[Stephen Tu]

So it seems the denizens of 4cM countries think it should be mentioned, while most of the Americans do not. I'll keep that in mind if I get a chance to play abroad.

But here in the U.S., 98% 5cM and maybe 66+% f1nt (varying considerably depending on whether you are in LM pairs or a 199er game, or somewhere in between), in my opinion this is just not a special partnership agreement. I've never explicitly discussed with any partner that responder to 1h can choose to bypass spades with certain hand types (weak raise, 6+ minor, maybe some 3cd limit raises), it's simply an implicit agreement that I think most good players here would assume. Just like one would not mention 5 or sometimes even 6 cd spades when holding a hand appropriate for 1h-2h. It just wouldn't occur for me to mention it to the opps unless they specifically asked, as in my mind it is not at all unusual here and not something that I would think of that would affect their choice of action. It's not a matter of "deliberately concealing an agreement", it's you don't think to mention it because it is so common & std among the people you play against, and it's not something that you think could change your opps mind. (Is he really supposed to do something different vs. a 0-3 spade action than a 0-4?)

Maybe a beginner doesn't know, but beginners don't know a lot of things. They shouldn't be assuming stuff, if they want to know something, they can ask specifically about it.

If this were truly a special understanding that opps need to be made aware of, then the ACBL shouldn't have made these things unalertable.

[whereagles]

Would anyone haggle against a short thing like

"5-12 hcp, wide range of hands, usually without a fit"

[Cascade]

Stephen Tu, on Mar 26 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

So it seems the denizens of 4cM countries think it should be mentioned, while most of the Americans do not. I'll keep that in mind if I get a chance to play abroad.

But here in the U.S., 98% 5cM and maybe 66+% f1nt (varying considerably depending on whether you are in LM pairs or a 199er game, or somewhere in between), in my opinion this is just not a special partnership agreement. I've never explicitly discussed with any partner that responder to 1h can choose to bypass spades with certain hand types (weak raise, 6+ minor, maybe some 3cd limit raises), it's simply an implicit agreement that I think most good players here would assume. Just like one would not mention 5 or sometimes even 6 cd spades when holding a hand appropriate for 1h-2h. It just wouldn't occur for me to mention it to the opps unless they specifically asked, as in my mind it is not at all unusual here and not something that I would think of that would affect their choice of action. It's not a matter of "deliberately concealing an agreement", it's you don't think to mention it because it is so common & std among the people you play against, and it's not something that you think could change your opps mind. (Is he really supposed to do something different vs. a 0-3 spade action than a 0-4?)

Maybe a beginner doesn't know, but beginners don't know a lot of things. They shouldn't be assuming stuff, if they want to know something, they can ask specifically about it.

If this were truly a special understanding that opps need to be made aware of, then the ACBL shouldn't have made these things unalertable.

Alerts and explanations are different things.

Just because you do not alert does not mean that you do not have to explain fully if asked.

The ACBL alert procedures say this about answering questions:

ACBL Alert Procedures said:

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."

To me it is clear that these are intended not just to cover alerted bids. The fact that the alert chart includes several bids that are ambiguous and not alerted suggests that one should anticipate questions on those bids.

Relevant to this case a non-forcing 1NT that might bypass a major does not need an alert. If I ask then I would expect to be told about the possibility of a major. I would expect the same about the forcing 1NT.

The alert procedures above require:

1. a full answer

2. more than "Forcing NT" that is just a name

3. All information should be given even if exactly the right question is not asked. That is it is no defense to say "Well he didn't ask about spades?" We are supposed to have enough nous to anticipate the potentially unexpected things in our system that the opponents might need to know.

4. The proper way to ask about a forcing 1NT (or any other bid or auction) is to ask "Please explain?"* A less proper way to ask about a forcing 1NT is to ask "Could that have a spade suit?". We would rightly have a case against the opponents if they phrased their questions in that manner and partner miraculously found the killing spade lead.

* I confess when I ask "Please explain the auction?" that I am amazed at the number of blank looks and severely deficient explanations that I get e.g. "I don't understand the question?" or occasionally one person explains half of the auction and they stop there.

Implicit agreements need to be explained in the same manner as explicit agreements. The fact that something is an implicit agreement does not allow you to hide it away from the opponents.

ACBL Alert Chart said:

Bridge is not a game of secret messages

Its quite simple if they ask explain and try and be helpful. Keeping secrets that you know but that the opponents might not know is against the laws and the spirit of the laws and regulations on disclosure.

[david_c]

Cascade, on Mar 26 2009, 02:04 AM, said:

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.

The point is that if you were to give literally "all the information" then that would be an awful lot of information. For describing an opening bid when playing with a regular partner, it would take many minutes. So that isn't what happens. It can't be.

