Puppet

[aguahombre]

To be fair, the thread is really about disclosure.

That's true. Disclosure of Puppet. We could conceivably go for a world record currently contended for in the "oops" thread.

[jeffford76]

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 think your correct response to "Jacoby?" is "It's a 4-card game forcing raise, but not standard Jacoby". Then they can ask about followups if they want to.

[jillybean]

I think your correct response to "Jacoby?" is "It's a 4-card game forcing raise, but not standard Jacoby". Then they can ask about followups if they want to.

If the question is at the end of the auction, yes I agree.

[Vampyr]

If the question is at the end of the auction, yes I agree.

 

Well, during the auction you don't want to just say "yes" if that is likely to mislead them. But you wouldn't, since convention names are not proper disclosure.

[jillybean]

Well, during the auction you don't want to just say "yes" if that is likely to mislead them. But you wouldn't, since convention names are not proper disclosure.

During the auction "yes" is marginal at worst, its a 4 card gf raise, Im not going to alert the opponents and my partner that we don't play standard follow ups.

[barmar]

If they ask "Jacoby?", I think a proper response would be something like "It's a 4-card GF raise, but not Jacoby." Not clarifying regarding Jacoby seems to be clearly misleading, since they've made it clear that they're assuming the specific structure.

[Cthulhu D]

Doesn't it make sense to say 'Yeah, it's a 4 card GF raise' or if you're worried that's misleading 'It's a card GF raise.'

[Lanor Fow]

Doesn't it make sense to say 'Yeah, it's a 4 card GF raise' or if you're worried that's misleading 'It's a card GF raise.'

 

If it is a 4 card raise that isn't jacoby (which I believe is what we're discussing) then starting the answer to the quetsion 'Is it jacoby' with 'yeah' is more than misleading, it's surely misinformation, even when coupled with the rest of the response (which doesn't do anything to dispell this belief opponents now have that you play jacoby). Saying that a convention name isn't sufficient disclosure is not the same as saying that it's white noise that can, and will, be ignored.

 

Whilst Blackshoe may well be right with regards to the laws, I personally find it impossible to consider this 'full disclosure' for any definition of the word full that I have come across. Perhaps we should instead call it the principle of 'limited disclosure'.

[helene_t]

So if some random opps at the club ask "is it jacoby?", which is more likely:

 

1: they are aware of the differences between jacoby and other conventions that use 2nt as a gf raise (such as jordan), and they want to know which of the follow-ups they use

 

2: by "jacoby" they just mean "gf raise". They don't care about the follow-ups.

 

I think (2:) will be the case more than 90% of the time. But if (1:) is the case it would be bad to assume that opps don't know what "jacoby" means.

 

So better to pretend not to know the term "jacoby". You are not obliged to provide names for your conventions and you shouldn't do it when there is a significant risk that opps will make wrong assumptions about what those convention names mean to you.

[barmar]

If I ask "Jacoby?", it's because I want to know whether it's the common convention, so I don't need them to explain all the details, or something else that I should get more information about.

 

Although, even if they say "yes", I might still ask about the followups, just in case THEY aren't aware that their agreement isn't standard Jacoby. So I guess I'm really just interested in confirming that it's a GF raise of some form, as opposed to some other conventional use of 2NT.

[mycroft]

I am willing to say either: "it's a 4+card game-forcing raise of (M); our followups are not standard Jacoby" or "4+card GF raise" and at the end of the auction, the 95% of the time we're declaring, explain the rest of the auction before the opening lead. The former does have the downside of potentially waking up partner (or looking like it does), but in practise I've never seen anyone have a problem.

 

I would feel very uncomfortable letting them lead with a likely misunderstood auction.

[aguahombre]

So better to pretend not to know the term "jacoby". You are not obliged to provide names for your conventions and you shouldn't do it when there is a significant risk that opps will make wrong assumptions about what those convention names mean to you.

This works. We take "Jacoby?", "weak?" "Unusual?" "Michaels?" "New Minor?" and all other inquiries which name something to mean "please explain". Then we explain the call.

 

Some understand what we are doing, others would rather just have a "yes" and get impatient with the answer; but, they will never get just a "yes", or a "no".

[barmar]

This works. We take "Jacoby?", "weak?" "Unusual?" "Michaels?" "New Minor?" and all other inquiries which name something to mean "please explain". Then we explain the call.

 

Some understand what we are doing, others would rather just have a "yes" and get impatient with the answer; but, they will never get just a "yes", or a "no".

But when you explain the call, do you make sure to remove the opponent's misconception that you play the convention they asked about? If they ask "Jacoby?", and you explain "Game forcing raise", they're likely to assume that you're simply describing Jacoby.

[aguahombre]

But when you explain the call, do you make sure to remove the opponent's misconception that you play the convention they asked about? If they ask "Jacoby?", and you explain "Game forcing raise", they're likely to assume that you're simply describing Jacoby.

When in-fact it is not what they "named", the explanation starts with "NO,...". If we know it to be a variation of what they "named", then we say, for instance, "Yes, unusual; but showing the red suits".

 

It can get tricky. I can't speak for Jacoby 2NT variations, because we do not use 2NT for that purpose; but, when they have (we believe) accurately named what we play, the best we can do is explain what the bid means and let them assume we are merely descibing that. In other words..the reason for not using names when describing conventions is because our use of the convention might not be their understanding of its use; so we don't use the name.

 

We can't be responsible for knowing all the names or knowing their interpretation of the names; but we can try to avoid misunderstanding if we do have that knowledge.

 

So, an answer to your question might be found in:

 

1NT-2S (Alert). "MSS?" "It shows both minors, weak or strong; or merely weak with long diamonds." We have described 2S, and believe "MSS" was accurate; but whether they believe we are merely describing MSS and whether their understanding of it varies from that is not our problem. We didn't bring in the name to the conversation.

[bluejak]

But when you explain the call, do you make sure to remove the opponent's misconception that you play the convention they asked about? If they ask "Jacoby?", and you explain "Game forcing raise", they're likely to assume that you're simply describing Jacoby.

I don't see why. If you were describing Jacoby, would you not say "Yes"?

[aguahombre]

If you were describing Jacoby, would you not say "Yes"?

No.

 

1. I won't participate in or encourage using names in disclosure.

2. I won't be responsible for knowing their understanding of the method with that name.

3. I won't assume my understanding of the use of a convention is the current standard understanding.