Explaining inverted raises

[aguahombre]

1m-2m* Alerted in ACBL. Practice is that, when asked, the explanation is something like:

 

"Forcing for one round" or "game forcing". At present, should the explanation include whether the raiser might have a 4-card major? Obviously if asked, this should be answered. But, I don't believe it is required as part of the initial explanation. Right?

 

Related would be 1m-3m* alerted and explained as weak or mixed. This one is tougher, IMO. holding a 4-card major might be a possibility if responder has below responding values; but with a 5-9 range, suppressing a 4cM would be so "highly unexpected" that no one would think to ask the question. And, anyone who does it is unlikely to understand about "highly unexpected" and when it pertains to what they do.

 

The merits of the agreements have been covered in other threads. I was called regarding disclosure, and that is the focus of my questions.

[blackshoe]

My style:

 

1m-2m is "a good 12 HCP or more, 5+ cards in the suit, no four card major, FG"

1m-3m is "preemptive, a good five to a bad 9 HCP, 5+ cards in the suit, no four card major". I suppose we could amend this to "zero to a bad 9 HCP" but we haven't done so. If we did, i suppose the zero to a bad five range might have a 4 card major, and that would be disclosable in the explanation of the alert.

1m-JSom is "artificial, invitational raise of opener's suit, a good 9 to a bad 12 HCP, 5+ cards in the suit, no four card major". JSom is "jump shift in the other minor".

 

With a four card major, a six card minor and a weak hand, we respond 1M to a minor opening, and if opener rebids 1NT, a jump to 3 of either minor is "preemptive, a good five to a bad 9, 4 card major, six card minor"

 

Added: The Alert Regulation says "Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically." So everything pertinent should be disclosed immediately. So yes, you should immediately include whether the raiser might have a four card major, or anything else pertinent.

Edited October 10, 2012 by blackshoe
add comment about the alert reg

[Siegmund]

The guidance has always been to explain the meaning of the call. I myself have always said "10+ points, support for my minor, denies a 4-card major" or "denies interest in a major contract" or similar words in my explanation. (Pairs who play it GF will say GF in place of 10+ or 11+ of whatever.)

 

Many of my opponents simply say "inverted", and I assume they mean garden variety inverted minors denying a 4-card major as have appeared in the conventions books for the last 30 years. If such an person turned up with AKJx xx xxx Axxx and only made the raise to establish an immediate game force, I would not hesitate to rule against him if the opponents played him for only xxxx or 3 spades and misdefended as a result.

 

I don't have any face-to-face experience with a pair that plays a raise that doesn't deny a major to ask them how they alert it. I would certainly consider it plenty unusual and unexpected enough to expect "does not deny a 4-card major" to appear prominently in the initial explanation.

[blackshoe]

Many of my opponents simply say "inverted"

This is expressly labelled inadequate disclosure in the alert regulation. I agree with ruling against players who do this, but as a player I tend to say "I don't know what that means, can you explain further, please?" Maybe some day they'll learn.

[lalldonn]

This is expressly labelled inadequate disclosure in the alert regulation. I agree with ruling against players who do this, but as a player I tend to say "I don't know what that means, can you explain further, please?" Maybe some day they'll learn.

If you are really not clear on what "inverted" means that's one thing, but assuming you really know what they mean and are just trying to teach them a lesson, I think that is a waste of everyone's time. Do you really do that?

[Bbradley62]

If you are really not clear on what "inverted" means that's one thing, but assuming you really know what they mean and are just trying to teach them a lesson, I think that is a waste of everyone's time. Do you really do that?

And do you only do this when your own card does not include inverted minors? And, if your card does not include inverted minors at the time, will the director believe that you're not violating the rules by asking a question for your partner's benefit?

Edited October 10, 2012 by Bbradley62

[Vampyr]

If you are really not clear on what "inverted" means that's one thing, but assuming you really know what they mean and are just trying to teach them a lesson, I think that is a waste of everyone's time. Do you really do that?

 

Haven't we already heard from a poster who plays inverted minors as GF and another who plays it as invitational+? Aren't we aware that some players have a lower limit of 0 HCP for their raise to 3, and that some players use 2NT as the weakest raise, and that some, like the OP, have a structure that also utilises bids in the other minor?

 

How can anyone be "really clear on what 'inverted' means"?

[blackshoe]

If you are really not clear on what "inverted" means that's one thing, but assuming you really know what they mean and are just trying to teach them a lesson, I think that is a waste of everyone's time. Do you really do that?

It was a general statement. I do it whenever opps "explain" by naming a convention. Thinking about it more, I realize that I frequently just say "please explain further". And as far as I'm concerned, if anyone is wasting everyone's time, it's the opponent who does not provide full disclosure without prompting.

 

And do you only do this when your own card does not include inverted minors? And, if your card does not include inverted minors at the time, will the director believe that you're not violating the rules by asking a question for your partner's benefit?

I do it whether or not my card has the convention in question on it. How do I know my opponents play it the same way I do? As for your last question, no one has ever accused me of that.

 

How can anyone be "really clear on what 'inverted' means"?

