is this explanation sufficient

[campboy]

So you never include "preemptive" in any of your explanations because that must be obvious from the circumstances?

It's not "obvious from circumstances", it follows from the explanation I have given.

 

If I play 1♥ - 3♥ as pre-emptive I say "pre-emptive".

 

If I played that 1♥ was limited, and had the agreement that after 1♥ - 3♥ partner must pass (not that I think that is a good agreement) then I would say "3♥ forces me to pass". I would not feel it necessary to add "pre-emptive", since it forces me to pass so it can hardly be otherwise. But "forces me to pass" gives more information than just "pre-emptive".

[pran]

It's not "obvious from circumstances", it follows from the explanation I have given.

 

If I play 1♥ - 3♥ as pre-emptive I say "pre-emptive".

Agreed.

 

If I played that 1♥ was limited, and had the agreement that after 1♥ - 3♥ partner must pass (not that I think that is a good agreement) then I would say "3♥ forces me to pass". I would not feel it necessary to add "pre-emptive", since it forces me to pass so it can hardly be otherwise. But "forces me to pass" gives more information than just "pre-emptive".

Are we talking real life here?

Given that the opener can have anything from 11 to 19 HCP for his 1♥ opening bid I find it hard to imagine 3♥ by agreement "demanding" pass from opener? Isn't Acol's limited raise bids very useful in such situations?

[helene_t]

campboy was talking about a 1♥ opening that was limited, i.e. 11-15 or such.

[gordontd]

A more obvious example is when an opening weak-two is raised: opener is not invited to continue, and responder can have a very wide range of hands, usually with three-card support.

[barmar]

3♠ is not usually "forcing to game", it's taking a sacrifice in 3♠/4♥ before the opps can get any suits in, assuming partner has a 6 card suit, it will usually thus be 3♠/4+♥ by LTT. If it's always weak, it should probably be explained as such, particularly in places where the multi is not common, but in the UK where it is common, this is just bridge.

 

I would expect it to be somewhat like the natural auction 2♥-4♥ -- it could be weak and preemptive, or it could be strong and expecting to make. This is GBK. In the multi case, all you know is that responder is willing to play 3♠ or 4♥, whichever is opener's suit, but you only have inferential information about what kind of hands he might hold for that willingness.

 

If your partnership has special agreements over multi that allow distinguishing the cases, then you should disclose the more specific meaning of the p/c bid because it's more restrictive than normal. But if it's just the obvious meaning, p/c is adequate.

[barmar]

By our agreement the responder to a Multi 2♦ opening bid will bid 2♥, 2♠ or 2NT (unless there is an intervening bid or Double by opener's LHO). One of the reasons for this is the existence of the strong (20-21) variant as part of Multi.

 

Can't opener just bid 3NT over a jump response to show that he had the strong variant?

 

But I think this discussion has been assuming the weak-only Multi. If the initial 2♦ bid means something different, then the inferences from GBK will be different.

[Cyberyeti]

Can't opener just bid 3NT over a jump response to show that he had the strong variant?

 

But I think this discussion has been assuming the weak-only Multi. If the initial 2♦ bid means something different, then the inferences from GBK will be different.

 

My contributions certainly weren't assuming weak only, I've always played with a strong option (and also when permitted played a very wide ranging style of weak 2s in the multi so constructive bidding is via 2N, 3M is preemptive). I agree with your comments about 3♠ opposite a weak only.

[mycroft]

I avoid using "pass or correct" in ACBL play, because it doesn't come up enough for players in general to understand it right away (many defences to NT, however have a P/C call in there; they just don't call it that).

 

So I would have phrased it as "wants to play 3♠ opposite a weak 2 in spades, willing to play *at least* 4♥ opposite hearts." What does that say about partner's actual cards? Nothing. I have no idea what partner has (although with almost everyone, I am reasonably certain partner's at least 3-3 in the majors, and if only 3 hearts, has some reason to think I can make game in that suit but not spades (or possibly, with hearts, you can make 3NT; with spades you can't?).

 

But I have an issue (well, my opponents have an issue) with several of my calls which explain as what she wants me to have to do X. "Invitational, wants me to go to game with a decent 13" "But how many points does it show?" or "Trump game try: wants me to go to game with good trumps" "so, how many points does it show?" (I have no problem with "what is good trumps for your partnership?" but I never get *that*) The answer to those is "don't know, don't care. Partner thinks she's worth game opposite [whatever she's asking for]".

