Explaining ahead

[pescetom]

The consensus here seems to be that in explaining a bid one should not in general describe developments that may ensue, but limit the explanation to the meaning of the actual bid made.

 

What about the case where there is only one possible development, but which could not easily be foreseen and which subsequently opens up quite different scenarios?

 

For instance, we play that after 1X-1Y-1Z a bid of 2NT is entirely artificial and obliges opener to bid 3♣, over which responder can either pass or make a natural bid which lengthens suit Y and forces to game showing slam interest.

 

The bids of 2NT and 3♣ bid are of course alerted, but how should each be explained?

Just "Artificial, obliges me to bid 3♣" and then "can be passed, but any reply is natural and game forcing with slam interest"?

[HardVector]

The consensus here seems to be that in explaining a bid one should not in general describe developments that may ensue, but limit the explanation to the meaning of the actual bid made.

 

What about the case where there is only one possible development, but which could not easily be foreseen and which subsequently opens up quite different scenarios?

 

For instance, we play that after 1X-1Y-1Z a bid of 2NT is entirely artificial and obliges opener to bid 3♣, over which responder can either pass or make a natural bid which lengthens suit Y and forces to game showing slam interest.

 

The bids of 2NT and 3♣ bid are of course alerted, but how should each be explained?

Just "Artificial, obliges me to bid 3♣" and then "can be passed, but any reply is natural and game forcing with slam interest"?

I would describe 2n as "relay to 3c, either to play or game forcing with interest in some slam".

[blackshoe]

"2NT is a puppet to 3♣."

 

"3♣ is a relay allowing me to further describe my hand."

 

If they don't understand what all this means, they can ask for amplification.

[pran]

The consensus here seems to be that in explaining a bid one should not in general describe developments that may ensue, but limit the explanation to the meaning of the actual bid made.

[.....]

During the auction and before the final pass any player may request, at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. [...]

[Cyberyeti]

I would describe 2n as "relay to 3c, either to play or game forcing with interest in some slam".

 

This is about right, although isn't it a puppet rather than a relay ? "puppet to 3♣, weak with clubs, or a variety of strong hands, GF with slam interest"

[barmar]

This is about right, although isn't it a puppet rather than a relay ?

Despite what bridge glossaries say, a large segment of the bridge population uses the word "relay" to mean "puppet".

 

I think the bridge lexicographers are being really stubborn in not including this definition in their dictionaries. This usage has been around for ages. When it's followed by "to" there's no ambiguity, as that form isn't used when referring to relay asking bids.

[pescetom]

"puppet to 3♣, weak with clubs, or a variety of strong hands, GF with slam interest"

 

I find this clear and precise as a description, thanks.

 

My main concern however was that I might be accused of gratuitously reminding partner about ensuing developments (in the name of Law 20F1).

[pescetom]

Despite what bridge glossaries say, a large segment of the bridge population uses the word "relay" to mean "puppet".

 

I think the bridge lexicographers are being really stubborn in not including this definition in their dictionaries. This usage has been around for ages. When it's followed by "to" there's no ambiguity, as that form isn't used when referring to relay asking bids.

 

There are also people who call this 2NT a "transfer", come to that.

I'm in favour of being stubborn here, bridge is hard enough to learn without multiple meanings for technical terms.

Unfortunately "puppet to..." gets very blank looks in Italy, hence the "obliges me to bid..." phrase.