Precisely.

[gnasher]

I might well ask for clarification at this point. I'm going to need to know the answer at some point in the hand, and the cost in time is the same whether I do it now or later. If anything, asking now speeds things up, because I can follow the auction as it occurs rather than waiting until the end to assimilate it.

 

But I don't understand why anyone would claim not to understand an explanation just because it was incomplete. Why wouldn't you just ask "How strong is it?", or whatever it is that you want to know?

[blackshoe]

But I don't understand why anyone would claim not to understand an explanation just because it was incomplete. Why wouldn't you just ask "How strong is it?", or whatever it is that you want to know?

Perhaps claiming I don't understand is ill-advised. Okay, I'll stop doing that. But it seems to me that asking specific questions at this point is also ill-advised. My opponent has given an inadequate explanation. I may want to know a specific thing — it may occur to me to ask "how strong is it?" — but how do I know there isn't something else pertinent that I need to know? So I think asking a general question is the right approach. The alternative to all this, afaics, is to point out that the inadequate explanation is an irregularity, and call the TD. Would you suggest that is the better approach?

[Zelandakh]

I ask "And what is that?" which is similar to your approach but without saying directly that I do not know what it means. The point is that while I know what I mean by inverted minors, or whatever, I do not know what the opponent means by the term and sometimes it is something quite different.

[aguahombre]

Don't look now, but you are dangerously close to getting back to what I wanted to know.

 

Perhaps I should have created a poll:

 

--Whether the inverted raise denies a major should be part of the initial explanation.

--Only the possibility that we might have a major is sufficiently unexpected that we should include it.

--The issue of a major, IMO, is not currently required but I include it anway.

--the issue of a major, IMO, is not currently required, and they can jolly well ask.

[gnasher]

Perhaps claiming I don't understand is ill-advised. Okay, I'll stop doing that. But it seems to me that asking specific questions at this point is also ill-advised. My opponent has given an inadequate explanation. I may want to know a specific thing — it may occur to me to ask "how strong is it?" — but how do I know there isn't something else pertinent that I need to know? So I think asking a general question is the right approach. The alternative to all this, afaics, is to point out that the inadequate explanation is an irregularity, and call the TD. Would you suggest that is the better approach?

Any question is more sensible than calling the director, but you could try "What are the strength and shape requirements?", or "What hand-types can he have?", or just "Please can you clarify the meaning?"

 

I can't see any actual harm in claiming not to understand: the end result will be the same. It just seems odd.

[Vampyr]

Don't look now, but you are dangerously close to getting back to what I wanted to know.

 

Must...derail...thread...

[gnasher]

In answer to the original question as to what is "required", I find the philosophy rather alien. The opponents have asked a question, so answer in a way that tells them what they want to know without misleading them. Exactly what you say may vary by opponent.

 

If you think they will assume a particular meaning, and you actually play something else, give them plenty of detail. If you're sure that a shorter explanation will get the message across, use that. If you're not sure, assume that they need a detailed explanation.

[Zelandakh]

Agua, in my opinion you should give all of the available information. If not containing a 4 card major is part of the agreement then the opps should hear it. Whether that is actually required in the ACBL I cannot say but my understanding is that any question is meant to trigger a full disclosure of all information relating to a bid, and that would include the allowability or not of a 4 card major imho.

[Phil]

As a matter of practice I would expect an explanation to include that the hand can have a four card major if that's part of the agreement. Or GF if the pair plays that. A 'normal' single raise will deny a 4cM where I play and this may not be universal.

 

ACBL alert procedures are sensibly converging toward the 'clarify if its an unexpected meaning'.

[mycroft]

Blackshoe quoted the regulation, and it says "complete information, any question is the trigger, convention name is explicitly insufficient." - Edit: no he didn't, he paraphrased the last part. Here it is:

• When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient.
  
• The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question.
  
• Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically.

In addition, given that pretty much every teaching of Invm makes it very clear that it denies a 4cM, and that the responses (whatever they are) rely on that as they give up on finding the 4-4 fit, not mentioning the possibility goes from "incomplete disclosure, but everybody does it" to "incomplete disclosure, and that's something the opponents couldn't reasonably know or be expected to check." If this is being done through ignorance (likely), I'll remind them that the convention name is incorrect as an explanation, and full disclosure is the goal, and that they have to put in the strength range, the fact that it may have a 4cM, and so on; if they know better, I'll basically do the same thing, but it will sound like "if you don't shape up, next time not only will I rule against you, but I'll issue a PP as well".

 

There are people who practise minimal disclosure deliberately as a tactic (some of the same people "avoid discussing" situations so they can legitimately, or so they think, say "no agreement") - I do my best to make sure they're adequately compensated for this feature of their system, but it's never enough.

 

I have to admit, the first thing out of my brain is "invitational or better diamond raise". The fact that it denies a 4cM is so "obvious" it doesn't come into my mind. Guess I'd better be changing that.

[lalldonn]

Haven't we already heard from a poster who plays inverted minors as GF and another who plays it as invitational+? Aren't we aware that some players have a lower limit of 0 HCP for their raise to 3, and that some players use 2NT as the weakest raise, and that some, like the OP, have a structure that also utilises bids in the other minor?

