Offer to explain?

[aguahombre]

Just for fun, I will try to follow the Scottish regulation to a poll choice.

 

"Full disclosure is vital....they are..expected to observe the spirit of the laws as well as the letter." This establishes a legal obligation, not just a moral/ethical one.

 

(Paraphrased) Bids with special meanings should be disclosed.

 

"Do not alert....bids at the four level or higher...Nevertheless players must respect the spirit of the laws as well as the letter".

 

We then conclude that Scotland requires us to somehow offer an explanation at the end of the auction.

[blackshoe]

In Scotland, I would think "you may want to ask about our auction," after the final pass and before the opening lead is chosen, would be appropriate.

[mycroft]

But I'm only talking about bids where the artificial meaning is unexpected. If there aren't any such bids in your world, my comments don't apply.

 

In my world, and in Nigel's world, nearly everybody plays the 4♦ bid in the OP as a cue-bid. If the defenders don't ask and don't look at the convention card, it's almost certain that they are incorrectly assuming that it's a cue-bid. So I tell them it's not.

In many cases, even if they do look at the CC, they may not realize that 4♦ isn't a cue-bid - because they may not know where to look, or don't know what kickback *is*, and even if they do, wouldn't necessarily realize that it applies in this auction - especially given that 1♦ was naturally bid.

[Codo]

When I said "natural", I meant to include natural cue-bids, ie a bid that shows a control in the suit bid. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

 

But I'm only talking about bids where the artificial meaning is unexpected. If there aren't any such bids in your world, my comments don't apply.

 

In my world, and in Nigel's world, nearly everybody plays the 4♦ bid in the OP as a cue-bid. If the defenders don't ask and don't look at the convention card, it's almost certain that they are incorrectly assuming that it's a cue-bid. So I tell them it's not.

 

Sorry, but this is their responsibility to ask. Even if everybody is playing it as a cuebid, maybe some play it as first round control, some as even stronger in their own suit. What do I know... So I simply ask. Espacially here, where I live and some play it as KC for diamonds and some even as KC for clubs.

But sometimes, I just know what the opps are doing, I played them before. Or I do not need the information, because I have a straight lead anyway.

 

But however. You seem to find it polite to tell the opps that they made a false assumption about 4 ♦. I do not share this pov. I would not care much whether you tell me or not, but if I did not ask, I am simply not interessted.

[bluejak]

By the way, I am sure that the OP is grateful for all of the posts describing the regulation/procedure in the ACBL...

Nothing in the OP says which jurisdiction is being asked about.

 

:ph34r:

 

To be honest, I did not like the poll. When I find no answer suits me at all, I wonder if the poll was wrong.

 

Why give:

• You shouldn't say anything.
  
• You are ethically obliged to offer to explain.
  

as the first two options? Does that not exclude the majority of people, who in my view would answer

 

• You don't need to say anything.
  

I actually voted for "You shouldn't say anything" but having thought about it, I would like to retract my vote. While I do not say anything - and I believe can justify it - I have no problem with others saying something in a similar situation, so "You shouldn't say anything" is clearly wrong.

[Vampyr]

Nothing in the OP says which jurisdiction is being asked about.

 

No, but a jurisdiction where regulations require a "delayed alert" should not require more than a short sentence to explain that this is the case.

 

Which is another reason the poll is slightly strange, because some of the resulting data is just a count of the number of posters who play in such jurisdictions.

[Vampyr]

Just to keep the thread drift going, I should point out that in the ACBL, alertable doubles, redoubles, and passes are alerted immediately, whenever they occur. :P

 

This is the same as the EBU.

 

I answered "something else" to the poll. What something else? Simple: it depends on the regulations in force.

 

Quite.

 

It's a pity that the law book doesn't stipulate the Scottish rule as as a default.

 

I'm sure there are many who would agree with your sentiment with a slight variation:

 

It's a pity that the law book doesn't stipulate the <regulation where I live> as a default.

[gnasher]

You seem to find it polite to tell the opps that they made a false assumption about 4 ♦.

It's not a matter of politeness. I don't want to gain because my opponents don't know what our methods are. When I tell them what 4♦ means, I do so for my benefit, because it means that I get a better game of bridge.

[paulg]

Just to keep the thread drift going, I should point out that in the ACBL, alertable doubles, redoubles, and passes are alerted immediately, whenever they occur. :P

 

This is the same as the EBU.

Literally true, it is also the same in Scotland. But everyone's list of what is alertable is markedly different - the EBU only requires lead-directional passes and anti-lead directional doubles to be alerted above three notrump, all other conventional passes/doubles are not alertable; in the ACBL, almost all conventional doubles, redoubles, and passes are alertable; in Scotland, none are alertable above 3NT except on the first round of the auction.

