the opponents did not ask, as your

agreement of 3♦ is afaik , non standard.

[barmar]

I missed that change. In that case, I agree that there's no responsibility to explain. The regulations only say that an alert is required, so that's all you have to do.

 

There are some calls that ACBL requires delayed alerts for. In those cases, you volunteer the information after the auction is over. But this is not one of them.

 

However, while there's no requirement to explain, it's not uncommon to offer this type of information after the auction, as if it were a delayed alert, as a courtesy. Is there a Law that prohibits it?

[blackshoe]

No law prohibits it, as far as I can see.

[aguahombre]

Read post #6

Interesting. Ignore post number one; read post #6, not written by the OP.

[jillybean]

Interesting. Ignore post number one; read post #6, not written by the OP.

This is becoming a nightmare. The actual hand I based my question on is irrelevant and I thought that posting a 2N 3C* auction was going to have everyone crying "3C should not be alerted!!". Later, it was pointed out that the auction was in fact 2N 3C* 3D. When people did indeed start commenting "3C should not be alerted!!" I referred them back to post#6 which described the auction at the table. In hindsight it could have been better for me to keep out of it.

 

To add to the confusion after it was revealed the auction occurred on BBO people starting pointing out that there was no RA. I'm interested in the ACBL regulations, I forget to state that as it's "standard" and standard to play ACBL regulations online. :)

 

I play a number of commom conventions with modifications. For eg. a modified Jacoby 2NT and a modifed cappelletti. A couple of times when we've bid & alerted 2N and our opponents haven't asked about the auction, I know they have assumed 2N is a gf raise and the next bid is shortness, when it's not and I've wondered if I should tell them before the opening lead. Or, at the end of an auction an opponent simply asks "thats Jacoby is it?" (players dont like asking what a bid means if they can reel off a convention name) and no doubt illegally, I just play dumb and say yes. My follow up line would be Sorry director, I assumed he was asking about the 2N bid which is "Jacoby".

 

This obviously isn't right but the basis for my question is in regards to the first example where the opponents don't ask about any alerts and where non standard follow ups are being played, is there any onus on declarer to announce that before the lead? I think that has been answered in the negative, it is the opponents responsibility to ask about alerts.

[barmar]

When playing online, it's normal to include the explanations proactively with the alerts -- effectively, everything is announced.

 

What I suggest you do is explain your bids as "Mod Jac" and "Mod Capp". The "Mod" qualifier should help the opponent know that they should ask for details if they care, rather than assume it's the convention they're familiar with.

[jillybean]

When playing online, it's normal to include the explanations proactively with the alerts -- effectively, everything is announced.

 

What I suggest you do is explain your bids as "Mod Jac" and "Mod Capp". The "Mod" qualifier should help the opponent know that they should ask for details if they care, rather than assume it's the convention they're familiar with.

The question is in reference to live play, not online.

[barmar]

The question is in reference to live play, not online.

So now we're NOT supposed to read #6?

[jillybean]

LOL Was it unclear that my post was a direct response to a specific comment made by ddrankin?

[Vampyr]

Or, at the end of an auction an opponent simply asks "thats Jacoby is it?" (players dont like asking what a bid means if they can reel off a convention name) and no doubt illegally, I just play dumb and say yes.

 

Well, you know that this is illegal and unethical. Why, then, do you do it?

 

 

My follow up line would be Sorry director, I assumed he was asking about the 2N bid which is "Jacoby".

 

Right, well this is totally disingenuous; why do you want to mislead the opponents and then lie to the director? You yourself say:

 

 

This obviously isn't right but the basis for my question is in regards to the first example where the opponents don't ask about any alerts and where non standard follow ups are being played, is there any onus on declarer to announce that before the lead? I think that has been answered in the negative, it is the opponents responsibility to ask about alerts.

 

If they don't ask, then the situation is entirely different.

 

Playing against you must be really scary.

