Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"May Randomly pass 2H with spades" MC-6?
148 views
Skip to first unread message
Michael Angelo Ravera
May 23, 2012, 2:26:40 PM5/23/12
to
In ACBLand I play Multi-2D with some of my partners (usually in any event where it is legal and I have a partner who can play it).
Of course, in every session in which I play it, I seem to get a long string of balanced 11-16 hands, but that is simply the way Bridge goes.
The ACBL forbids psyches of "bids not allowed by General Chart".
I will send this off to Rulings, but, is it considered a psyche randomly to pass a 2H response to a Multi-2D opener when you have spades or do you consider it "just part of the convention"?
Second, assuming that passing is a psyche, would passing run afoul of the prohibition here, since pass is not a bid?
I've never had both the right hand and the fortitude to pass a 2H response while holding spades, but I thought that I would ask about the wisdom, legality, and experiences of others in the group.
-- Try to learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
Of course, in every session in which I play it, I seem to get a long string of balanced 11-16 hands, but that is simply the way Bridge goes.
The ACBL forbids psyches of "bids not allowed by General Chart".
I will send this off to Rulings, but, is it considered a psyche randomly to pass a 2H response to a Multi-2D opener when you have spades or do you consider it "just part of the convention"?
Second, assuming that passing is a psyche, would passing run afoul of the prohibition here, since pass is not a bid?
I've never had both the right hand and the fortitude to pass a 2H response while holding spades, but I thought that I would ask about the wisdom, legality, and experiences of others in the group.
-- Try to learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
Adam Beneschan
May 23, 2012, 3:27:17 PM5/23/12
to
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:26:40 AM UTC-7, Michael Angelo Ravera wrote:
> In ACBLand I play Multi-2D with some of my partners (usually in any event where it is legal and I have a partner who can play it).
>
> Of course, in every session in which I play it, I seem to get a long string of balanced 11-16 hands, but that is simply the way Bridge goes.
>
> The ACBL forbids psyches of "bids not allowed by General Chart".
I don't know where you got the language you're quoting. The one I found on the ACBL web site says, in the DISALLOWED sections of the Mid-Chart and Superchart, "Psyching a conventional agreement which may show fewer than 10 HCP and which is not permitted by the General Convention Chart. This includes psyching responses to or rebids of these methods".
> In ACBLand I play Multi-2D with some of my partners (usually in any event where it is legal and I have a partner who can play it).
>
> Of course, in every session in which I play it, I seem to get a long string of balanced 11-16 hands, but that is simply the way Bridge goes.
>
> The ACBL forbids psyches of "bids not allowed by General Chart".
> I will send this off to Rulings, but, is it considered a psyche randomly to pass a 2H response to a Multi-2D opener when you have spades or do you consider it "just part of the convention"?
> Second, assuming that passing is a psyche, would passing run afoul of the prohibition here, since pass is not a bid?
-- Adam
Michael Angelo Ravera
May 23, 2012, 4:29:38 PM5/23/12
to
I haven't taken to advocating myself, but passing the 2H response, may
1) mislead opponents into playing in OUR spade contract
2) get them to fail to bid a cold heart contract
3) get them to double 2H where we simply correct to the normal 2S bid
4) bait a double of our eventual makable spade contract
5) have us play 2H is a 2-1 fit undoubled and we go -400 against a slam.
The downside, of course, is that partner may bid too many spades once you expose that you really have spades (which she could have done over your usual 2S rebid) or opponents may have used the extra round of bidding to determine that they don't really have anything good going their way and penalize the same 2S contract that everyone else will get to play undoubled or values could be split about evenly between the two sides and you could end up failing by a lot in 2H whereas you could make or play 2S for down one.
I haven't done the analysis to determine which outcome is more probable. However, picking up an occasional 16 IMPs from an "Oh, crap! *WE* had 6H, partner" can result in tactical advantage. I'm not sure, however, that 16 IMPs won't quickly be overcome by losing 4 IMPs more than 4 times as often.
Adam Beneschan
May 23, 2012, 4:49:09 PM5/23/12
to
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:29:38 PM UTC-7, Michael Angelo Ravera wrote:
> I haven't agreed to do it with any of my partners, and it may seem "psycho", but some people consider the "Random Pass" part of the convention. If it is an agreement, it isn't a psyche. The question is whether it is a legal agreement.
Yeah, my last response mostly answered your other question. As far as I can tell, the Mid-Chart and Superchart describe what conventions are allowed for the first bid by one's side, but I think they assume that once your artificial opening bid is allowed, any conventional responses or rebids are allowed. So if the 2H response defined as the "usual response", and you've agreed that a pass rebid "usually shows hearts but may show spades", my guess is that both of those agreements are allowed--unless someone can argue that it's a "convention whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods". That's my interpretation, but I'm just guessing.
> I haven't agreed to do it with any of my partners, and it may seem "psycho", but some people consider the "Random Pass" part of the convention. If it is an agreement, it isn't a psyche. The question is whether it is a legal agreement.
-- Adam
Michael Angelo Ravera
May 23, 2012, 5:26:48 PM5/23/12
to
The main expection to "any responses that you like" on Mid-Chart is "Relays that don't promise game forcing values". The General Chart allows almost anything beginning with opener's rebid.
I have it from the CTD that "Transfer Jump Shifts that may be either weak or strong" are allowed at MidChart. Strong Transfer Jump Shifts are allowed at General Chart (since you can do pretty much anything that you like that is forcing to game).
Adam Beneschan
May 23, 2012, 5:53:22 PM5/23/12
to
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:26:48 PM UTC-7, Michael Angelo Ravera wrote:
> The Mid-chart legalizes almost all responses and rebids
Not really; it legalizes all *constructive* responses and rebids, with some exceptions, and I'm not sure a pass in the situation you describe qualifies as constructive. However, the GCC does legalize almost all responses and rebids over any opening at the 2-level or higher (as well as strong forcing openings), so the "random pass" appears to be legalized by that permission if it's by agreement.
> The Mid-chart legalizes almost all responses and rebids
-- Adam
Thomas Dehn
May 24, 2012, 5:06:02 AM5/24/12
to
2D (multi) pass 2H pass
pass
shows either hearts or spades.
For ACBLand, I think you first need to look up how exactly
the ACBL defines the Multi which is legal in certain events.
Thomas
Lorne
May 24, 2012, 7:40:38 AM5/24/12
to
"Michael Angelo Ravera" wrote in message
news:a303c955-80f4-4854...@googlegroups.com...
I play where the multi is very common and allowed in all competitions except
those specifically for beginners but I have never seen anybody pass 2H with
spades. Given that you may be missing 4S if do so it sounds too risky to be
worth it for me.
news:a303c955-80f4-4854...@googlegroups.com...
I haven't agreed to do it with any of my partners, and it may seem "psycho",
but some people consider the "Random Pass" part of the convention.
............................
but some people consider the "Random Pass" part of the convention.
I play where the multi is very common and allowed in all competitions except
those specifically for beginners but I have never seen anybody pass 2H with
spades. Given that you may be missing 4S if do so it sounds too risky to be
worth it for me.
suep...@gmail.com
May 24, 2012, 9:37:58 AM5/24/12
to
I've passed a 2D opening (when I was asked if it was forcing and responded 'I've never passed it yet')
and a 2H response on at least one occasion. Never had a bad result yet. It helps when on each occasion the opponents can make a slam.
and a 2H response on at least one occasion. Never had a bad result yet. It helps when on each occasion the opponents can make a slam.
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 24, 2012, 3:45:21 PM5/24/12
to
Lorne skrev:
> I play where the multi is very common
In Denmark almost everybody play multi. Our tournament rules even
have a specific exception to make it legal in pair games where
some limitations are imposed which would otherwise rule out the
multi.
> but I have never seen anybody pass 2H with spades.
> Given that you may be missing 4S if do so it sounds too risky
> to be worth it for me.
I agree with both statements.
--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
> I play where the multi is very common
have a specific exception to make it legal in pair games where
some limitations are imposed which would otherwise rule out the
multi.
> but I have never seen anybody pass 2H with spades.
> Given that you may be missing 4S if do so it sounds too risky
> to be worth it for me.
--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
David Stevenson
May 24, 2012, 6:56:35 PM5/24/12
to
Michael Angelo Ravera wrote
distribution or values as compared to your agreement with partner.
So, you can alert the 2H response and describe it as asking for a pass
with hearts, and a 2S rebid or a pass at random with spades. |Now if
you pass it is not a psyche it is part of your agreed system.
Alternatively you can agree to rebid 2S with spades: then one day you
decide to pass it in contravention of your agreement: that's a psyche.
Note that if you do it a few times it becomes part of your system by
implicit agreement.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
>In ACBLand I play Multi-2D with some of my partners (usually in any
>event where it is legal and I have a partner who can play it).
>
>Of course, in every session in which I play it, I seem to get a long
>string of balanced 11-16 hands, but that is simply the way Bridge goes.
>
>The ACBL forbids psyches of "bids not allowed by General Chart".
>
>I will send this off to Rulings, but, is it considered a psyche
>randomly to pass a 2H response to a Multi-2D opener when you have
>spades or do you consider it "just part of the convention"?
