Full disclosure

[Jeremy69A]

While it is true that the Hackett defence did have a meaning for weak that involved 12 to 15, it has been dead for 15 or 20 years.

 

Maybe in your neck of the woods. You need to get out more. Still alive and kicking in the South.

 

I too have little sympathy for South. However I would require the other side to fill in the bits to tell the opponents section on the front of the card and disclose better but I would not adjust the score. If the argument was that game was 65% on the vague description but only 50% on the actual agreement why wouldn't you bid a 50% Vulnerable game?

[Cyberyeti]

Maybe in your neck of the woods. You need to get out more. Still alive and kicking in the South.

 

I too have little sympathy for South. However I would require the other side to fill in the bits to tell the opponents section on the front of the card and disclose better but I would not adjust the score. If the argument was that game was 65% on the vague description but only 50% on the actual agreement why wouldn't you bid a 50% Vulnerable game?

Because it's pairs and probably against the field, hence I'd want it to be >50%.

 

I didn't ask for a ruling, but did mention it to Bluejak (who was directing) informally. He may have had a word with them about disclosure.

 

I think this case is peculiar in that while neither meaning is common, over a natural 1♣, it is much much more common to play (1♣)-1N or (1♣)-2♣ as an 11-14 ish takeout than an 8-11 one, and also to describe it as a "weak ToX". I didn't ask for clarification because it never occurred to me that it was the latter so there was no clarification to ask about. This was the first time I've come across this range, I've seen (or rather noticed) the 11-14/15 one maybe 30 times in 30 years.

 

I feel describing it as "weak" in this case is not just incomplete, it's actually misleading, given that the other range is more common and often described the same way.

[Zelandakh]

"Weak takeout" is not a convention name, in the sense that "Drury" or "Jacoby" are. "Weak" and "takeout" are both descriptive terms (you even used "takeout" in your suggested rewording), so the only question is whether players have similar understandings of the word "weak".

Takeout is a descriptive term. Weak is a descriptive term in some cases but also a relative term in others. Takeout double is a convention name. The description was not "weak, takeout shape" (which would imo be ok although still not full disclosure - you know the range is 6-11 so the opponents have a right to know this too). It was "a weak takeout double". This is something else entirely. Let me give you an example from your own post. I open 1♥, partner responds 2NT and I alert, describing in on request as a weak Jacoby 2NT bid. What does partner have? Minimum game force? Limit or better? Preemptive raise? Who knows! The point here is that there is an expected range of values for both conventions so weak in this sense seems to be of the relative variety rather than the "less than average hand" type. I genuinely do not understand why posters here appear to think West's description meets the proper criteria for FD.

[c_corgi]

I didn't ask for a ruling...

 

 

 

Glad to hear it :)

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

This thread reminds me of the one from the Tolle about transfers to transfers. The explanation given in both cases seemed to me theoretically lazy but by no means unreasonable. I am curious as to the rationale of anyone who thought one was OK and the other wasn't.

[barmar]

Takeout is a descriptive term. Weak is a descriptive term in some cases but also a relative term in others. Takeout double is a convention name. The description was not "weak, takeout shape" (which would imo be ok although still not full disclosure - you know the range is 6-11 so the opponents have a right to know this too). It was "a weak takeout double". This is something else entirely. Let me give you an example from your own post. I open 1♥, partner responds 2NT and I alert, describing in on request as a weak Jacoby 2NT bid. What does partner have? Minimum game force? Limit or better? Preemptive raise? Who knows! The point here is that there is an expected range of values for both conventions so weak in this sense seems to be of the relative variety rather than the "less than average hand" type. I genuinely do not understand why posters here appear to think West's description meets the proper criteria for FD.

"Weak Jacoby 2NT" is not something I've ever heard (do I need to get out more, too?); it seems like a contradiction. It also violates the rule that explanations should not use convention names. If someone used the phrase, I'd probably ask for a clarification.

 

On the other hand, "weak takeout double" seems descriptive to me, it's just a terse way to say "a weak hand with takeout shape".

[Zelandakh]

"Weak Jacoby 2NT" is not something I've ever heard (do I need to get out more, too?); it seems like a contradiction. It also violates the rule that explanations should not use convention names. If someone used the phrase, I'd probably ask for a clarification.

 

On the other hand, "weak takeout double" seems descriptive to me, it's just a terse way to say "a weak hand with takeout shape".

Why is "Jacoby 2NT" any more of a convention name than "takeout double"? They are both conventions with certain specifications as to their strength and shape. If "weak takeout double" means "a weak hand with takeout shape" the "weak Jacoby 2NT" should mean "a weak hand with support", presumably something like a preemptive or mixed raise. If you think the latter is misleading then so is the former.

[campboy]

Why is "Jacoby 2NT" any more of a convention name than "takeout double"? They are both conventions with certain specifications as to their strength and shape. If "weak takeout double" means "a weak hand with takeout shape" the "weak Jacoby 2NT" should mean "a weak hand with support", presumably something like a preemptive or mixed raise. If you think the latter is misleading then so is the former.