Instead, you give an initial explanation, in one or two sentences, and the opponents can ask for more detail if they want it.

So it's not about "concealing" information. It's about which information is an essential part of the initial explanation, and which can be safely left until later.

Concealing a 4-card major is normally unusual enough that you would have to inform the oppoenents immediately, but it must depend on the context. If the bidding goes 1♣! : 1NT! in Precision, then I would accept "Shows a game-forcing balanced hand" as an initial explanation; I don't think people would assume it denies a 4-card major. The forcing NT may or may not be similar to this.

[mtvesuvius]

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.

So instead of announcing 15-17 for partner's 1NT opening if I was playing in a place where Weak NTs were common, I instead say: "He has 15-17 HCP, No 7+ card suit, He shouldn't have a 6 card major, but may have a 5 card major, No void, No singleton and is Balanced?"

[helene_t]

No, the opps understand that he usually doesn't have a singleton or a 6cM or 7cm. But you might have to explain the exact criteria for opening 1NT with a 5cM or with two doubletons, and you will have to explain exactly what you mean by "15-17" as you presumably use something more subtle than MW points. For example, you may upgrade 30% of 14-pointers and 20% of 17-pointers, and downgrade 5% of 15-pointers and 10% of 18-pointers.

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on Mar 26 2009, 04:48 AM, said:

* I confess when I ask "Please explain the auction?" that I am amazed at the number of blank looks and severely deficient explanations that I get e.g. "I don't understand the question?" or occasionally one person explains half of the auction and they stop there.

The other thing I get frequently is "well, he bid 1♣, and then..." I usually wait 'til they're done, then say "thank you for the review. Now please explain the auction." Probably "Now please explain what the auction means" would be better.

The thing that really gets to me is that often I (or the director) end up taking several minutes to explain what the question "please explain the auction" means — and then two weeks later I ask the same question of the same player, and I get the same blank look.

[helene_t]

A good way of phrasing the question is "what do you know about declarer's hand?". Only occasionally it will be relevant what information was available at an earlier stage.

[whereagles]

helene_t, on Mar 26 2009, 01:43 PM, said:

A good way of phrasing the question is "what do you know about declarer's hand?". Only occasionally it will be relevant what information was available at an earlier stage.

helene, that's what I usually do. Ask such a general question at the end.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Mar 27 2009, 02:39 AM, said:

The other thing I get frequently is "well, he bid 1♣, and then..." I usually wait 'til they're done, then say "thank you for the review. Now please explain the auction." Probably "Now please explain what the auction means" would be better.

This reminds me of one I got the other day when I was directing and the auction involved a redouble by the explainer (online so self explanations). The explanation was:

"you doubled i redoubled"

[Lobowolf]

The next director call, btw, comes when the opponents don't find their 8- or 9-card spade fit after you've (gratuitously?) explained that just because he bid 1NT doesn't mean that he doesn't have a spade suit.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

All information should be given even if exactly the right question is not asked. That is it is no defense to say "Well he didn't ask about spades?" We are supposed to have enough nous to anticipate the potentially unexpected things in our system that the opponents might need to know.

It is not practical to give *all* information. You want to miss the rest of the round any time anyone asks a question? You have to assume the opponent has a certain base of knowledge, you give him information that is peculiar to your partnership, positive inferences about the hand, and *unexpected* negative inferences. What that base of knowledge is obviously depends on the locale. If you have to give all the negative inferences, even those that are expected, common, undiscussed with partner, it is going to be very difficult or even impossible for you to remember them all, let alone explain them all to the opponent before the entire session is over!

My position is that in the U.S., the possibility of 4 spades shouldn't be unexpected. In another country where 4cH openings are common, then it is, and I'd agree it should be mentioned without the "right question being asked".

[skjaeran]

ArtK78, on Mar 25 2009, 11:03 PM, said:

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.

Well, I have to say I disagree with you. Several posters from different countries explained why one, where they play, really have to go into detail about the number of spades a forcing NT could contain. And after those you say that you find most of the later posts silly. It's hard for me to understand how that isn't ignorant or arrogant.

What you say about by-passing a 4-card spade when there's no agreement, I have no problem with at all. But that's not what was discussed at that point.

If I hurt your feelings in any way, so be it. I don't find my post inappropriate at all, in comparision with what I responded to.

[precpj]

glad to see the silimar bidding surface in many many vugraph shows on top level competition; this is another beauty of forcing 1NT : when you find a fit and less than 6 total support point 1nt chimes in

If i play Precision holding the weak hand I might even bid 1S - a psyche of course and alertable as " 1S could be a fit on heart very junky hand " The Precision 1H Open is 11-15 HCP 5 cards up>> the 1H 1S 4S sequence is vitually non existent

At the tables, I would admire your bidding . Before i go through all replies I would say Rock ON

Precpj