That is up to you. A psyche is a gross misstatement of your
>event where it is legal and I have a partner who can play it).
>
>Of course, in every session in which I play it, I seem to get a long
>string of balanced 11-16 hands, but that is simply the way Bridge goes.
>
>The ACBL forbids psyches of "bids not allowed by General Chart".
>
>I will send this off to Rulings, but, is it considered a psyche
>randomly to pass a 2H response to a Multi-2D opener when you have
>spades or do you consider it "just part of the convention"?
distribution or values as compared to your agreement with partner.
So, you can alert the 2H response and describe it as asking for a pass
with hearts, and a 2S rebid or a pass at random with spades. |Now if
you pass it is not a psyche it is part of your agreed system.
Alternatively you can agree to rebid 2S with spades: then one day you
decide to pass it in contravention of your agreement: that's a psyche.
Note that if you do it a few times it becomes part of your system by
implicit agreement.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Chris xxxxx
May 24, 2012, 7:54:46 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 5:56 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
Pass being spades at random or hearts isn't the same. Passing with
spades is best done based on state of the match, the vulnetability,
position at the table, identity of the opponents, and read on the
opponents, none of which are random.
I believe in randomizing actions as much as the next guy, But here
I'd pass with spades 1% --50% of the 2% of the time conditions are
favorable.
Christopher Monsour
wrote:
> Michael Angelo Ravera wrote
>
> >In ACBLand I play Multi-2D with some of my partners (usually in any
> >event where it is legal and I have a partner who can play it).
>
> >Of course, in every session in which I play it, I seem to get a long
> >string of balanced 11-16 hands, but that is simply the way Bridge goes.
>
> >The ACBL forbids psyches of "bids not allowed by General Chart".
>
> >I will send this off to Rulings, but, is it considered a psyche
> >randomly to pass a 2H response to a Multi-2D opener when you have
> >spades or do you consider it "just part of the convention"?
>
> That is up to you. A psyche is a gross misstatement of your
> distribution or values as compared to your agreement with partner.
>
> So, you can alert the 2H response and describe it as asking for a pass
> with hearts, and a 2S rebid or a pass at random with spades. |Now if
> you pass it is not a psyche it is part of your agreed system.
>
> Alternatively you can agree to rebid 2S with spades: then one day you
> decide to pass it in contravention of your agreement: that's a psyche.
> Note that if you do it a few times it becomes part of your system by
> implicit agreement.
>
Or opener's 2S rebid shows spades and his pass is "to play".
>
> >In ACBLand I play Multi-2D with some of my partners (usually in any
> >event where it is legal and I have a partner who can play it).
>
> >Of course, in every session in which I play it, I seem to get a long
> >string of balanced 11-16 hands, but that is simply the way Bridge goes.
>
> >The ACBL forbids psyches of "bids not allowed by General Chart".
>
> >I will send this off to Rulings, but, is it considered a psyche
> >randomly to pass a 2H response to a Multi-2D opener when you have
> >spades or do you consider it "just part of the convention"?
>
> That is up to you. A psyche is a gross misstatement of your
> distribution or values as compared to your agreement with partner.
>
> So, you can alert the 2H response and describe it as asking for a pass
> with hearts, and a 2S rebid or a pass at random with spades. |Now if
> you pass it is not a psyche it is part of your agreed system.
>
> Alternatively you can agree to rebid 2S with spades: then one day you
> decide to pass it in contravention of your agreement: that's a psyche.
> Note that if you do it a few times it becomes part of your system by
> implicit agreement.
>
Pass being spades at random or hearts isn't the same. Passing with
spades is best done based on state of the match, the vulnetability,
position at the table, identity of the opponents, and read on the
opponents, none of which are random.
I believe in randomizing actions as much as the next guy, But here
I'd pass with spades 1% --50% of the 2% of the time conditions are
favorable.
Christopher Monsour
Douglas Newlands
May 24, 2012, 8:06:43 PM5/24/12
to
On 24/05/12 4:26 AM, Michael Angelo Ravera wrote:
> In ACBLand I play Multi-2D with some of my partners (usually in any event where it is legal and I have a partner
>who can play it).
>
> Of course, in every session in which I play it, I seem to get a long string of balanced 11-16 hands,
>but that is simply the way Bridge goes.
I wish that would happen to me. A long string of flat 11-16 hands is
> In ACBLand I play Multi-2D with some of my partners (usually in any event where it is legal and I have a partner
>who can play it).
>
> Of course, in every session in which I play it, I seem to get a long string of balanced 11-16 hands,
>but that is simply the way Bridge goes.
better than my long string of 2-9 hands!
> The ACBL forbids psyches of "bids not allowed by General Chart".
>
> I will send this off to Rulings, but, is it considered a psyche randomly to pass a 2H response to a Multi-2D
>opener when you have spades or do you consider it "just part of the convention"?
>
> Second, assuming that passing is a psyche, would passing run afoul of the prohibition here, since pass is not a bid?
bridge (other than rubber) is about manipulating the number that
goes on the score sheet. The stripe tailed ape double is a
_respectable_ method of trying to manipulate the number but
things like raising a suit you are short in, when partner
has made a 2 suited overcall, to try and slow the opponents'
auction down by offering an attractive double are, to me,
in exactly the same tactical boat as the thing called psyching.
> I've never had both the right hand and the fortitude to pass a 2H response while holding spades, but I
>thought that I would ask about the wisdom, legality, and experiences of others in the group.
I have seen good opponents find that one of them thought the double
of 2H was penalty and the second thought it was take out with a nice
outcome.
I have even passed 2H with solid spades and, when the oppo bid 3NT, I
doubled to try to get partner to lead spades rather than the suit I
had shown. Partner lead a heart but found the switch when he got in
next. 800 out of nowhere! Bill wrote it up in the VBA magazine about
10(?) years ago as the last part of an article on the multi.
doug
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 25, 2012, 3:19:23 AM5/25/12
to
Douglas Newlands skrev:
> This is the easy psyche to make and should be tried regularly.
Psyche ... regularly? What does your system card say about that?
> This is the easy psyche to make and should be tried regularly.
Michael Angelo Ravera
May 25, 2012, 6:14:01 AM5/25/12
to
If your RHO passed with a big hand and a heart suit assuming that you were going to bid spades so that he could make a takeout (double or cue, whichever he thinks describes his hand better) of spades. Is your LHO going to protect with a balanced 8-count? If not, you just went -300 against a slam.
Lorne
May 25, 2012, 6:41:13 AM5/25/12
to
"Douglas Newlands" wrote in message
news:jpmiel$sj0$1...@douglasnewlands.eternal-september.org...
>This is the easy psyche to make and should be tried regularly.
If you do it regularly you are breaking the law unless it is on you system
card and properly disclosed to the oppo via an alert and an accurate full
answer if they ask.
news:jpmiel$sj0$1...@douglasnewlands.eternal-september.org...
>This is the easy psyche to make and should be tried regularly.
card and properly disclosed to the oppo via an alert and an accurate full
answer if they ask.
David Stevenson
May 25, 2012, 7:49:29 AM5/25/12
to
Douglas Newlands wrote
with your explicit and implicit agreements with partner.
So if you make a "tactical bid" often enough that your partner is
aware of the likelihood it moves it form being a psyche ot part of your
disclosable system.
>This is the easy psyche to make and should be tried regularly.
Once you do it regularly it is no longer a psyche: now it is part of
your disclosable system.
>Psyche definitions are all about bidding and making contracts whereas
>bridge (other than rubber) is about manipulating the number that
>goes on the score sheet. The stripe tailed ape double is a
>_respectable_ method of trying to manipulate the number but
>things like raising a suit you are short in, when partner
>has made a 2 suited overcall, to try and slow the opponents'
>auction down by offering an attractive double are, to me,
>in exactly the same tactical boat as the thing called psyching.
Psyche definitions are all about making calls that are not in line
>bridge (other than rubber) is about manipulating the number that
>goes on the score sheet. The stripe tailed ape double is a
>_respectable_ method of trying to manipulate the number but
>things like raising a suit you are short in, when partner
>has made a 2 suited overcall, to try and slow the opponents'
>auction down by offering an attractive double are, to me,
>in exactly the same tactical boat as the thing called psyching.
with your explicit and implicit agreements with partner.
So if you make a "tactical bid" often enough that your partner is
aware of the likelihood it moves it form being a psyche ot part of your
disclosable system.
>This is the easy psyche to make and should be tried regularly.
your disclosable system.
KWSchneider
May 25, 2012, 8:26:14 AM5/25/12
to
On May 23, 2:26 pm, Michael Angelo Ravera <marav...@prodigy.net>
wrote:
Wouldn't this be construed as a "systemic psyche" and be illegal?
Kurt
wrote:
Kurt
Steve Willner
May 25, 2012, 8:57:02 PM5/25/12
to
On 2012-05-24 6:56 PM, David Stevenson wrote:
> A psyche is a gross misstatement of your distribution or values as
> compared to your agreement with partner.
This is exactly right; no surprise there.
> A psyche is a gross misstatement of your distribution or values as
> compared to your agreement with partner.
