[y66]

Good thread. 9 out of 10 of my opponents know more about semi-forcing 1NT than I do so I'm not often asked. However, when asked next I will try to explain as clearly and in the spirit suggested by FH and gnasher.

[david_c]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 25 2009, 11:50 AM, said:

[...] Thus I think not explaining that 1NT may have four spades is misinformation, at least here.

I believe very strongly that you can not say it is 'general bridge knowledge' that 1NT may have four spades, it's a feature of your systemic agreements.

I would agree that it is not "general bridge knowledge". But does that necessarily mean it must be explained as part of the initial explanation? I would have thought that this is the sort of thing that would only be mentioned on further questioning by the opponents.

[FrancesHinden]

david_c, on Mar 25 2009, 05:32 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 25 2009, 11:50 AM, said:

[...] Thus I think not explaining that 1NT may have four spades is misinformation, at least here. 

I believe very strongly that you can not say it is 'general bridge knowledge' that 1NT may have four spades, it's a feature of your systemic agreements.

I would agree that it is not "general bridge knowledge". But does that necessarily mean it must be explained as part of the initial explanation? I would have thought that this is the sort of thing that would only be mentioned on further questioning by the opponents.

The problem is that they may not know they need to ask.
For many people (at least in this country) it simply wouldn't occur to them that you might not bid a four-card major here. Obviously there's a slightly fuzzy line between what you need to say and what is overkill:

i) 2C - 2D - 2NT
When asked about the 2NT rebid, I wouldn't bother saying that it might have four cards in either or both majors
ii) 1C - 1NT
If someone asked me about the 1NT bid I'd probably tell them it denies a 4-card major (and usually denies 4 diamonds for me) because if they need to ask what 1C - 1NT means, they probably need to have that detail in response.
iii) 1C - 1H - 1NT
When asked for range in England, I just say "12-14" and don't bother saying that it might have four spades. But in some countries I think I would need to specify that explicitly.

[david_c]

david_c, on Mar 25 2009, 06:32 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 25 2009, 11:50 AM, said:

[...] Thus I think not explaining that 1NT may have four spades is misinformation, at least here. 

I believe very strongly that you can not say it is 'general bridge knowledge' that 1NT may have four spades, it's a feature of your systemic agreements.

I would agree that it is not "general bridge knowledge". But does that necessarily mean it must be explained as part of the initial explanation? I would have thought that this is the sort of thing that would only be mentioned on further questioning by the opponents.

Actually, let me amend that. I should have said:

(i) If the bidding has gone 1♥ - 1NT, and the opponents ask about 1NT, then I would not expect the initial explanation to mention the possibility of a weak hand with 4 spades and 3 hearts.

(ii) Once the bidding has gone 1♥ - 1NT , 2m - 2♥, and the opponents ask what responder has shown, I do think it ought to be mentioned at this point.

[hanp]

I agree that it isn't always clear which negative inferences you should mention, obviously it is not possible to mention all. It is clear though that when asked to explain your bid you should go out of your way to explain all aspects of your agreement that might be useful of your opponents. It might not have occured to me to mention that I can have 4 spades here but it seems right to do so.

I must say that I do not recall ever being asked about my 1NT response, but I usually play on BBO against experienced bridge players.

[Stephen Tu]

It may be country dependent. In the UK bypassing spades may be a sufficiently uncommon treatment that it should be mentioned in the explanation.

But in the ACBL, bypassing four card majors to bid NT was judged to have become a sufficiently common occurrence on many sequences so that the ACBL specifically changed all of them to be unalertable some years ago. Which to me suggests that opps are expected to not make assumptions and protect themselves by asking specifically about whether they can be bypassed if they want to know about it, if your explanation didn't address the issue.

[ArtK78]

I found this discussion to border on silly in several instances. Some of the later posts have focused more on the main point - whether the fact that you choose not to bid a weak four card spade suit on this auction has to be announced as a main part of the explanation of 1NT forcing.

Earlier, there was one post that focused on the main issue here - the strength of the spade suit.

Quote

If you had KQJx-xxx-xxx-xxx would 1NTF still be the correct systemic answer?
A - If yes, then your system is that weak heart raise will not bid spades.
B - If not, then your system is that weak heart raise does not bid 4-card spades if the spades are bad.