[blackshoe]

I think, Stefanie, that you're reading more — much more — into Kathryn's post than is actually there. I suggest a less confrontational stance.

 

Kathryn: When a question — any question — about any aspect of your auction is asked, the ACBL alert regulation requires a full dump of all data you have about your partnership understandings regarding that aspect. This is true independently of whether an alert or announcement is required or given, and irrespective of the form of the question. So if they ask "that's Jacoby is it?" your answer should be "2NT shows <whatever it shows> and asks <whatever it asks>" and your partner should, if you have responded to 2NT, volunteer to explain the meaning of the response. If they point to 2NT and raise an eyebrow, same response(s). If after an alert they say "explain please", same thing. While it's very tempting to reply to a (stupid, IMO) "yes/no" question with either yes or no, and leave it at that, doing so does not satisfy your disclosure obligations, and satisfying those obligations takes precedence over leaving your opponent hoist on his own petard, however gratifying that may be. :P

 

If they don't ask, as has been said, you are not obligated to volunteer an explanation. I might though, if I believe they have misinterpreted things, or are simply so inexperienced they don't have a clue, suggest during the clarification period that they really ought to ask about the auction. If they then decline, that's on their heads.

[jillybean]

Well, you know that this is illegal and unethical. Why, then, do you do it?

As Blackshoe says, I think you are reading more into it, and I am not 100% sure that my description is illegal. “That's Jacoby is it?” appears to be asking if 2NT is a game forcing major raise, which it is. Rather than responding with a “yes” I should reply “2N is showing a 4 card major raise, asking partner to describe their hand further”. I don't believe I should list the responses that are available but that is being discussed in another thread. The unethical part is that I am quite sure that they really want to ask about the continuations and not the 2NT bid and while it may leave an uncomfortable feeling, I am not obliged to suggest they ask or to provide that information. In fact it would be a violation to do so.

 

I'd be surprised if you don't recognize the partnerships I am describing here. They are predominately men in their 50's – early 60's. They play a regular game with the same partner and think everything that doesn't work out for them is “bad luck”. They reel off the names of conventions to impress the newer players and when you set them in a vulnerable 4S game they will say in a loud voice, “look at that, they had (an impossible) 6H contract”.

 

Right, well this is totally disingenuous; why do you want to mislead the opponents and then lie to the director? “

I'm not misleading the opponents, but I'm not asking the questions for them. I don't think my line to the (potential) director call is a lie. I don't need to say I answered their question but what I think they really wanted to know about was the response to J2nt, do I?

 

Blackshoe, yes I guess there is an element of the sick satisfaction I get from watching these players blow themselves up.

 

 

If they don't ask, then the situation is entirely different.

Their question was answered.

 

Playing against you must be really scary.

I'd be surprised if anyone called me scary. I think I'd be described as serious, unfriendly perhaps, I don't engage in small talk at the table.

 

If they don't ask, as has been said, you are not obligated to volunteer an explanation. I might though, if I believe they have misinterpreted things, or are simply so inexperienced they don't have a clue, suggest during the clarification period that they really ought to ask about the auction. If they then decline, that's on their heads.

 

So, disclosure about bids other than those over 3N which are (should be?) disclosed before the opening lead?

“Would you like me to explain the (rest of) auction?” could be good, anymore could be seen as condescending.

[blackshoe]

I don't see how "would you like an explanation of our auction?" can be seen as condescending, unless they are severely over sensitive. You don't have to point out that they didn't ask about alerted bids.

 

If there are bids over 3NT beginning with opener's second call which would require an alert absent the "delayed alert" provisions, then you alert when the final pass comes down. This is yet another reason why picking up the bidding cards when you think the auction is over, at least in some auctions, is a bad idea, not to mention an irregularity.

[Vampyr]

I think, Stefanie, that you're reading more much more into Kathryn's post than is actually there. I suggest a less confrontational stance.

 

 

Maybe. What I read was that she would intentionally mislead the opponents, and if caught out, lie to the director.