> So, you can alert the 2H response and describe it as asking for a
> pass with hearts, and a 2S rebid or a pass at random with spades.
desire to raise hearts but no information about raising spades. I
believe that's alertable in the ACBL, but it's the standard way to play
multi as far as I know.
What opener's rebid will be is immaterial in my opinion. David and I
have disagreed before on this principle, so it's no surprise we disagree
now.
> Now if you pass it is not a psyche it is part of your agreed
> system.
principle shows hearts, but it could also be spades with [circumstances
as agreed]." This is _probably_ alertable, but I don't think the ACBL
rules on that are clear. (What else is new?) The difficulty is to give
an accurate impression of how often the pass shows spades; there's a
problem if you over-emphasize either possibility at the expense of the
other. Disclosing mixed strategies is always hard; this is just one
more example.
The basic point is, as others including David have written, if you bid
in accordance with your agreements -- no matter how unusual those
agreements are -- it isn't a psych.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Douglas Newlands
May 25, 2012, 10:49:14 PM5/25/12
to
On 25/05/12 9:49 PM, David Stevenson wrote:
> Douglas Newlands wrote
>> Psyche definitions are all about bidding and making contracts whereas
>> bridge (other than rubber) is about manipulating the number that
>> goes on the score sheet. The stripe tailed ape double is a
>> _respectable_ method of trying to manipulate the number but
>> things like raising a suit you are short in, when partner
>> has made a 2 suited overcall, to try and slow the opponents'
>> auction down by offering an attractive double are, to me,
>> in exactly the same tactical boat as the thing called psyching.
>
> Psyche definitions are all about making calls that are not in line
> with your explicit and implicit agreements with partner.
>
> So if you make a "tactical bid" often enough that your partner is
> aware of the likelihood it moves it form being a psyche ot part of your
> disclosable system.
>
>> This is the easy psyche to make and should be tried regularly.
>
> Once you do it regularly it is no longer a psyche: now it is part of
> your disclosable system.
>
OK, as enough people have pointed out "regularly" is inappropriate.
> Douglas Newlands wrote
>> Psyche definitions are all about bidding and making contracts whereas
>> bridge (other than rubber) is about manipulating the number that
>> goes on the score sheet. The stripe tailed ape double is a
>> _respectable_ method of trying to manipulate the number but
>> things like raising a suit you are short in, when partner
>> has made a 2 suited overcall, to try and slow the opponents'
>> auction down by offering an attractive double are, to me,
>> in exactly the same tactical boat as the thing called psyching.
>
> Psyche definitions are all about making calls that are not in line
> with your explicit and implicit agreements with partner.
>
> So if you make a "tactical bid" often enough that your partner is
> aware of the likelihood it moves it form being a psyche ot part of your
> disclosable system.
>
>> This is the easy psyche to make and should be tried regularly.
>
> Once you do it regularly it is no longer a psyche: now it is part of
> your disclosable system.
>
Probably, I should have said "irregularly" or "intermittently".
Look how far back, I went for the example: circa 10 years (against
Australian lady internationals). I actually don't play multi 2D for
preference now but it is very common amongst the LOLs at the club.
In reality, passing 2H is probably much less frequent since you
cannot do it vul because the penalty may be too great;
at white the reward is just about worth it;
if partner has not passed you may be missing 4S;
even if partner has passed, you may miss 4S.
Mind you, it is amusing to get no tricks and get a good score altho
declaring and actually getting no tricks is very rare.
As defenders, you certainly should be aware of it as a possibilty and
your multi defence should include this psychic action as well as the one
where they pass 2D (probably because they play it only as a weak 2 with
no strong meaning)
Maybe partner should alert all passes of 2H to get past the legalities
and passes of 2D. Does that do enough?
Probably it should: if I play a jump overcall of 2H is weak with hearts
or with spades. The alert deals with the opponents' lack of knowledge
but an SO (is that still the right term) might still forbid the method
since it is not anchored. However, the multi already has allowed despite
that.
doug
Michael Angelo Ravera
May 26, 2012, 1:46:03 PM5/26/12
to
If it is an agreement, it isn't a psyche.
It is likewise "Just Bridge", to bid or pass hoping to get opponents to double you in contracts that you can make.
Thomas Dehn
May 27, 2012, 2:55:09 PM5/27/12
to
Only the multi version from the WBF convention booklet
is exempt from the general rule that two level openings
which do not show one specific suit are brown sticker.
The multi version WBF convention booklet does not list
opener passing 2H with spades. One could argue that once
opener is passing 2H with spades "frequently", per system,
the pair is no longer player the exempted multi, and
thus is playing a brown sticker convention.
Thomas
David Stevenson
May 27, 2012, 8:24:45 PM5/27/12
to
Steve Willner wrote
Full Disclosure, but that is not the issue now. The point is what the
2H means, not whether you are going to allow opponents to know what it
means or not. If it expects partner to pass with hearts only, that is
one meaning: if with hearts or spades it is another meaning. Sure, you
believe opponents are not entitled to this knowledge - I have never
understood why - but surely you can see that if it is the latter then a
pass with spades is not a psyche but a part of the system.
>On 2012-05-24 6:56 PM, David Stevenson wrote:
>> A psyche is a gross misstatement of your distribution or values as
>> compared to your agreement with partner.
>
>This is exactly right; no surprise there.
>
>> So, you can alert the 2H response and describe it as asking for a
>> pass with hearts, and a 2S rebid or a pass at random with spades.
>
>I don't think the 2H response is at issue. Presumably it shows no
>desire to raise hearts but no information about raising spades. I
>believe that's alertable in the ACBL, but it's the standard way to play
>multi as far as I know.
>
>What opener's rebid will be is immaterial in my opinion. David and I
>have disagreed before on this principle, so it's no surprise we
>disagree now.
I appreciate that you do not believe the opponents are entitled to
>> A psyche is a gross misstatement of your distribution or values as
>> compared to your agreement with partner.
>
>This is exactly right; no surprise there.
>
>> So, you can alert the 2H response and describe it as asking for a
>> pass with hearts, and a 2S rebid or a pass at random with spades.
>
>I don't think the 2H response is at issue. Presumably it shows no
>desire to raise hearts but no information about raising spades. I
>believe that's alertable in the ACBL, but it's the standard way to play
>multi as far as I know.
>
>What opener's rebid will be is immaterial in my opinion. David and I
>have disagreed before on this principle, so it's no surprise we
>disagree now.
Full Disclosure, but that is not the issue now. The point is what the
2H means, not whether you are going to allow opponents to know what it
means or not. If it expects partner to pass with hearts only, that is
one meaning: if with hearts or spades it is another meaning. Sure, you
believe opponents are not entitled to this knowledge - I have never
understood why - but surely you can see that if it is the latter then a
pass with spades is not a psyche but a part of the system.
blackshoe
May 27, 2012, 9:29:40 PM5/27/12
to David Stevenson
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:24:45 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> Steve Willner wrote
> Steve Willner wrote
> >What opener's rebid will be is immaterial in my opinion. David and I
> >have disagreed before on this principle, so it's no surprise we
> >disagree now.
>
> I appreciate that you do not believe the opponents are entitled to
> Full Disclosure, but that is not the issue now.
Perhaps not, and I won't presume to speak for Steve, but I think the disagreement is not as to whether the opponents are entitled to Full Disclosure, but whether Full Disclosure includes the meanings of potential future calls. IMO it does not.
> >have disagreed before on this principle, so it's no surprise we
> >disagree now.
>
> I appreciate that you do not believe the opponents are entitled to
> Full Disclosure, but that is not the issue now.
David Stevenson
May 28, 2012, 9:15:40 AM5/28/12
to
blackshoe wrote
So, in this case, if you want to know what a 2H response means, you
think opponents have the right to refuse to tell you?
think opponents have the right to refuse to tell you?
blackshoe
May 28, 2012, 12:20:14 PM5/28/12
to David Stevenson
On Monday, May 28, 2012 9:15:40 AM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> So, in this case, if you want to know what a 2H response means, you
> think opponents have the right to refuse to tell you?
If a 2H response is a call not yet made, I don't think anyone has the right to ask what it will mean.
> So, in this case, if you want to know what a 2H response means, you
> think opponents have the right to refuse to tell you?
David Stevenson
May 28, 2012, 6:18:06 PM5/28/12
to
blackshoe wrote
When I make a 2H response - or anyone else around here, of course -
and am asked what it shows, my partner or anyone else around here
describes it as
"Willing to play there if partner has a weak two in hearts, but partner
rebids 2S if he has spades."
As far as I can understand you and Steve, if asked what 2H means you
get an answer along the lines of:
"Does not show anything in particular and I am not going to tell you
what partner does because I do not have to."
and am asked what it shows, my partner or anyone else around here
describes it as
"Willing to play there if partner has a weak two in hearts, but partner
rebids 2S if he has spades."
As far as I can understand you and Steve, if asked what 2H means you
get an answer along the lines of:
"Does not show anything in particular and I am not going to tell you
what partner does because I do not have to."