[paulg]

I am an uninvited explainer so I'm pleased that gnasher has uncovered the regulation that supports my actions in Scotland :)

 

As someone who typically plays a fairly comprehensive system, there are often subtleties to auctions that I feel that the opponents are entitled to know but are not clear from the alerts. When people say that they are not interested, my initial reaction is that they do not want knowledge of our methods to confuse their partner about the 'obvious' lead they are about to make.

 

Why would someone not be interested in what has been shown before they defend? It makes little sense to me.

[Trinidad]

Why would someone not be interested in what has been shown before they defend? It makes little sense to me.

The fact that you (and I, and most others on BBF) don't understand why someone doesn't want an explanation doesn't mean that we are allowed to force an explanation on him or her.

 

Rik

[mycroft]

Some people will only be confused - counter-intuitive, but they will defend better if they don't try to understand the auction. I know, but they exist.

[aguahombre]

What I don't understand is posters who want to decide for the opponents whether they would be interested in an explanation. We don't know why they didn't actively ask for one. Maybe they expect that if there was a convention involved we will indicate that was the case. Maybe they really won't be able to make use of disclosure.

 

An offer to explain is not forcing anything on anyone; they don't have to accept the offer. Describing disclosure as an imposition on the opponents is really saying it is an imposition on us.

[TimG]

The fact that you (and I, and most others on BBF) don't understand why someone doesn't want an explanation doesn't mean that we are allowed to force an explanation on him or her.

Offering "some of these bids had unusual meanings, would you like to hear about those meanings" is different from offering "[this bid] meant [this]" (in other words, forcing an explanation on the opponents).

[Trinidad]

From the reactions by TimG and Aguahombre, I conclude that I wasn't clear enough.

 

I will encourage opponents to ask (see post number 15), which is basically the same as making a delayed alert.

 

I was replying to Paulg who wrote:

I am an uninvited explainer.

and

Why would someone not be interested in what has been shown before they defend? It makes little sense to me.

There is a big difference in "encouraging to ask" or "offering an explanation" on the one hand and "uninvited explaining" or "forcing an explanation on the opponents" on the other hand. So, to make it more concrete: I would say something like: "You might want to ask about our (later) auction." or "Should I explain our auction to you?" whereas Paul will say: "4♦ was asking for keycards for clubs and 4♥ showed one" regardless of whether his opponents want to hear it or not.

 

There are players who don't want explanations. They will get horribly annoyed by uninvited explanations. So, don't give them any, just offer or point out that they might want to ask. And the reason why they don't want an explanation is none of our business. We are not their shrink.

 

Just to play shrink without a license anyway:

I have seen the behavior of not wanting explanations in two groups of people.

The one group is inexperienced. They don't want an explanation because they base their plays on their own hand only. Some will use partner's signals. That is all the information they can handle. More information does not help them, it confuses them. These are the inferiority complex people. If these people don't want the auction explained, one should not explain it.

 

The other group is experienced. They don't care for the explanation because (they think) they already know the meaning, they want to save time, they know to ask when they need to know. Some of these have a superiority complex, others actually are superior. These people know what they want (or so they think). It would be silly to tell them they should want something else.

 

Rik

[Finch]

What I don't understand is posters who want to decide for the opponents whether they would be interested in an explanation. We don't know why they didn't actively ask for one. Maybe they expect that if there was a convention involved we will indicate that was the case. Maybe they really won't be able to make use of disclosure.

 

An offer to explain is not forcing anything on anyone; they don't have to accept the offer. Describing disclosure as an imposition on the opponents is really saying it is an imposition on us.

 

I voted "something else" because for me it depends on the opponents.

 

There is a very experienced (nationally and internationally) English player that I play against sometimes, most often with screens. I always offer him my (very detailed) convention card and he always refuses to look at it. Playing with screens, of course bids get alerted above 3NT as well as below. If he doesn't want to ask about an alerted bid, as far as I am concerned that is very definitely his lookout.

 

In general:

 

- against very weak opponents (who might be scared of asking anything) I point out the really vital things (that partner's 1H response showed spades, for example) but stay away from high-level subtleties that won't affect their defence (that our keycard responses are 1430 rather than 3041 for example)

 

- against many opponents I will point out that our auction might not mean what they think it does and ask if they want to know more

 

- against most very experienced opponents I think it's caveat emptor. Where we play something really weird that's not alertable I might say something, but only if the 'obvious' meaning would also make sense.