 

Here, "wants to play/willing to play" - "so, how many [cards/points] does that show?" again gets "don't know, don't care. I'm just following orders." (with some discussion of experience, I guess, but this is what I consider GBK - not "what's a minimum opener" (which can be 8-13, frankly, depending on the partnership), but "what's enough for game/3-level opposite a preempt" (which should be relatively consistent, unless we play ultra-agressive or ultra-conservative). I do make an exception for game raise of a Precision major opener; *that* is perfectly logical, but not obvious if you've never played limited openers. Oddly enough, the ACBL says that isn't unusual enough to require an Alert. I disagree, but I'm not BDFL.

[barmar]

I avoid using "pass or correct" in ACBL play, because it doesn't come up enough for players in general to understand it right away (many defences to NT, however have a P/C call in there; they just don't call it that).

But the context of this case is not "players in general". It's a high-level competition played with screens. Players at this level can be expected to understand terms like this, and should be able to make inferences about the types of hands that would make the bid.

 

It's perfectly fine if you wish to treat all opponents the same way, and give them more complete explanations. But should an expert pair really be able to get redress for inadequate disclosure if they don't get the same kind of explanation that a novice needs?

 

 

[Trinidad]

But the context of this case is not "players in general". It's a high-level competition played with screens. Players at this level can be expected to understand terms like this, and should be able to make inferences about the types of hands that would make the bid.

 

It's perfectly fine if you wish to treat all opponents the same way, and give them more complete explanations. But should an expert pair really be able to get redress for inadequate disclosure if they don't get the same kind of explanation that a novice needs?

+1

 

Full disclosure is important. But if you drive it too far, you will annoy your opponents, which is an infraction. If, in a high level tournament, an opponent would explain to me what "Pass or correct" means, I would find that more than a little bit annoying.

 

Rik

[gnasher]

Players at this level can be expected to understand terms like this, and should be able to make inferences about the types of hands that would make the bid.

And if they don't understand, they should ask what it means. If they were told "pass or correct", didn't know what that meant, and didn't ask for clarification, they're not entitled to any adjustment.

[jallerton]

So you never include "preemptive" in any of your explanations because that must be obvious from the circumstances?

 

When I play Multi we explain:

 

2 Diamonds: Weak 6 cards in either Hearts or Spades, or 20-21 NT

2 Hearts: Pass or correct

2 Spades: Invitational if opener has hearts, for play if spades.

2 NT: Asks for a more precise description of opener's hand.

 

See what I mean by "full description"?

 

No, it would only be a full description if you explained what hand types might respond 2NT.

[Bbradley62]

No, it would only be a full description if you explained what hand types might respond 2NT.

If the auction goes (1M)-2M-(p)-2NT, I would describe 2NT as asking 2M bidder to name his minor; I don't think it's necessary to explain what types of hands might be interested in this information. Same with pran's 2NT.

[Trinidad]

No, it would only be a full description if you explained what hand types might respond 2NT.

If the auction goes (1M)-2M-(p)-2NT, I would describe 2NT as asking 2M bidder to name his minor; I don't think it's necessary to explain what types of hands might be interested in this information. Same with pran's 2NT.

Of course you would do it like that, and I would do it like that, and everybody would... but we would also explain 2♦ (multi)-Pass-3♠ as "Pass or correct" whereas pran insists that we should describe the hand type that bids 3♠. If he thinks that we should do that for "our" 3♠, he also should do it for "his" 2NT.

 

Rik

[pran]

So you never include "preemptive" in any of your explanations because that must be obvious from the circumstances?

 

When I play Multi we explain:

 

2 Diamonds: Weak 6 cards in either Hearts or Spades, or 20-21 NT

2 Hearts: Pass or correct

2 Spades: Invitational if opener has hearts, for play if spades.

2 NT: Asks for a more precise description of opener's hand.

 

See what I mean by "full description"?

 

No, it would only be a full description if you explained what hand types might respond 2NT.