Stu Goodgold
May 28, 2012, 7:12:24 PM5/28/12
to David Stevenson
On Monday, May 28, 2012 3:18:06 PM UTC-7, David Stevenson wrote:
> blackshoe wrote
> >On Monday, May 28, 2012 9:15:40 AM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> >
> >> So, in this case, if you want to know what a 2H response means, you
> >> think opponents have the right to refuse to tell you?
> >
> >If a 2H response is a call not yet made, I don't think anyone has the
> >right to ask what it will mean.
>
> When I make a 2H response - or anyone else around here, of course -
> and am asked what it shows, my partner or anyone else around here
> describes it as
>
> "Willing to play there if partner has a weak two in hearts, but partner
> rebids 2S if he has spades."
Doesn't anyone play the strong option anymore? Opener doesn't bid 2S then, does he?
> blackshoe wrote
> >On Monday, May 28, 2012 9:15:40 AM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> >
> >> So, in this case, if you want to know what a 2H response means, you
> >> think opponents have the right to refuse to tell you?
> >
> >If a 2H response is a call not yet made, I don't think anyone has the
> >right to ask what it will mean.
>
> When I make a 2H response - or anyone else around here, of course -
> and am asked what it shows, my partner or anyone else around here
> describes it as
>
> "Willing to play there if partner has a weak two in hearts, but partner
> rebids 2S if he has spades."
Without the strong option, most players here would explain 2H as "Pass or correct to spades" or even just "pass or correct", which is very close to your statement, less the expectation of what opener might do holding spades. Surely you do not need to explain what opener might rebid based on his possible holdings. (if you think it is required, then you would also have to go through the litany of possible rebids when playing the strong option.)
If opener decides that passing 2H is the best bridge action, does that need any further explanation?
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
Travis Crump
May 28, 2012, 8:53:05 PM5/28/12
to
On 05/28/2012 06:18 PM, David Stevenson wrote:
> blackshoe wrote
>> On Monday, May 28, 2012 9:15:40 AM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
>>
>>> So, in this case, if you want to know what a 2H response means, you
>>> think opponents have the right to refuse to tell you?
>>
>> If a 2H response is a call not yet made, I don't think anyone has the
>> right to ask what it will mean.
>
> When I make a 2H response - or anyone else around here, of course -
> and am asked what it shows, my partner or anyone else around here
> describes it as
>
> "Willing to play there if partner has a weak two in hearts, but partner
> rebids 2S if he has spades."
>
> As far as I can understand you and Steve, if asked what 2H means you
> get an answer along the lines of:
>
> "Does not show anything in particular and I am not going to tell you
> what partner does because I do not have to."
>
What about an answer like:
> blackshoe wrote
>> On Monday, May 28, 2012 9:15:40 AM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
>>
>>> So, in this case, if you want to know what a 2H response means, you
>>> think opponents have the right to refuse to tell you?
>>
>> If a 2H response is a call not yet made, I don't think anyone has the
>> right to ask what it will mean.
>
> When I make a 2H response - or anyone else around here, of course -
> and am asked what it shows, my partner or anyone else around here
> describes it as
>
> "Willing to play there if partner has a weak two in hearts, but partner
> rebids 2S if he has spades."
>
> As far as I can understand you and Steve, if asked what 2H means you
> get an answer along the lines of:
>
> "Does not show anything in particular and I am not going to tell you
> what partner does because I do not have to."
>
"0-2 hearts, or rarely 3 hearts and 4333; less than invitational values
opposite a weak 2 in hearts"
In a sense this is more information than you've given, but alerter
hasn't said whether or not opener is systemically allowed to pass with a
weak 2 in spades.
blackshoe
May 28, 2012, 10:31:42 PM5/28/12
to David Stevenson
On Monday, May 28, 2012 6:18:06 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> As far as I can understand you and Steve, if asked what 2H means you
> get an answer along the lines of:
>
> "Does not show anything in particular and I am not going to tell you
> what partner does because I do not have to."
I am disappointed. :-( I thought you knew me better than that. I can't speak for Steve, but I would certainly never say something as provocative as that.
> As far as I can understand you and Steve, if asked what 2H means you
> get an answer along the lines of:
>
> "Does not show anything in particular and I am not going to tell you
> what partner does because I do not have to."
"Willing to play in 2H if I have hearts; a 2S bid would show willingness to play in two spades if I have spades, *and* willingness to play in 3H if I have hearts" seems quite adequate to me, given full disclosure of the meaning of the multi 2D opening (for example, "weak two in either major"). Note that 2S here is a "relevant alternative call available that was not made", in the words of Law 20F1. However, the point of contention here is whether, if an opponent asks my *partner*, as part of his explanation of the meaning of 2D, what the possible future response are and what they would mean, he is entitled to an answer. He's not. Nowhere in the laws does anything say he is.
Chris xxxxx
May 29, 2012, 12:32:23 AM5/29/12
to
On May 28, 6:18 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
*you* have a weak two?
I know you already lost the subjunctive in the UK. Is the distinction
between direct and indirect discourse next?
> As far as I can understand you and Steve, if asked what 2H means you
> get an answer along the lines of:
>
> "Does not show anything in particular and I am not going to tell you
> what partner does because I do not have to."
No, the description is "Partner has any hand where he wants the
auction to end here if my weak two is in hearts". That is a
completely crisp description of 2H.
One is not supposed to start describing one's rebids when describing
partner's bid. Consider the exchange: "Was your partner's 4NT bid a
keycard ask?" "Yes, it was 1430." to see why. :)
Now after opener passes 2H, if you ask what pass meant, and there is a
history of passing with spades, the answer should be "any weak two in
hearts, and he occasionally tries to float this with spades".
Strictly speaking, the opponents are only entitled to this information
after opener's pass of 2H. They are not entitled to know what future
calls may mean. (Classic chicken-and-egg problem.)
Christopher Monsour
wrote:
> blackshoe wrote
>
> >On Monday, May 28, 2012 9:15:40 AM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
>
> >> So, in this case, if you want to know what a 2H response means, you
> >> think opponents have the right to refuse to tell you?
>
> >If a 2H response is a call not yet made, I don't think anyone has the
> >right to ask what it will mean.
>
> When I make a 2H response - or anyone else around here, of course -
> and am asked what it shows, my partner or anyone else around here
> describes it as
>
> "Willing to play there if partner has a weak two in hearts, but partner
> rebids 2S if he has spades."
This is very confusing. How does your partner know to open multi when
>
> >On Monday, May 28, 2012 9:15:40 AM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
>
> >> So, in this case, if you want to know what a 2H response means, you
> >> think opponents have the right to refuse to tell you?
>
> >If a 2H response is a call not yet made, I don't think anyone has the
> >right to ask what it will mean.
>
> When I make a 2H response - or anyone else around here, of course -
> and am asked what it shows, my partner or anyone else around here
> describes it as
>
> "Willing to play there if partner has a weak two in hearts, but partner
> rebids 2S if he has spades."
*you* have a weak two?
I know you already lost the subjunctive in the UK. Is the distinction
between direct and indirect discourse next?
> As far as I can understand you and Steve, if asked what 2H means you
> get an answer along the lines of:
>
> "Does not show anything in particular and I am not going to tell you
> what partner does because I do not have to."
auction to end here if my weak two is in hearts". That is a
completely crisp description of 2H.
One is not supposed to start describing one's rebids when describing
partner's bid. Consider the exchange: "Was your partner's 4NT bid a
keycard ask?" "Yes, it was 1430." to see why. :)
Now after opener passes 2H, if you ask what pass meant, and there is a
history of passing with spades, the answer should be "any weak two in
hearts, and he occasionally tries to float this with spades".
Strictly speaking, the opponents are only entitled to this information
after opener's pass of 2H. They are not entitled to know what future
calls may mean. (Classic chicken-and-egg problem.)
Christopher Monsour
David Stevenson
May 29, 2012, 12:12:52 PM5/29/12
to
Stu Goodgold wrote
statement.
>Without the strong option, most players here would explain 2H as "Pass
>or correct to spades" or even just "pass or correct", which is very
>close to your statement, less the expectation of what opener might do
>holding spades. Surely you do not need to explain what opener might
>rebid based on his possible holdings. (if you think it is required,
>then you would also have to go through the litany of possible rebids
>when playing the strong option.)
>
>If opener decides that passing 2H is the best bridge action, does that
>need any further explanation?
Opponents have a right to know your system: if it is part of his
system to pass with spades, of course your opponents have a right to
know.
=============================================================
Travis Crump wrote
information? So as to gain an unfair and illegal advantage form not
disclosing your system fully?
=============================================================
blackshoe wrote
spades then opponents have a right to know that.
>On Monday, May 28, 2012 3:18:06 PM UTC-7, David Stevenson wrote:
>> blackshoe wrote
>> >On Monday, May 28, 2012 9:15:40 AM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
>> >
>> >> So, in this case, if you want to know what a 2H response means, you
>> >> think opponents have the right to refuse to tell you?
>> >
>> >If a 2H response is a call not yet made, I don't think anyone has the
>> >right to ask what it will mean.
>>
>> When I make a 2H response - or anyone else around here, of course -
>> and am asked what it shows, my partner or anyone else around here
>> describes it as
>>
>> "Willing to play there if partner has a weak two in hearts, but partner
>> rebids 2S if he has spades."