I would rephrase comment B. It isn't that your "system" requires that you not bid a 4 card spade suit if the spades are bad and you have a weak raise to 2♥, but rather you won't bid a bad 4 card spade suit PERIOD.

There was a time - back in the Goren days of 4 card major suit openings - that no one would dream of responding 1♠ on 98xx of spades. The suit was not "biddable." Of course, many players would pass this hand anyway, since it is less than 6 HCP.

Today, almost anything goes. And, I admit, if my hand were 98xx xx xxxx KQx, I would respond 1♠ to a 1♥ opening, since I cannot afford to miss a 4-4 spade fit (I do not play Flannery unless forced to). But I would not quibble if a partner chose to bid 1NT on those cards, as the spade suit is very poor. It is a matter of judgment.

And that is the key here. For most players, whether to bid 1♠ or 1NT would be a matter of judgment. So, the correct explanation of the 1NT call is "Forcing." There really is not any more of an explanation needed. If specifically asked about the spade suit, one should say that it tends to deny a 4 card or longer holding in spades.

Just a side note. Many years ago, playing in a regional pair game at a North American Championship with a player I knew well but never partnered until that day, we had an auction where I opened 1♥ and he bid 1NT forcing. I don't remember where we wound up on the hand - the one thing about the hand that I do remember is that my partner had 6 spades to the Ace! Later, in going over the hands with a few other people, I found that someone else had done the same thing!

[peachy]

Stephen Tu, on Mar 25 2009, 12:55 PM, said:

It may be country dependent. In the UK bypassing spades may be a sufficiently uncommon treatment that it should be mentioned in the explanation.

But in the ACBL, bypassing four card majors to bid NT was judged to have become a sufficiently common occurrence on many sequences so that the ACBL specifically changed all of them to be unalertable some years ago. Which to me suggests that opps are expected to not make assumptions and protect themselves by asking specifically about whether they can be bypassed if they want to know about it, if your explanation didn't address the issue.

I must have somehow missed the change you are talking about (ACBL Alert regs). I thought it has never been alertable in ACBL.

[jdonn]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 25 2009, 12:39 PM, said:

david_c, on Mar 25 2009, 05:32 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 25 2009, 11:50 AM, said:

[...] Thus I think not explaining that 1NT may have four spades is misinformation, at least here. 

I believe very strongly that you can not say it is 'general bridge knowledge' that 1NT may have four spades, it's a feature of your systemic agreements.

I would agree that it is not "general bridge knowledge". But does that necessarily mean it must be explained as part of the initial explanation? I would have thought that this is the sort of thing that would only be mentioned on further questioning by the opponents.

The problem is that they may not know they need to ask.

The comparable problem is it wouldn't have even occured to me to mention it.

I disagree with your main point anyway. I strongly believe it qualifies as general bridge knowledge that anything which shows a fit in a major does not deny any particular length in any other suit.

[blackshoe]

I can't speak to prior alert regulations in the ACBL — I have enough trouble keeping up with the current ones. The current alert regulation does not address the question at hand, although it does say that if a natural 1NT response to 1♥ might bypass 4♠ that is not alertable.

On the question of explanations, the regulation says

Quote

When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient.
The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question.
Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically.
The proper way to ask for information is "please explain."

So when opponents ask after your announcement, you should give them all relevant information. Is the fact that responder might have bypaassed ♠ with four of them relevant? Well, it seems to me that the forcing (or not) nature of the 1NT response has nothing to do with whether spades are bypassed. The fact then that bypassing spades to bid a natural 1NT does not require an alert may indicate that the possibility is not relevant. OTOH, the fact that something is not alertable does not mean it need not be disclosed in response to a question.

The timing of the question is important, as well. It seems from the OP that opponents asked for an explanation of the auction after responder bid 2♥. At that point, assuming the partnership's methods are to disregard 4 card spades, or to disregard them if they're bad, when one has a raise of some kind, then I think that should be disclosed. It may or may not turn out to be relevant, but clearly the opponents in this case thought it was. Still, I have to agree with those who say upthread that this NS pair are being a bit bloody minded. Suppose declarer had the four spades. They would have ended in the same Moysian fit, I'm sure, and probably with the same result.

