BBO Discussion Forums: is this explanation sufficient - BBO Discussion Forums

campboy, on 2014-May-20, 05:15, said:

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"?

pran, on 2014-May-20, 05:35, said:

I miss 3♥/♠.

If these bids do not exist, I doubt that your description is as full as you think it is. Most opponents will think that you would not have 3 cards in both majors when you respond 2♥. When you turn up with length in both majors, they will most likely conclude that you were trying to mess around.

But you weren't messing around. You followed a special partnership agreement to not bid beyond 2♥, unless you have an invitational hand. You are one of the few who doesn't play preemptive raises of a preemptive bid. You did not disclose this agreement.

This is similar to someone who plays a raise of a weak two as invitational, so he can't make the preemptive raise that everybody makes.

Preemptive raises of preemptive bids are GBK. The fact that you don't follow GBK is something that you should disclose.

I readily acknowledge that there are lots of weak players who don't understand what a Multi is and how to respond to it. But I don't expect to see such players in a game that is played with screens.

Rik

I assume the explanation was written? You can't be expected to write a novel when a simple "p/c" will do for any opps who have experience defending against conventions that show length in an unknown suit. Even when giving verbal explanation, "p/c" is what people always use when explaining responses to multi. NS may not be familiar with multi but they will know what "p/c" means if they have ever come across Lebensohl, SAYC-style 2♠ response to 1NT etc.

Btw, it doesn't matter whether EW had specific agreements about the major suit length promised by W. Assuming that they understood that 3♠ didn't show long spades, they missed their spade fit because they didn't have good agreements about this situation. Maybe N thought the NLM applied, or he wasn't sure what 4♠ or double would mean.

Trinidad, on 2014-May-20, 06:08, said:

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.

pran, on 2014-May-20, 06:26, said:

People in the UK where it's played a lot don't tend to worry about this. One useful bid if playing a multi is a 3N response that is 4-4 majors, enough to bid 3N not enough for slam opposite the strong balanced. Yes this can wrongside 3N if partner is 20-21 with no major but it gets your preempt in if partner is weak and does no harm if partner is 20-21 with a major.

I think this sort of P/C after a multiway assumed weak bid by partner is just taken as weak by people over here. It only causes an issue if the 20-21 hand has exactly 3 hearts, you assume partner has enough for game and doesn't have enough to make a slam opposite 20-21 and just bid 4♥/3N with 4/2♥ respectively.

pran, on 2014-May-20, 05:35, said:

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".

campboy, on 2014-May-20, 06:49, said:

Agreed.

campboy, on 2014-May-20, 06:49, said:

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?

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

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.

Cyberyeti, on 2014-May-20, 02:57, said:

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.

pran, on 2014-May-20, 06:26, said:

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.

barmar, on 2014-May-20, 10:12, said:

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.

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.

mycroft, on 2014-May-20, 14:00, said:

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?

barmar, on 2014-May-21, 10:34, said:

+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

barmar, on 2014-May-21, 10:34, said:

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.

pran, on 2014-May-20, 05:35, said:

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

jallerton, on 2014-May-21, 17:36, said:

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.

Bbradley62, on 2014-May-21, 17:50, said:

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, on 2014-May-20, 05:35, said:

jallerton, on 2014-May-21, 17:36, said:

Bbradley62, on 2014-May-21, 17:50, said:

Trinidad, on 2014-May-21, 22:46, said:

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?