>
>Doesn't anyone play the strong option anymore? Opener doesn't bid 2S
>then, does he?
If I play a strong option then of course I include that in the
>> blackshoe wrote
>> >On Monday, May 28, 2012 9:15:40 AM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
>> >
>> >> So, in this case, if you want to know what a 2H response means, you
>> >> think opponents have the right to refuse to tell you?
>> >
>> >If a 2H response is a call not yet made, I don't think anyone has the
>> >right to ask what it will mean.
>>
>> When I make a 2H response - or anyone else around here, of course -
>> and am asked what it shows, my partner or anyone else around here
>> describes it as
>>
>> "Willing to play there if partner has a weak two in hearts, but partner
>> rebids 2S if he has spades."
>
>Doesn't anyone play the strong option anymore? Opener doesn't bid 2S
>then, does he?
statement.
>Without the strong option, most players here would explain 2H as "Pass
>or correct to spades" or even just "pass or correct", which is very
>close to your statement, less the expectation of what opener might do
>holding spades. Surely you do not need to explain what opener might
>rebid based on his possible holdings. (if you think it is required,
>then you would also have to go through the litany of possible rebids
>when playing the strong option.)
>
>If opener decides that passing 2H is the best bridge action, does that
>need any further explanation?
system to pass with spades, of course your opponents have a right to
know.
=============================================================
Travis Crump wrote
>What about an answer like:
>
>"0-2 hearts, or rarely 3 hearts and 4333; less than invitational values
>opposite a weak 2 in hearts"
>
>In a sense this is more information than you've given, but alerter
>hasn't said whether or not opener is systemically allowed to pass with a
>weak 2 in spades.
But if it is part of your system to do so, why do you hide that
>
>"0-2 hearts, or rarely 3 hearts and 4333; less than invitational values
>opposite a weak 2 in hearts"
>
>In a sense this is more information than you've given, but alerter
>hasn't said whether or not opener is systemically allowed to pass with a
>weak 2 in spades.
information? So as to gain an unfair and illegal advantage form not
disclosing your system fully?
=============================================================
blackshoe wrote
>On Monday, May 28, 2012 6:18:06 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
>
>> As far as I can understand you and Steve, if asked what 2H means you
>> get an answer along the lines of:
>>
>> "Does not show anything in particular and I am not going to tell you
>> what partner does because I do not have to."
>
>
>> As far as I can understand you and Steve, if asked what 2H means you
>> get an answer along the lines of:
>>
>> "Does not show anything in particular and I am not going to tell you
>> what partner does because I do not have to."
>
>I am disappointed. :-( I thought you knew me better than that. I can't
>speak for Steve, but I would certainly never say something as
>provocative as that.
>
>"Willing to play in 2H if I have hearts; a 2S bid would show
>willingness to play in two spades if I have spades, *and* willingness
>to play in 3H if I have hearts" seems quite adequate to me, given full
>disclosure of the meaning of the multi 2D opening (for example, "weak
>two in either major"). Note that 2S here is a "relevant alternative
>call available that was not made", in the words of Law 20F1. However,
>the point of contention here is whether, if an opponent asks my
>*partner*, as part of his explanation of the meaning of 2D, what the
>possible future response are and what they would mean, he is entitled
>to an answer. He's not. Nowhere in the laws does anything say he is.
If it is part of your system that 2H includes partner passing with
>speak for Steve, but I would certainly never say something as
>provocative as that.
>
>"Willing to play in 2H if I have hearts; a 2S bid would show
>willingness to play in two spades if I have spades, *and* willingness
>to play in 3H if I have hearts" seems quite adequate to me, given full
>disclosure of the meaning of the multi 2D opening (for example, "weak
>two in either major"). Note that 2S here is a "relevant alternative
>call available that was not made", in the words of Law 20F1. However,
>the point of contention here is whether, if an opponent asks my
>*partner*, as part of his explanation of the meaning of 2D, what the
>possible future response are and what they would mean, he is entitled
>to an answer. He's not. Nowhere in the laws does anything say he is.
spades then opponents have a right to know that.
blackshoe
May 29, 2012, 7:01:56 PM5/29/12
to David Stevenson
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:12:52 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> If it is part of your system that 2H includes partner passing with
> spades then opponents have a right to know that.
What is the legal basis for this assertion?
> If it is part of your system that 2H includes partner passing with
> spades then opponents have a right to know that.
David Stevenson
May 29, 2012, 9:13:14 PM5/29/12
to
blackshoe wrote
Law 20F1, Law 40B4, Law 40B6.
Note, for example, the words "He is entitled to know about calls
actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not
made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where
these are matters of partnership understanding".
You hold a good hand with hearts. 2D on your left, 2H on your right.
You ask. Your opponent knows whether he is allowed by system to pass
this with spades, which is clearly a 'relevant inferences from the
choice of action' and which may affect what you call.
Do you really feel he has acted ethically when he follows the
Willner/blackshoe approach and refuses to tell you? Do you not think
that you should be playing a game where your system details are freely
available?
Note, for example, the words "He is entitled to know about calls
actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not
made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where
these are matters of partnership understanding".
You hold a good hand with hearts. 2D on your left, 2H on your right.
You ask. Your opponent knows whether he is allowed by system to pass
this with spades, which is clearly a 'relevant inferences from the
choice of action' and which may affect what you call.
Do you really feel he has acted ethically when he follows the
Willner/blackshoe approach and refuses to tell you? Do you not think
that you should be playing a game where your system details are freely
available?
Nick France
May 30, 2012, 8:50:05 AM5/30/12
to
On May 25, 7:49 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> <webjak...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
I've been reading thru this thread and have a question for you. To me
it seems the bid that needs to be alerted is the pass by the 2D bidder
of the 2H bid. Something along the line, "from time to time partner
passes with a spade suit". If the system is legal then this seems
the place to notify the opponents of your agreement.
Is my assumption right or do you think there is a different place the
alert on this part of the system should be made? This seems to be
along the lines of a 2C bid over partner's 1NT opener. Originally it
is stayman with the 1NT opener responding accordingly. When it
becomes possible that the 2C bidder doesn't have a major then an alert
to that possiblity is made (i.e. 1NT-2C; 2D-2NT, the 2NT is alert
as does not necessarily have a 4 card major)
Nick France
wrote:
I've been reading thru this thread and have a question for you. To me
it seems the bid that needs to be alerted is the pass by the 2D bidder
of the 2H bid. Something along the line, "from time to time partner
passes with a spade suit". If the system is legal then this seems
the place to notify the opponents of your agreement.
Is my assumption right or do you think there is a different place the
alert on this part of the system should be made? This seems to be
along the lines of a 2C bid over partner's 1NT opener. Originally it
is stayman with the 1NT opener responding accordingly. When it
becomes possible that the 2C bidder doesn't have a major then an alert
to that possiblity is made (i.e. 1NT-2C; 2D-2NT, the 2NT is alert
as does not necessarily have a 4 card major)
Nick France
judyo...@gmail.com
May 30, 2012, 9:50:13 AM5/30/12
to
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:26:40 PM UTC-4, Michael Angelo Ravera wrote:
> In ACBLand I play Multi-2D with some of my partners (usually in any event where it is legal and I have a partner who can play it).
>
> Of course, in every session in which I play it, I seem to get a long string of balanced 11-16 hands, but that is simply the way Bridge goes.
>
> The ACBL forbids psyches of "bids not allowed by General Chart".
>
> I will send this off to Rulings, but, is it considered a psyche randomly to pass a 2H response to a Multi-2D opener when you have spades or do you consider it "just part of the convention"?
>
> Second, assuming that passing is a psyche, would passing run afoul of the prohibition here, since pass is not a bid?
>
> I've never had both the right hand and the fortitude to pass a 2H response while holding spades, but I thought that I would ask about the wisdom, legality, and experiences of others in the group.
>
> -- Try to learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
The correct answer is "2H requests me to pass with hearts and bid 2S with spades."
> In ACBLand I play Multi-2D with some of my partners (usually in any event where it is legal and I have a partner who can play it).
>
> Of course, in every session in which I play it, I seem to get a long string of balanced 11-16 hands, but that is simply the way Bridge goes.
>
> The ACBL forbids psyches of "bids not allowed by General Chart".
>
> I will send this off to Rulings, but, is it considered a psyche randomly to pass a 2H response to a Multi-2D opener when you have spades or do you consider it "just part of the convention"?
>
> Second, assuming that passing is a psyche, would passing run afoul of the prohibition here, since pass is not a bid?
>
> I've never had both the right hand and the fortitude to pass a 2H response while holding spades, but I thought that I would ask about the wisdom, legality, and experiences of others in the group.
>
> -- Try to learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
What's the problem?
Carl
blackshoe
May 30, 2012, 10:49:16 AM5/30/12
to David Stevenson
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:13:14 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> blackshoe wrote
> >On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:12:52 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> >
> >> If it is part of your system that 2H includes partner passing with
> >> spades then opponents have a right to know that.
> >
> >What is the legal basis for this assertion?
>
> Law 20F1, Law 40B4, Law 40B6.