If I were to be convinced that the concept that a forcing 1NT response to 1♥ might conceal 4♠ is knowledge "generally known to bridge players" I would rule no infraction. As I am not entirely convinced of that, I would rule MI, but no consequent damage. Result stands. I would caution EW to ensure their explanations — generally, not just in this case — are as complete as they can make them.

[Cascade]

david_c, on Mar 26 2009, 06:32 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 25 2009, 11:50 AM, said:

[...] Thus I think not explaining that 1NT may have four spades is misinformation, at least here. 

I believe very strongly that you can not say it is 'general bridge knowledge' that 1NT may have four spades, it's a feature of your systemic agreements.

I would agree that it is not "general bridge knowledge". But does that necessarily mean it must be explained as part of the initial explanation? I would have thought that this is the sort of thing that would only be mentioned on further questioning by the opponents.

Yes

Law 40B6 said:

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply
to opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special
information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership
experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and
experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

All information needs to be disclosed that is not an inference that is generally known to bridge players.

[helene_t]

Cascade, on Mar 25 2009, 08:58 PM, said:

All information needs to be disclosed that is not an inference that is generally known to bridge players.

This is not realistic.

Suppose it goes
1♥-1NT
2♣*
and I alert 2♣ as potentially a 3-card, or even a doubleton if specifically 4522 and 15-16 points.

If I were to give opps all information that I have through partnership understanding, it would include:
- how weak he would have to be to pass my 1NT
- how strong he would have to be in order to rebid 3♣
- whether an invitational 2NT was available
- whether he might pass rather than bid 2♣ with some semi-balanced hands.
- on what kind of hands he would have opened 1NT rather than 1♥
- what kind of 5♥6♣ hands he would open 1♥ rather than 1♣
- what kind of 6♥4♣ hands he would have rebid 2♥ or 3♥ rather than 2♣

In particular, I would have to explain how my partner evaluates his hand, and what kind of tactical deviations from our agreements he sometimes makes.

Of course this goes further than the forcing 1NT response which might bypass a four-card spades, and it is possible that that needs to be explained without opps explicitly asking about it. I think that would depend on the local culture (and alert procedure).

[skjaeran]

ArtK78, on Mar 25 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

I found this discussion to border on silly in several instances. Some of the later posts have focused more on the main point - whether the fact that you choose not to bid a weak four card spade suit on this auction has to be announced as a main part of the explanation of 1NT forcing.

Earlier, there was one post that focused on the main issue here - the strength of the spade suit.

Quote

If you had KQJx-xxx-xxx-xxx would 1NTF still be the correct systemic answer?
A - If yes, then your system is that weak heart raise will not bid spades.
B - If not, then your system is that weak heart raise does not bid 4-card spades if the spades are bad.

I would rephrase comment B. It isn't that your "system" requires that you not bid a 4 card spade suit if the spades are bad and you have a weak raise to 2♥, but rather you won't bid a bad 4 card spade suit PERIOD.

There was a time - back in the Goren days of 4 card major suit openings - that no one would dream of responding 1♠ on 98xx of spades. The suit was not "biddable." Of course, many players would pass this hand anyway, since it is less than 6 HCP.

Today, almost anything goes. And, I admit, if my hand were 98xx xx xxxx KQx, I would respond 1♠ to a 1♥ opening, since I cannot afford to miss a 4-4 spade fit (I do not play Flannery unless forced to). But I would not quibble if a partner chose to bid 1NT on those cards, as the spade suit is very poor. It is a matter of judgment.

And that is the key here. For most players, whether to bid 1♠ or 1NT would be a matter of judgment. So, the correct explanation of the 1NT call is "Forcing." There really is not any more of an explanation needed. If specifically asked about the spade suit, one should say that it tends to deny a 4 card or longer holding in spades.

Just a side note. Many years ago, playing in a regional pair game at a North American Championship with a player I knew well but never partnered until that day, we had an auction where I opened 1♥ and he bid 1NT forcing. I don't remember where we wound up on the hand - the one thing about the hand that I do remember is that my partner had 6 spades to the Ace! Later, in going over the hands with a few other people, I found that someone else had done the same thing!