 

In her most recent post she says that she thinks or knows that they want an explanation of the continutations (not sure if "Jacoby" is even accurate if the continuations are not as originally set out) but will not give it to them without further questioning. She admits that it is unethical but doesn't seem committed to not doing it again.

 

I think that Jillybean has a responsibility here. She has (one dares to hope) picked up a rudimentary understanding of the Laws from reading these forums, and is content not to follow them. Ignorance can no longer be an excuse, so I hope that PPs follow and will make an impression.

[blackshoe]

Let me add that I am of the opinion that if a call has not yet been made, a question about the meaning of that call is not appropriate, and need not be answered (yet). I do not consider this position to be in opposition to the Principle of Full Disclosure. I do not buy any of the arguments I've seen that the answer to such a question may be crucial to a player's immediate action. I do believe that when a call has been made, a question about alternative calls to the one made may be asked, and must be answered. For example, if in response to a Jacoby 2NT partner bids 3♦, perhaps described as "short in diamonds", it is appropriate to ask what 4♦ would mean, had he made that bid.

[Vampyr]

Let me add that I am of the opinion that if a call has not yet been made, a question about the meaning of that call is not appropriate, and need not be answered (yet).

 

The position in question was after the auction was finished. But thanks for sharing.

[jillybean]

I don't see how "would you like an explanation of our auction?" can be seen as condescending, unless they are severely over sensitive. You don't have to point out that they didn't ask about alerted bids.

 

That's what I said wasn't it, only you said it better :)

[jillybean]

Maybe. What I read was that she would intentionally mislead the opponents, and if caught out, lie to the director.

 

In her most recent post she says that she thinks or knows that they want an explanation of the continutations (not sure if "Jacoby" is even accurate if the continuations are not as originally set out) but will not give it to them without further questioning. She admits that it is unethical but doesn't seem committed to not doing it again.

 

I think that Jillybean has a responsibility here. She has (one dares to hope) picked up a rudimentary understanding of the Laws from reading these forums, and is content not to follow them. Ignorance can no longer be an excuse, so I hope that PPs follow and will make an impression.

Are you saying that when the opponents ask if a 2N/1M bid is "jacoby" (opening strength and support of at least four cards in the opening bidder's major suit), I should in fact use my judgement to decide that it is the continuations they need to know about and explain what my continuations are? Imo, this thinking is flawed.

 

As for a PP, we don't get PP's here but I would accept any warning about my disclosure practices without question.

[Vampyr]

Are you saying that when the opponents ask if a 2N/1M bid is "jacoby" (opening strength and support of at least four cards in the opening bidder's major suit), I should in fact use my judgement to decide that it is the continuations they need to know about and explain what my continuations are? Imo, this thinking is flawed.

 

You said yourself that you were pretty sure that was what they wanted to know. So you should tell them. (Besides the fact that with rebids that aren't the original ones, it is unclear to me whether "Jacoby" is accurate.)

[blackshoe]

"Explaining" a convention by naming it is explicitly deprecated (perhaps prohibited is a better word, I don't know — I'd have to read the regulation again) by the ACBL alert regulation. So saying "it's Jacoby", or replying "yes" to "is that Jacoby" is not adequate disclosure, even if your agreement is precisely that. When your version of Jacoby is different to what most people expect, it's even more important to explain it fully.

 

I don't know why you felt they wanted to know what the followups would mean, but as I've said I don't think you're obligated to describe the response structure in anything other than the most general terms. Not until partner makes a response.

[Vampyr]

Or, at the end of an auction an opponent simply asks "thats Jacoby is it?" (

 

My understanding is that "at the end of an auction" means that all of the bids have been made. Perhaps the banging on about bids that have not been made could be reserved for the thread that is specifically about that.

[aguahombre]

or perhaps the banging on about Jacoby on a Puppet thread could end.

[Vampyr]

or perhaps the banging on about Jacoby on a Puppet thread could end.

 

To be fair, the thread is really about disclosure.