>
> Note, for example, the words "He is entitled to know about calls
> actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not
> made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where
> these are matters of partnership understanding".
>
> You hold a good hand with hearts. 2D on your left, 2H on your right.
> You ask. Your opponent knows whether he is allowed by system to pass
> this with spades, which is clearly a 'relevant inferences from the
> choice of action' and which may affect what you call.
>
> Do you really feel he has acted ethically when he follows the
> Willner/blackshoe approach and refuses to tell you? Do you not think
> that you should be playing a game where your system details are freely
> available?
Quoting law numbers is not an argument. But well played, David. Either I agree you are right, or I'm one of those despicable characters who cheats at cards. So of course I must agree with you. Happy now?
> blackshoe wrote
> >On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:12:52 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> >
> >> If it is part of your system that 2H includes partner passing with
> >> spades then opponents have a right to know that.
> >
> >What is the legal basis for this assertion?
>
> Law 20F1, Law 40B4, Law 40B6.
>
> Note, for example, the words "He is entitled to know about calls
> actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not
> made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where
> these are matters of partnership understanding".
>
> You hold a good hand with hearts. 2D on your left, 2H on your right.
> You ask. Your opponent knows whether he is allowed by system to pass
> this with spades, which is clearly a 'relevant inferences from the
> choice of action' and which may affect what you call.
>
> Do you really feel he has acted ethically when he follows the
> Willner/blackshoe approach and refuses to tell you? Do you not think
> that you should be playing a game where your system details are freely
> available?
David Stevenson
May 30, 2012, 11:03:25 AM5/30/12
to
the legal basis. What is your objection to may answering your specific
request?
David Stevenson
May 30, 2012, 11:15:56 AM5/30/12
to
Nick France wrote
Alerts are one thing, explanations are another: I am worried at the
people who when asked for an explanation of the 2H response consider it
acceptable to hide whether they are playing at as normal pass or
correct, or to play it as pass with hearts and sometimes with spades,
bid 2S sometimes with spades, which a defender needs to know then.
If you were asked what a Stayman bid showed you would have a set of
hands which differs from one pair to another, but you would answer,
would you not?
Stayman is a bad example, because Stayman as invented, and as played
by about 40+% of the bridge-playing public does not guarantee a major.
Consider a 2D response to 1NT.
The vast majority play this as showing hearts. However, there is a
small minority who allow other hands, especially being shown by the
specific sequence 1NT - 2D - 2H - 2S. One of my former partners forced
me to play this as a big balanced hand [ugh!].
If you open 1NT, partner bids 2D, and an opponent says "What does that
mean?" you would either describe it as "Shows 5+ hearts" or "Shows 5+
hearts or a very strong balanced hand" dependent on how you play it.
You ask about alerting, which has not been the subject of this thread.
But alerting depends on the jurisdiction. So, what is the situation
regarding this 2D response?
In the ACBL you announce it as hearts but then you alert the 2NT rebid
- because that is what the ACBL requires.
In the EBU you alert it not announce it - because that is what the
EBU requires.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
people who when asked for an explanation of the 2H response consider it
acceptable to hide whether they are playing at as normal pass or
correct, or to play it as pass with hearts and sometimes with spades,
bid 2S sometimes with spades, which a defender needs to know then.
If you were asked what a Stayman bid showed you would have a set of
hands which differs from one pair to another, but you would answer,
would you not?
Stayman is a bad example, because Stayman as invented, and as played
by about 40+% of the bridge-playing public does not guarantee a major.
Consider a 2D response to 1NT.
The vast majority play this as showing hearts. However, there is a
small minority who allow other hands, especially being shown by the
specific sequence 1NT - 2D - 2H - 2S. One of my former partners forced
me to play this as a big balanced hand [ugh!].
If you open 1NT, partner bids 2D, and an opponent says "What does that
mean?" you would either describe it as "Shows 5+ hearts" or "Shows 5+
hearts or a very strong balanced hand" dependent on how you play it.
You ask about alerting, which has not been the subject of this thread.
But alerting depends on the jurisdiction. So, what is the situation
regarding this 2D response?
In the ACBL you announce it as hearts but then you alert the 2NT rebid
- because that is what the ACBL requires.
In the EBU you alert it not announce it - because that is what the
EBU requires.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
Adam Beneschan
May 30, 2012, 5:27:59 PM5/30/12
to
On Monday, May 28, 2012 9:32:23 PM UTC-7, Chris xxxxx wrote:
> No, the description is "Partner has any hand where he wants the
> auction to end here if my weak two is in hearts". That is a
> completely crisp description of 2H.
>
> One is not supposed to start describing one's rebids when describing
> partner's bid. Consider the exchange: "Was your partner's 4NT bid a
> keycard ask?" "Yes, it was 1430." to see why. :)
On the other hand, consider the exchange "Was your partner's 4NT bid a keycard ask?" "I'm not going to tell you because that would tell you what partner's next bid means, and you're not entitled to that information." "So what is 4NT, then?" "I can't tell you except that it's not natural."
> No, the description is "Partner has any hand where he wants the
> auction to end here if my weak two is in hearts". That is a
> completely crisp description of 2H.
>
> One is not supposed to start describing one's rebids when describing
> partner's bid. Consider the exchange: "Was your partner's 4NT bid a
> keycard ask?" "Yes, it was 1430." to see why. :)
Somehow, it seems like the correct response to a request for an explanation is somewhere in the middle: you need to say something about what the bid asks for, which means that you're giving some information about the meaning of partner's next bid, but you aren't required to (and probably shouldn't, if not playing with screens) give a complete explanation of the structure, and in particular whether 5C shows zero or one key card. However, if this particular piece of information is required to be on your system card and you're violating that rule, then maybe you should be required to include that information---??? I don't know. I don't think the Laws are completely adequate here; they give opponents the right to information about the calls that have occurred (and alternative calls that could have been made) but not about future calls, but this doesn't really take asking bids into consideration, or relays, or calls that ask for pass-or-correct. Some guidance from authorities would be helpful here.
But hopefully we can all agree that explaining 2H as pass-or-correct, when you have an agreement that opener can pass 2H with spades, is an incorrect explanation.
-- Adam
Travis Crump
May 30, 2012, 5:58:01 PM5/30/12
to
On 05/29/2012 09:13 PM, David Stevenson wrote:
> blackshoe wrote
>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:12:52 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
>>
>>> If it is part of your system that 2H includes partner passing with
>>> spades then opponents have a right to know that.
>>
>> What is the legal basis for this assertion?
>
> Law 20F1, Law 40B4, Law 40B6.
>
> Note, for example, the words "He is entitled to know about calls
> actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not
> made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where
> these are matters of partnership understanding".
>
> You hold a good hand with hearts. 2D on your left, 2H on your right.
> You ask. Your opponent knows whether he is allowed by system to pass
> this with spades, which is clearly a 'relevant inferences from the
> choice of action' and which may affect what you call.
Actually it is clearly not. You appear to want to know what pass by
> blackshoe wrote
>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:12:52 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
>>
>>> If it is part of your system that 2H includes partner passing with
>>> spades then opponents have a right to know that.
>>
>> What is the legal basis for this assertion?
>
> Law 20F1, Law 40B4, Law 40B6.
>
> Note, for example, the words "He is entitled to know about calls
> actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not
> made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where
> these are matters of partnership understanding".
>
> You hold a good hand with hearts. 2D on your left, 2H on your right.
> You ask. Your opponent knows whether he is allowed by system to pass
> this with spades, which is clearly a 'relevant inferences from the
> choice of action' and which may affect what you call.
LHO, assuming you pass, would mean. First problem: You appear to be
asking LHO which is clearly illegal. Second problem: Assume you ask
RHO, is now the proper time to do so? No call has actually been made or
not made and no choice of action has occurred since it isn't LHO's turn
yet. Therefore nothing you've quoted is relevant. Presumably you are
asking because your agreements might change depending on the answer.
But since the call will be after your call the opponents are free to
change their methods based on your agreements. I believe it is agreed
that you must commit yourself to methods first as it is your turn to
call. But if that is the case than there is no reason to ask RHO now
since the answer can't by definition affect your call.
Or were you planning to ask the opponents their agreements and then hide
your own so that they can't compensate? That hardly seems kosher.
blackshoe
May 30, 2012, 6:01:53 PM5/30/12
to David Stevenson
How do those laws form this legal basis? What is it in those laws that does so?
David Stevenson
May 30, 2012, 7:10:07 PM5/30/12
to
blackshoe wrote
>How do those laws form this legal basis? What is it in those laws that does so?
I explained one Law - did you not read the rest of the article?
David Stevenson
May 30, 2012, 7:11:56 PM5/30/12
to
Travis Crump wrote
I don't understand how you suggest I hide my own: I tell them all
relevant agreements. Fortunately, where i play, so does everyone else.
How opponents play 2H is what I am trying to find out.
relevant agreements. Fortunately, where i play, so does everyone else.
How opponents play 2H is what I am trying to find out.
David Stevenson
May 30, 2012, 7:13:04 PM5/30/12
to
Adam Beneschan wrote
>But hopefully we can all agree that explaining 2H as pass-or-correct,
>when you have an agreement that opener can pass 2H with spades, is an
>incorrect explanation.