 

If the auction goes (1M)-2M-(p)-2NT, I would describe 2NT as asking 2M bidder to name his minor; I don't think it's necessary to explain what types of hands might be interested in this information. Same with pran's 2NT.

 

Of course you would do it like that, and I would do it like that, and everybody would... but we would also explain 2♦ (multi)-Pass-3♠ as "Pass or correct" whereas pran insists that we should describe the hand type that bids 3♠. If he thinks that we should do that for "our" 3♠, he also should do it for "his" 2NT.

 

Rik

 

A partner of mine once said that the most important information about a call is the information from alternative available calls that were not used.

 

The only thing that can be said as description of the 2NT bid at this time is that he wants more information from the opener.

 

Why? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

If "pass or correct" shall be a correct description of 3♠ in response to Multi 2♦ I would want to know why he did not instead responded 2♠ which I understand would also be a "pass or correct" response?

[Cyberyeti]

A partner of mine once said that the most important information about a call is the information from alternative available calls that were not used.

 

The only thing that can be said as description of the 2NT bid at this time is that he wants more information from the opener.

 

Why? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

If "pass or correct" shall be a correct description of 3♠ in response to Multi 2♦ I would want to know why he did not instead responded 2♠ which I understand would also be a "pass or correct" response?

 

And you should ask why he didn't respond 2♠ (although anybody where multi is common would assume 2♠ to be potentially 0-2♠/3-4♥ as against 3♠ which will be (2-)3 spades and 4+ hearts). Unless you specified otherwise, it would normally be understood here that a 2N response is a good hand, if it isn't, you need to tell people.

[jeffford76]

If the auction goes (1M)-2M-(p)-2NT, I would describe 2NT as asking 2M bidder to name his minor; I don't think it's necessary to explain what types of hands might be interested in this information. Same with pran's 2NT.

 

Opponents *are* entitled to a description of what types of hands are interested in the information, especially in light of whatever other calls were available to elicit different information. Saying "asks for a minor" is a shortcut for full disclosure, and rarely harmful, but it doesn't meet your complete obligation.

 

I've never seen a case where "he could have anything" was a correct description of an asking bid, and once there are hands you can't have, opponents are entitled to know which ones.

[barmar]

A partner of mine once said that the most important information about a call is the information from alternative available calls that were not used.

The Law says that an opponent may ask about alternative calls, but it doesn't say that you have to offer this information spontaneously. There's usually up to almost 3 dozen calls that could have been made but weren't.

[pran]

A partner of mine once said that the most important information about a call is the information from alternative available calls that were not used.

The Law says that an opponent may ask about alternative calls, but it doesn't say that you have to offer this information spontaneously. There's usually up to almost 3 dozen calls that could have been made but weren't.

His point was, and mine is that if a player calls "A" in a position where he equally well could have called "B" the complete description of call "A" should include what hands (kind of) that are excluded because he did not call "B".

 

Sometimes this is obvious, like if opener bids 1♦ and responder bids 1NT he can in most natural systems have more than three cards in either major.

 

In other situations (although hardly in this particular example) it might be critical information as when a 2♣ Stayman bid (over 1NT) is responded to with a 2♥ or 2♠ bid. Does this bid deny 4 Cards in the other major suit? And so on.

[wank]

if i ever play against pran i'll be hoping i never have to ask for an explanation - i would be bored to tears once he'd finished.

[barmar]

if i ever play against pran i'll be hoping i never have to ask for an explanation - i would be bored to tears once he'd finished.

 

I often wonder how much people practice what they preach here. It's easy to pontificate in the forum on what the ideal explanations should be, but at the table it's easy to get lazy.

[blackshoe]

I often wonder how much people practice what they preach here. It's easy to pontificate in the forum on what the ideal explanations should be, but at the table it's easy to get lazy.

It certainly is. That said, I do at least try to practice what I preach. B-)

[jfnrl]

Thank you for your very interesting contributions.

I am not involved in the case (a Swiss team in Nouvelle-Calédonie) whereas I live in Europa.

As I said, it was an expert event : BSC was allowed in the same (roughly) conditions as by WBF.

I don't know the strong option of the multi (if any).

The score was adjusted from 100 (4H -2) to 480 (4S+2).

The case was discussed in the FFB's forum. The highest authorities gave their opinion, justifying the decision of the TD and the appeal committee.