No-one said "weak Jacoby 2NT" is misleading, just that it's not clear what is meant. And your post demonstrates why: it presumably means "weaker than a Jacoby NT but the same shape", but how much weaker? I would guess it to be an invitational raise (though I would still ask). On the other hand, if "weak takeout double" means "weaker than a takeout double but the same shape" it is much clearer roughly what range to expect.

[Zelandakh]

Your guess is that "weak Jacoby 2NT" means an invitational raise. The OP's guess was that "weak takeout double" was approximately the same values with takeout shape. Several posters seem to think that this was unreasonable. I am still yet to see why this interpretation was any less valid than the alternatives, nor why "weak takeout double" can possibly be seen as full disclosure. On the other hand I do see a clear principle that those playing unusual methods should take great care in making sure their opponents understand them fully.

 

As someone who sometimes plays some unusual methods I think this principle is very important. It is not right at all in my view for opponents to be disadvantaged just because I could not be bothered to tell them what the actual agreement was. Once again, how much longer does it take to say "6-11 with takeout shape" than "weak takeout double"? The former is clearly a much more accurate description of the methods being used than the latter. I simply do not understand how anyone can argue that this is not the case!

[gnasher]

Your guess is that "weak Jacoby 2NT" means an invitational raise. The OP's guess was that "weak takeout double" was approximately the same values with takeout shape.

But, as you say, it was a guess. He could have asked a followup question, but instead he chose to guess, and guessed wrong. We're not really going to give him redress for that, are we?

 

It is not right at all in my view for opponents to be disadvantaged just because I could not be bothered to tell them what the actual agreement was.

Indeed, it wouldn't be right, but that's not what happened here. The disadvantage indirectly resulted from the ambiguity in EW's explanation, but the direct cause was South's failure to ask for the ambiguity to be resolved.

[campboy]

Your guess is that "weak Jacoby 2NT" means an invitational raise. The OP's guess was that "weak takeout double" was approximately the same values with takeout shape.

You're missing the point. I think "weak X" means "like X only not strong enough". Since an invitational raise is outside the range for a Jacoby 2NT it is consistent with that meaning (as are the other possibilities you mention). Since 11-14 is within the range of a normal takeout double it is not consistent with that meaning.

 

Several posters seem to think that this was unreasonable. I am still yet to see why this interpretation was any less valid than the alternatives, nor why "weak takeout double" can possibly be seen as full disclosure.

Obviously it is not "full disclosure", but you rarely if ever see an explanation which is. That does not mean there was misinformation.

 

The question I would ask anyone who wants to adjust here is "would you still adjust if the actual agreement was 11-14, but South assumed 6-11 or similar?" I think it is inconsistent to rule MI in both cases.

[barmar]

Why is "Jacoby 2NT" any more of a convention name than "takeout double"? They are both conventions with certain specifications as to their strength and shape. If "weak takeout double" means "a weak hand with takeout shape" the "weak Jacoby 2NT" should mean "a weak hand with support", presumably something like a preemptive or mixed raise. If you think the latter is misleading then so is the former.

"Jacoby" is not descriptive at all, it's just part of the name of a number of conventions: Jacoby 2NT, Jacoby Transfers. Notice that there's nothing in common between these two conventions, except that they were created and/or popularized by Oswald Jacoby, so were named after him.

 

"Takeout", on the other hand, is a descriptive term. Everyone understands that "takeout double" is just short for "double that asks partner to take it out". It's no more of a name than "5-card major" is.

 

Basically, if you can infer the meaning of a phrase from the constituent words, it's descriptive; if not, it's an arbitrary name.

[Trinidad]

I think it is perfectly natural to interpret "weak takeout double" as:

  I)  "minimum takeout double (i.e. about 11-14) or

 II)   "minimum takeout double and somewhat less" (i.e. about 9-13) or

III)   equivalent to a weak two opening or WJO (i.e. about 6-10).

 

If you know quite a few pairs who all play one of the same of these options (e.g. I) and all explain it as "weak take out double", I think it is natural to interpret "weak takeout double" to mean this option and not the other two.

 

I had a similar case a little while ago. I was West, South is a top player in The Netherlands though not national team level. We were playing MP pairs with screens.

The auction started:

[hv=d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1s2d3s(weak)p4sppp]133|100[/hv]

South alerted and explained 3♠ as weak. He bid 4♠. I thought of doubling (I should have) but passed and lead. Dummy tables with a 4423 distribution and 8 HCPs. That was the strongest favorable weak jump raise that I have ever seen in my life (but I am still young ;) ).

 

I closed the screen and asked South whether the dummy was what he expected. He looked at me as if I just asked him for the melting point of Bismuth. When I asked him again, he replied: "Of course it is."