*I* agree, certainly. But whether everyone does ....
>when you have an agreement that opener can pass 2H with spades, is an
>incorrect explanation.
Thomas Dehn
May 30, 2012, 9:07:38 PM5/30/12
to
Opposite a normal nonvul multi opener, responder has no hope of
making game, and no fear of opponents competing for the partscore.
Thus, 2H is the normal response.
Now assume an opener who "frequently" passes the 2H relay
with spades. 2H is a completely silly contract there, which
will likely go down several whereas 2S should make 8-9 tricks,
while opponents cannot make anything.
Thus, with the above hand, responder might now bid 2S instead of 2H
to avoid that particular disaster.
Opponents are thus entitled to that information when 2H is bid,
as it is relevant to responder's choice between 2H and 2S.
L20F1, L40B6.
Then, there also are the requirements for the convention card.
Over here, the CC contains a text field
"agreements that might require spacial defense".
If you are playing a system where opener might
pass the 2H relay with spades, you'd have to
add that into that field on the convention card.
L40B4.
Thomas
Thomas Dehn
May 30, 2012, 9:15:32 PM5/30/12
to
You inform opponents about your general agreements as applicable
to the auction.
Then opponents get to apply their defense against your agreements.
Then, once opponents have applied their defense, and made
their bid, you get to apply your counter-defense, which can
depend on the meaning of the opponents' bid.
In the 4NT example:
"Was your partner's 4NT bid a keycard ask?"
If opponents bid anything here, you do not have to answer 1430.
Not even when they pass 4NT, and it is alerted as showing something
unusual. There is no problem.
Thomas
Chris xxxxx
May 30, 2012, 11:23:47 PM5/30/12
to
describing what his own next bid will mean. Not only is his opponent
not yet entitled to that information, but (more importantly, in this
case), his opponent *is* entitled to have the opponents explain their
previous bids without reminding each other what their subsequent bids
will mean.
This is generally the case in describing an asking bid--you tell the
opponents what information is being requested. After you answer, they
may ask *your partner* what your answer meant and what other answers
would have meant.
> If opponents bid anything here, you do not have to answer 1430.
> Not even when they pass 4NT, and it is alerted as showing something
> unusual. There is no problem.
pass can have an agreed meaning just as easily as a bid, however, so
this truly is a chicken-and-egg problem.
When I explain that my partner's 2D response to 1NT shows five or more
hearts, I don't tell them whether I have agreed always to rebid 2H
over the 2D response, or whether I might bid higher. They aren't
entitled to that information until I actually rebid, at which point
they can inquire what the rebid means. On the other hand, if partner
bids 4D in response to 1NT, I tell them that partner either wants me
to play 4H or wants to ask for keycards next round. I don't tell them
that if he wants to ask for keycards next round, whether his bid would
be 4S or 4NT.
Christopher Monsour
Frances
May 31, 2012, 9:09:46 AM5/31/12
to
On May 31, 12:13 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
meaning of the bid by telling the opponents what opener's next bid is
(systemically). So those of us who think you are not supposed to
explain partner's future calls, don't actually like the explanation
'pass or correct' in the first place (although I admit it is
frequently used).
When I play a multi, 2H is explained as "wants to play in 2H if I have
a weak two in hearts, has a hand that wants to play in at least 2S if
I have one of the other options, denies some other hand types, would
you like more information" (e.g. it denies a hand that wants to sign
off in 3C)
We don't systemically pass a 2H response with spades, if we did the
explanation would be different.
A pair of team-mates used to play that a 3H response showed both
majors, but opener always passed unless he was doubled. The 3H
response was described as:
- To play in 3H if you pass; if you double it is asking which my major
is
> --
> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
> Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
> <webjak...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
wrote:
> Adam Beneschan wrote
>
> >But hopefully we can all agree that explaining 2H as pass-or-correct,
> >when you have an agreement that opener can pass 2H with spades, is an
> >incorrect explanation.
>
> *I* agree, certainly. But whether everyone does ....
>
explaining 2H as "pass-or-correct" is explicitly explaining the
>
> >But hopefully we can all agree that explaining 2H as pass-or-correct,
> >when you have an agreement that opener can pass 2H with spades, is an
> >incorrect explanation.
>
> *I* agree, certainly. But whether everyone does ....
>
meaning of the bid by telling the opponents what opener's next bid is
(systemically). So those of us who think you are not supposed to
explain partner's future calls, don't actually like the explanation
'pass or correct' in the first place (although I admit it is
frequently used).
When I play a multi, 2H is explained as "wants to play in 2H if I have
a weak two in hearts, has a hand that wants to play in at least 2S if
I have one of the other options, denies some other hand types, would
you like more information" (e.g. it denies a hand that wants to sign
off in 3C)
We don't systemically pass a 2H response with spades, if we did the
explanation would be different.
A pair of team-mates used to play that a 3H response showed both
majors, but opener always passed unless he was doubled. The 3H
response was described as:
- To play in 3H if you pass; if you double it is asking which my major
is
> --
> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
> Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
Frances
May 31, 2012, 9:14:19 AM5/31/12
to
On May 30, 2:13 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
well known psyche; even though I haven't yet done it (I only play the
multi in one partnership), I may at some point. If you have a strong
hand with short spades you can't afford to pass 2H here.
>
> Do you really feel he has acted ethically when he follows the
> Willner/blackshoe approach and refuses to tell you? Do you not think
> that you should be playing a game where your system details are freely
> available?
I think I am playing a game where we stick to the rules. If I had a
systemic agreement where opener was expected to pass sometimes with
spades (or even all the time), then 2H can easily be explained in
terms of what responder has shown:
"2H shows a hand that is happy to play in 2H undoubled opposite a weak
two in either major"
>
wrote:
> blackshoe wrote
>
> >On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:12:52 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
>
> >> If it is part of your system that 2H includes partner passing with
> >> spades then opponents have a right to know that.
>
> >What is the legal basis for this assertion?
>
> Law 20F1, Law 40B4, Law 40B6.
>
> Note, for example, the words "He is entitled to know about calls
> actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not
> made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where
> these are matters of partnership understanding".
>
> You hold a good hand with hearts. 2D on your left, 2H on your right.
> You ask. Your opponent knows whether he is allowed by system to pass
> this with spades, which is clearly a 'relevant inferences from the
> choice of action' and which may affect what you call.
Legal position aside, this shouldn't affect your call. It's a very
>
> >On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:12:52 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
>
> >> If it is part of your system that 2H includes partner passing with
> >> spades then opponents have a right to know that.
>
> >What is the legal basis for this assertion?
>
> Law 20F1, Law 40B4, Law 40B6.
>
> Note, for example, the words "He is entitled to know about calls
> actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not
> made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where
> these are matters of partnership understanding".
>
> You hold a good hand with hearts. 2D on your left, 2H on your right.
> You ask. Your opponent knows whether he is allowed by system to pass
> this with spades, which is clearly a 'relevant inferences from the
> choice of action' and which may affect what you call.
well known psyche; even though I haven't yet done it (I only play the
multi in one partnership), I may at some point. If you have a strong
hand with short spades you can't afford to pass 2H here.
>
> Do you really feel he has acted ethically when he follows the
> Willner/blackshoe approach and refuses to tell you? Do you not think
> that you should be playing a game where your system details are freely
> available?
systemic agreement where opener was expected to pass sometimes with
spades (or even all the time), then 2H can easily be explained in
terms of what responder has shown:
"2H shows a hand that is happy to play in 2H undoubled opposite a weak
two in either major"
>
> --
> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
> Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
> <webjak...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
> Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
Adam Beneschan
May 31, 2012, 10:32:51 AM5/31/12
to
On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 6:07:38 PM UTC-7, Thomas Dehn wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 01:01 AM, blackshoe wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:12:52 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> >
> >> If it is part of your system that 2H includes partner passing with
> >> spades then opponents have a right to know that.
> >
> > What is the legal basis for this assertion?
>
> Assume responder holds KTx,Kxxx,KJ9x,KQT
> Opposite a normal nonvul multi opener, responder has no hope of
> making game
Not sure I agree with that... the 14th card is often good for an extra trick, which could be the difference between nine and ten tricks.
> On 05/30/2012 01:01 AM, blackshoe wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:12:52 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> >
> >> If it is part of your system that 2H includes partner passing with
> >> spades then opponents have a right to know that.
> >
> > What is the legal basis for this assertion?
>
> Assume responder holds KTx,Kxxx,KJ9x,KQT
> Opposite a normal nonvul multi opener, responder has no hope of
> making game
-- Adam
Mark Brader
May 31, 2012, 11:41:02 AM5/31/12
to
Adam Beneschan:
Well, only if the hand with the 14th card can be on lead at trick 14.
--
Mark Brader | "...it's a characteristic ... of organizations that try
Toronto | to anticipate every possible failure: they easily
m...@vex.net | come to believe that they *have*..." --Henry Spencer
> Not sure I agree with that... the 14th card is often good for an extra
> trick...
Well, only if the hand with the 14th card can be on lead at trick 14.