I don't know if I should view this post as ignorance, arrogance or both.

The fact is, though, that in many parts of the world, neither 5cM nor forcing NT is very popular or well-known. In those parts of the world, bypassing a 4-card spade suit would come as a huge surprise to a huge majority of the players. Thus, explaining explaining freely that the 1NT response can include a 4-card spade suit is absolutely neccesary.

[ArtK78]

skaeran, on Mar 25 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

I don't know if I should view this post as ignorance, arrogance or both.

My post was neither ignorant nor arrogant. But your comment was certainly inappropriate (I was going to use a stronger word more like the ones that you chose, but I refrained).

The rest of your post was a reasoned argument, with which I disagree. If by-passing the 4 card spade suit is not part of the partnership agreement, it does not have to be mentioned in any explanation of the partnership agreement. A player is allowed to exercise his judgment in choosing not to bid 98xx of spades over his partner's 1♥ opening. The fact that responder holds 4 spades will be just as much of a surprise to opener as it will be to the opponents. So, no such explanation is necessary.

[david_c]

Cascade, on Mar 25 2009, 08:58 PM, said:

All information needs to be disclosed that is not an inference that is generally known to bridge players.

Surely you are aware that that isn't how things work. People don't recite the entirety of their system notes every time a bid is made. Frances gave some nice examples of roughly where the "fuzzy" line is drawn. I don't have particularly strong feelings about whether the original agreement needs to be explained. But for you to deny that there is a line to be drawn at all, that just doesn't help anybody.

This post has been edited by david_c: 2009-March-25, 17:17

[Cascade]

david_c, on Mar 26 2009, 12:04 PM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 25 2009, 08:58 PM, said:

All information needs to be disclosed that is not an inference that is generally known to bridge players.

Surely you are aware that that isn't how things work. People don't recite the entirety of their system notes every time a bid is made. Frances gave some nice examples of roughly where the "fuzzy" line is drawn. I don't have particularly strong feelings about whether the original agreement needs to be explained. But for you to deny that there is a line to be drawn at all, that just doesn't help anybody.

I am not completely sure of what you mean by how things work.

What I quoted was what the law says and it says in response to a question you need to give all information.

I would want to be pretty sure that the information I was not giving about my non-standard bid was an inference that was drawn from the knowledge generally known to bridge players rather than my specific partnership understanding or experience before I deliberately concealed that information from the opponents.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Mar 26 2009, 09:49 AM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 25 2009, 08:58 PM, said:

All information needs to be disclosed that is not an inference that is generally known to bridge players.

This is not realistic.

It is what the law requires.

[Lobowolf]

Cascade, on Mar 25 2009, 08:04 PM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 26 2009, 09:49 AM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 25 2009, 08:58 PM, said:

All information needs to be disclosed that is not an inference that is generally known to bridge players.

This is not realistic.

It is what the law requires.

If we're talking about ACBL laws, I think there's clear support for the bidder here.

"During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made)" (20F)

"A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding." (21)


If whether or not the the responder might have 4 spades is relevant to your bidding decision, then you should ask whether or not the responder might have 4 spades.

[neilkaz]

This doesn't seem to be the majority opinion here, but honestly.. LOL at this crying declarer who's main concern really should be why they ended up in a 43 fit at the 3 level rather than blaming the opps on a very basic forcing NT sequence that likely occurs hundreds of times a day in bridge clubs across America.

Geez....if opener had 4♠ rather than responder the opps still get to suffer in their 43 fit vs a 42 break.

Now if responder had 2 hcp and 5♠ the opps might have something to gripe about to director. But here..well..just a big LOL

[peachy]

ArtK78, on Mar 25 2009, 05:03 PM, said:

[ If by-passing the 4 card spade suit is not part of the partnership agreement, it does not have to be mentioned in any explanation of the partnership agreement. A player is allowed to exercise his judgment in choosing not to bid 98xx of spades over his partner's 1♥ opening. The fact that responder holds 4 spades will be just as much of a surprise to opener as it will be to the opponents. So, no such explanation is necessary.

This is something that nobody has disagreed with, ie. when there is no agreement, there is nothing to explain. In the case this thread began with, there was an agreement.

Heh, two sentences which end with a preposition... not going to rearrange them...