 

How can anyone be "really clear on what 'inverted' means"?

First of all, the entire thread is about explaining 1m - 2m, so the meanings of the other bids doesn't matter. If someone plays it as at least a limit raise then it is 'inverted' (which I agree is legally not an adequate explanation). If they play it as game forcing then it's not. The player who said he plays a single raise as forcing to game never said he is playing inverted minors.

 

But never mind that. You obviously didn't read the context in which the comment was made. Blackshoe has made it clear that after opponents 'explain' by naming their convention he routinely asks them just to teach them some sort of lesson ("maybe one day they'll learn"), not because he actually needs more information to make his next decision. I'm sure he is well meaning but I find that behavior pretty obnoxious. It's not the job of a player to go around slowing down the game on a mission to to fix every technicality that bugs him and educate the world, even if he is also a director. Rationalizing by saying they are wasting the time instead of him is not true. He is the one asking a question he doesn't need the answer to.

[Vampyr]

First of all, the entire thread is about explaining 1m - 2m, so the meanings of the other bids doesn't matter. If someone plays it as at least a limit raise then it is 'inverted' (which I agree is legally not an adequate explanation). If they play it as game forcing then it's not. The player who said he plays a single raise as forcing to game never said he is playing inverted minors.

 

I do know people, though, who play a single raise as GF and call it inverted minors. IMO, it is worth asking.

[blackshoe]

Don't look now, but you are dangerously close to getting back to what I wanted to know.

 

Perhaps I should have created a poll:

 

--Whether the inverted raise denies a major should be part of the initial explanation.

--Only the possibility that we might have a major is sufficiently unexpected that we should include it.

--The issue of a major, IMO, is not currently required but I include it anway.

--the issue of a major, IMO, is not currently required, and they can jolly well ask.

Option one is correct.

[Phil]

Option one is correct.

 

So if EW play that the raise denies a major, and South didn't compete in a major(s) because the explanation was 'incomplete', you'd find grounds for adjustment?

[barmar]

So if EW play that the raise denies a major, and South didn't compete in a major(s) because the explanation was 'incomplete', you'd find grounds for adjustment?

I think this is the most pertinent question.

 

While it may be correct to include this detail, I think that it's rare that omitting it will actually cause damage. And there has to be damage for there to be grounds for adjustment -- a less than complete explanation is not automatic grounds for adjustment.

 

The opponent can ask if responder could have a 4-card major. Can this cause a UI problem? I think they should be indemnified against UI issues if they had to ask the question because the original explanation was incomplete, although I'm not sure the Laws actually support this. If they're not safe, it means that the only relief they can get is by an adjustment after the fact rather than being able to request complete information and a normal bridge result.

[mycroft]

I agree with barmar that this is a very important question. I assume since the start, and almost all the posters here are or were ACBL oriented, that we can take that jurisdiction as read (I certainly did the last post), and so, continuing my quote of the Alert Procedures:

• Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.
  
• Adjustments for violations are not automatic.
  
• There must have been misinformation.
  
• An adjustment will be made only when the misinformation was a direct cause of the damage.
  
• Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation.

The first is the answer to Phil's question. I, or anyone around my area with any experience, who claims to have been damaged by failure to explain that the raise denies a 4cM, deserve what they get, which shouldn't involve giggling, but only because TDing is a PR job first. Were we to be in an area where invm w/4cM is popular (is there one?) then a similar argument would apply *in that area*, and if you could convince the TD that you come from that area, and have never realized differently, and that caused you to misdefend, there may be a case. If you're a newer player in the open game and don't yourself play invm, and the fact that the bid denied a 4cM damaged you, then you're more likely to have an adjustment in your favour (how would you know what to ask, never mind that there is anything to ask?)

 

Frankly, although there's a large hope that after many reasks they'll just learn to do the right thing the first time (at least when playing against me), that's the primary reason I ask for a real explanation almost invariably; because they might be playing this convention some "wrong" way ("Flannery" that could be 4=6+, DONT overcalls that require 5=5 minimum, "reverse" Bergen, or "upgunned" Bergen to match their 10-15 openings, RKGerber, ...) and it's important that I don't get blindsided by it. I also refuse to answer the question "what do you want to know?" when I ask for an explanation of a call/the auction (by refuse, I usually say "what does that call systemically mean?") partly because it's the right thing to do, partly because some people who ask that are listening carefully to what I need to know, and what that means about my hand, and partly because I might not ask the right question, because I don't even know what I need to know.

 

I'm also going to point out, like Vampyr, to lalldonn that "inverted" means GF. At least it does throughout District 18 and 19. In fact, if you ask something about whether it could be limit raise strength, they will look at you as if you come from a different planet, because "that's not what inverted means". OTOH, that does give me a small advantage when I bid invm (you know, unless they ask...)

[blackshoe]

I might find grounds for adjustment, yes. Barry and Phil have covered the criteria, I think, particularly Barry's point that an adjustment is not automatic.