--
Mark Brader | "...it's a characteristic ... of organizations that try
Toronto | to anticipate every possible failure: they easily
m...@vex.net | come to believe that they *have*..." --Henry Spencer
Steve Willner
May 31, 2012, 4:41:30 PM5/31/12
to
On 2012-05-27 8:24 PM, David Stevenson wrote:
> The point is what the 2H means, not whether you are going to allow
> opponents to know what it means or not.
Yes, that is the point. What hands can the 2H bidder hold. My
explanation can seen from what I wrote: "no desire to raise hearts but
no information about raising spades." (In practice I say it a bit less
succinctly and more clearly than this, more like "A hand that doesn't
want to play above 2H if I have hearts but might want to play something
higher if I have spades.")
> If it expects partner to pass with hearts only, that is one meaning:
> if with hearts or spades it is another meaning.
This is where we've disagreed before. I don't see why expectations for
future bidding are relevant. What's required is a complete explanation
of the 2H bid itself (and of course the preceding 2D opening); nothing
less and nothing more.
In Law 20F1, which David quoted later, the first two parts support my
position because they are explicitly past tense. The third part
"relevant inferences from the choice of action" doesn't seem ambiguous
to me. I take it to mean the "action being explained," but apparently
David reads it a different way than I do.
On 2012-05-28 6:18 PM, David Stevenson wrote:
> When I make a 2H response - or anyone else around here, of course -
> and am asked what it shows, my partner or anyone else around here
> describes it as
>
> "Willing to play there if partner has a weak two in hearts, but
> partner rebids 2S if he has spades."
If someone gave that explanation in the ACBL, I'd consider it MI because
it fails to indicate that the 2H bidder can have a good spade holding.
Of course that's obvious to people familiar with multi, but there are
few such players in ACBL games.
The part about how opener rebids is irrelevant. It may even be
misleading if your agreements depend on what fourth hand's call shows.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
> The point is what the 2H means, not whether you are going to allow
> opponents to know what it means or not.
Yes, that is the point. What hands can the 2H bidder hold. My
explanation can seen from what I wrote: "no desire to raise hearts but
no information about raising spades." (In practice I say it a bit less
succinctly and more clearly than this, more like "A hand that doesn't
want to play above 2H if I have hearts but might want to play something
higher if I have spades.")
> If it expects partner to pass with hearts only, that is one meaning:
> if with hearts or spades it is another meaning.
This is where we've disagreed before. I don't see why expectations for
future bidding are relevant. What's required is a complete explanation
of the 2H bid itself (and of course the preceding 2D opening); nothing
less and nothing more.
In Law 20F1, which David quoted later, the first two parts support my
position because they are explicitly past tense. The third part
"relevant inferences from the choice of action" doesn't seem ambiguous
to me. I take it to mean the "action being explained," but apparently
David reads it a different way than I do.
On 2012-05-28 6:18 PM, David Stevenson wrote:
> When I make a 2H response - or anyone else around here, of course -
> and am asked what it shows, my partner or anyone else around here
> describes it as
>
> "Willing to play there if partner has a weak two in hearts, but
> partner rebids 2S if he has spades."
it fails to indicate that the 2H bidder can have a good spade holding.
Of course that's obvious to people familiar with multi, but there are
few such players in ACBL games.
The part about how opener rebids is irrelevant. It may even be
misleading if your agreements depend on what fourth hand's call shows.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Steve Willner
Jun 2, 2012, 12:22:22 PM6/2/12
to
On 2012-05-30 9:07 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote:
> Assume responder holds KTx,Kxxx,KJ9x,KQT
> Opposite a normal nonvul multi opener, responder has no hope of
> making game, and no fear of opponents competing for the partscore.
> Thus, 2H is the normal response.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. Why shouldn't opponents make
> Assume responder holds KTx,Kxxx,KJ9x,KQT
> Opposite a normal nonvul multi opener, responder has no hope of
> making game, and no fear of opponents competing for the partscore.
> Thus, 2H is the normal response.
something at the 3 level or if not vulnerable, be -100 (a good score at
matchpoints)? Especially if you take away the extra card. But let it
pass, and assume there's some similar hand for which Thomas' statement
is true.
> Now assume an opener who "frequently" passes the 2H relay
> with spades. 2H is a completely silly contract there, which
> will likely go down several whereas 2S should make 8-9 tricks,
> while opponents cannot make anything.
>
> Thus, with the above hand, responder might now bid 2S instead of 2H
> to avoid that particular disaster.
>
> Opponents are thus entitled to that information when 2H is bid,
conclusion. He's right that opponents are entitled to know what
responder will do with hands such as his example. I'll go even further:
they are entitled to be told explicitly, not in an indirect and murky
way by some inference about what opener will do next. The exact
language depends on agreements (whether explicit or tacit), but it might
be something like (following the general statement about 2H) "If he has
support for both majors, his hand is likely to be weaker than [your
agreed or observed criteria] but also stronger than [some other
criteria]." That last comes about because weak hands that support both
majors will usually bid 3H or higher to further the preempt.
The general point is that opponents are entitled to know all relevant
agreements about responder's hand type, but I don't see anything that
entitles them to know about future bidding unless the RA has a specific
regulation to that effect.
Chris xxxxx
Jun 2, 2012, 12:49:54 PM6/2/12
to
explaining future bidding causes other problems: Explainer may convey
UI to his partner in an undetectable way because he may wake his
partner up as to their agreements about what the explainer's next bid
will mean. In fact, I usually interrupt opponents' explanations that
start to veer into future bidding for just that reason. Finally,
explaining the future auction puts explainer in an awkward position if
he plans to psych at his next call.
Christopher Monsour
David Stevenson
Jun 5, 2012, 7:07:58 PM6/5/12
to
Steve Willner wrote
until it is too late to use the information? Is that really the way you
wish this game to be played?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris xxxxx wrote
partner will do, but if your decisions depend on what LHO will do with
certain hand types, I still fail to see any reason for hiding this
information.
>Thomas is making an important point here, but I don't agree with his
>conclusion. He's right that opponents are entitled to know what
>responder will do with hands such as his example. I'll go even
>further: they are entitled to be told explicitly, not in an indirect
>and murky way by some inference about what opener will do next. The
>exact language depends on agreements (whether explicit or tacit), but
>it might be something like (following the general statement about 2H)
>"If he has support for both majors, his hand is likely to be weaker
>than [your agreed or observed criteria] but also stronger than [some
>other criteria]." That last comes about because weak hands that
>support both majors will usually bid 3H or higher to further the preempt.
>
>The general point is that opponents are entitled to know all relevant
>agreements about responder's hand type, but I don't see anything that
>entitles them to know about future bidding unless the RA has a specific
>regulation to that effect.
So, you wish to play a system and hide parts of it from the opponent
>conclusion. He's right that opponents are entitled to know what
>responder will do with hands such as his example. I'll go even
>further: they are entitled to be told explicitly, not in an indirect
>and murky way by some inference about what opener will do next. The
>exact language depends on agreements (whether explicit or tacit), but
>it might be something like (following the general statement about 2H)
>"If he has support for both majors, his hand is likely to be weaker
>than [your agreed or observed criteria] but also stronger than [some
>other criteria]." That last comes about because weak hands that
>support both majors will usually bid 3H or higher to further the preempt.
>
>The general point is that opponents are entitled to know all relevant
>agreements about responder's hand type, but I don't see anything that
>entitles them to know about future bidding unless the RA has a specific
>regulation to that effect.
until it is too late to use the information? Is that really the way you
wish this game to be played?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris xxxxx wrote
>I strongly agree with this. Apart from chicken-and-egg problems,
>explaining future bidding causes other problems: Explainer may convey
>UI to his partner in an undetectable way because he may wake his
>partner up as to their agreements about what the explainer's next bid
>will mean. In fact, I usually interrupt opponents' explanations that
>start to veer into future bidding for just that reason. Finally,
>explaining the future auction puts explainer in an awkward position if
>he plans to psych at his next call.
We are not interested in opponents who do not want to know what
>explaining future bidding causes other problems: Explainer may convey
>UI to his partner in an undetectable way because he may wake his
>partner up as to their agreements about what the explainer's next bid
>will mean. In fact, I usually interrupt opponents' explanations that
>start to veer into future bidding for just that reason. Finally,
>explaining the future auction puts explainer in an awkward position if
>he plans to psych at his next call.
partner will do, but if your decisions depend on what LHO will do with
certain hand types, I still fail to see any reason for hiding this
information.
Fred.
Jun 6, 2012, 1:49:56 PM6/6/12
to
at the pass of 2H with a weak two in spades. The problem
is that recurring psyches in a given situation stop being
psyches and start being undertandings.
Once the understanding has developed, the 2H call by
responder indicates at least a reluctant willingness
for opener to pass with a spade weak two. Otherwise,
responder would find some other call besides 2H. This
results in an undisclosed difference in the meaning of
the 2H call.
The opponents are, at least in principle, entitled to
understand the difference. Where or not there is a
practical effective way of making the disclosure
under existing regulation is a different issue
entirely. If there is none, then there is legal
cover, not justification, for failing to disclose.
I leave it to you to decide what deliberately
constructing a convention to take advantage of the
cover is.
Fred.
0 new messages