I like to think that a TD would have ruled MI with consequent damage if I had doubled (with three aces) and he had made his contract because of the high card strength in dummy. All despite the fact that I could have asked South what he meant by "weak" in this context.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

This thread reminds me of the one from the Tolle about transfers to transfers. The explanation given in both cases seemed to me theoretically lazy but by no means unreasonable. I am curious as to the rationale of anyone who thought one was OK and the other wasn't.

Thinking of that a good pair last night bid

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2d(Multi)p4dp4hppp]133|100[/hv]

 

We asked and were told that "4♦ is a transfer to my major" which, if I remember the Tolle thread correctly, some people think unambiguously means bid hearts with hearts, and some people think means bid hearts with spades.

 

4 ♥ duly made on the 1-6 fit, though 6♠ on the 6-3 fit was better.

 

It turned out that both members of the pair agreed it was "a transfer to the major" but they had different ideas as to what that meant! :lol: :D :)

[campboy]

We asked and were told that "4♦ is a transfer to my major" which, if I remember the Tolle thread correctly, some people think unambiguously means bid hearts with hearts, and some people think means bid hearts with spades.

I don't know what (if anything) "4♦ is a transfer to my major" means, but the Tolle thread concerned a bid being explained as "asks me to transfer to my major", which is IMO quite different.

[c_corgi]

It turned out that both members of the pair agreed it was "a transfer to the major" but they had different ideas as to what that meant! :lol: :D :)

 

How did the player who thought 4H showed spades think that hearts should be shown? Perhaps the pair have been damaged by your condoning this misinterpretation of the word "transfer". It seems unlikely, though, that they would ever reach 6S on the 6-3 fit since dummy deemed that a presumed 6-6 heart fit was insufficient for slam.

[c_corgi]

The question I would ask anyone who wants to adjust here is "would you still adjust if the actual agreement was 11-14, but South assumed 6-11 or similar?" I think it is inconsistent to rule MI in both cases.

 

Ruling MI in either case assumes that S is entitled to redress if his interpretation of an ambiguous explanation is different to that intended. Therefore it would be inconsistent to rule MI in one and not the other.

[campboy]

Ruling MI in either case assumes that S is entitled to redress if his interpretation of an ambiguous explanation is different to that intended. Therefore it would be inconsistent to rule MI in one and not the other.

In order to rule misinformation there needs to be misinformation. We can rule MI if we think the explanation clearly meant one thing rather than the other. Obviously this can't be the case in both directions simultaneously.

[blackshoe]

What, exactly, is the definition of "misinformation"?

[barmar]

I don't think the Laws use the term "misinformation", they say "incorrect explanation". If an explanation is incomplete or ambiguous, you could rule that it's inherently incorrect.

 

There's only going to be damage if the ambiguity results in the opponent misinterpreting the explanation. But it doesn't matter whether the intent was X and the opponent thought it was Y, or vice versa.

[gordontd]

I don't think the Laws use the term "misinformation", t

Actually the term appears in the Laws on several occasions, though not in the definitions.

[blackshoe]

I don't think the Laws use the term "misinformation", they say "incorrect explanation". If an explanation is incomplete or ambiguous, you could rule that it's inherently incorrect.

 

There's only going to be damage if the ambiguity results in the opponent misinterpreting the explanation. But it doesn't matter whether the intent was X and the opponent thought it was Y, or vice versa.

Actually the term appears in the Laws on several occasions, though not in the definitions.

Four times, by my count, in Laws 20 and 21, not including Table of Contents, Index, and chapter headings.

 

In order to rule misinformation there needs to be misinformation. We can rule MI if we think the explanation clearly meant one thing rather than the other. Obviously this can't be the case in both directions simultaneously.

It seems to me that the fact that a player was misled by an explanation is prima facie evidence that the explanation was misleading ("Misleading explanation" is the phrase used in Law 75). "Misinformation", according to my dictionary, means "false or inaccurate information". If a player gives a true and accurate description of his partnership understanding, and his opponent is nonetheless misled, what then? I suppose 21A applies.

[Vampyr]

If a player gives a true and accurate description of his partnership understanding, and his opponent is nonetheless misled, what then?

 

The AC rules in the opponent's favour.

[blackshoe]

So much for Law 21A, then. :(

[Cyberyeti]

So much for Law 21A, then. :(

The question here is whether a true and accurate but incomplete explanation can be ruled misleading because an alternative interpretation is so much more normal that the person hearing it doesn't realise there's any ambiguity to unravel.

 

If the explanation is obviously ambiguous, or is misinterpreted in a way the director does not think is reasonable, then 21A applies. The more normal the situation and both alternatives, the more likely 21A is to apply IMO.

[blackshoe]

The question here is whether a true and accurate but incomplete explanation can be ruled misleading because an alternative interpretation is so much more normal that the person hearing it doesn't realise there's any ambiguity to unravel.

 

If the explanation is obviously ambiguous, or is misinterpreted in a way the director does not think is reasonable, then 21A applies. The more normal the situation and both alternatives, the more likely 21A is to apply IMO.

I'm sorry, this does not make sense to me.