[gnasher]

I really dislike the assumption that an explanation can be expected to help the explainer's partner. Hearing your partner's explanation can only be helpful if you're dishonest. When an honest player hears his partner's explanation, either it has no effect (because he already thought it meant that) or it constrains his actions (because he thought it meant something else, or he didn't know what it meant).

That is a much better reason for phrasing your explanations in a way that describes the bid and not the continuations. If you're in the midst of a misunderstanding, it's best to have as little UI as possible.

[helene_t]

gnasher, on Jul 12 2009, 11:15 PM, said:

I really dislike the assumption that an explanation can be expected to help the explainer's partner. Hearing your partner's explanation can only be helpful if you're dishonest.

Right. It can create an ethical dilemma, though.

[Fluffy]

gnasher, on Jul 12 2009, 10:15 PM, said:

Hearing your partner's explanation can only be helpful if you're dishonest.

I would never call the old ladies at my local dishonest (I would risk being hit by an umbrella). But I am pretty sure they will get advantage of every bit of information they can gather, no matter what the source is.

[JoAnneM]

It seems like with the auction 1nt-x-xx, the explanation "forces 3c" should be the only explanation necessary because that is the exact agreement for the bid. You don't really know what partner might do next. It's usually a pass, but it's not guaranteed.

[helene_t]

JoAnneM, on Jul 13 2009, 06:52 PM, said:

It seems like with the auction 1nt-x-xx, the explanation "forces 3c" should be the only explanation necessary because that is the exact agreement for the bid. You don't really know what partner might do next. It's usually a pass, but it's not guaranteed.

(Assuming you meant 2♣ rather than 3♣.)

Disagree.

As a defender I would like to know if it always shows clubs, or all weak variants include clubs. If that is the case, I can bid 2♣ showing both majors (or whatever our generic agreement is for cuebids against transfers).

I probably don't want to know that it forces 2♣. XX'er will alert his partner's 2♣ bid and if I don't know what that means, I can ask, and he will say that it is mandatory. So explaining the XX as "forces 2♣" is helpful only in the event that
1) my action over the XX depends on whether 1NTxx may be passed out. For that purpose, "forcing" is sufficient.
2) my action over the XX depends on whether opener may deprive my p from space to bid 2♦/♥/♠. That is unlikely.

So "forces to 2♣" is at best no more informative than "forcing", and at worst misleading (because some inexperient players may think it means that it shows clubs, which it probably doesn't).

[jdonn]

In that case it is simple to say "forces 2♣, could be a bunch of different hands" and clarify if asked.

[aguahombre]

"XX forces 2C and starts a runout with just clubs, just diamonds, or both majors." that seems to be an adequate explanation which doesn't go overboard about future bids and doesn't take much time. If it is true

[Fluffy]

Hope this is not offtopic:

if the bidding starts

pass-(1♦)-pass-(1NT)
2♦

should I alert my opponents that we play a (very rare where we play) 2♦ opening for a weak hand with both majors?

[barmar]

The phrase "asking bid" does not, IMHO, include bids like this redouble. An asking bid is one that asks a specific question and the answer is encoded in partner's next bid, e.g. Ogust or Blackwood. A bid that "asks partner to bid XXX" (e.g. Lebensohl or the redouble that starts a runout) is a puppet or marionette.

The tricky case is a bid that starts a runout sequence where each partner is supposed to bid 4+-card suits up the line, in the hope of finding a 4-3 fit to stop at. I guess this would show a balanced hand, usually weak.

[peachy]

JoAnneM, on Jul 13 2009, 12:52 PM, said:

It seems like with the auction 1nt-x-xx, the explanation "forces 3c" should be the only explanation necessary because that is the exact agreement for the bid. You don't really know what partner might do next. It's usually a pass, but it's not guaranteed.

I agree.
If they play that XX forces 2C regardless of what suits 1NT opener has, then it is the same class of bid as Lebensohl 2NT which forces partner to bid 3C. It is a relay. Speculating on what the relayer might have is an unnecessary part of the explanation, but if opponent asks "what kind of hands use the relay" then it will be a lengthy answer in case of Lebensohl while in case of 1NT (X) XX the answer is shorter = runout to some suit.

[Cascade]

Fluffy, on Jul 13 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 12 2009, 10:15 PM, said:

Hearing your partner's explanation can only be helpful if you're dishonest.

I would never call the old ladies at my local dishonest (I would risk being hit by an umbrella). But I am pretty sure they will get advantage of every bit of information they can gather, no matter what the source is.

If the source is not authorized to them and they know that then that is dishonest whether or not you want to call them that.

The laws of bridge require active avoidance of UI to play by the rules. Yes sometimes you might get that wrong - it is hard to always know where the boundaries are. (Sometimes the directors and appeal committees get these things horribly wrong). But to always take advantage of the UI is to knowingly be dishonest.

[Cascade]

JoAnneM, on Jul 14 2009, 05:52 AM, said:

It seems like with the auction 1nt-x-xx, the explanation "forces 3c" should be the only explanation necessary because that is the exact agreement for the bid. You don't really know what partner might do next. It's usually a pass, but it's not guaranteed.

Disagree.

This is deliberately hiding information from the opponents.

I also disagree with Josh who seems to think that you need to wait for the opponents to ask subsequent questions before giving them all of the information.

The laws require all information in response to the initial question.

[Lobowolf]

Cascade, on Jul 13 2009, 04:37 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on Jul 14 2009, 05:52 AM, said:

It seems like with the auction 1nt-x-xx, the explanation "forces 3c" should be the only explanation necessary because that is the exact agreement for the bid.  You don't really know what partner might do next.  It's usually a pass, but it's not guaranteed.

Disagree.

This is deliberately hiding information from the opponents.

I also disagree with Josh who seems to think that you need to wait for the opponents to ask subsequent questions before giving them all of the information.

The laws require all information in response to the initial question.

I agree with this in principle, and with respect to the 1NT-(X)-XX auction, I think the response should be that it's a relay to 2♣, showing a weak one-suited hand with any suit (if that's what it is, of course).

But if the bid were a 2NT Lebensohl call, after, say, 1NT-(2♥), I'd say that it's a relay to 3♣, and shows a wide variety of hands, and ask if they wanted to know, or wait for me to explain the next bid. I think it invites confusion to say that it could be intending to pass 3♣, or bid a new suit, which would be weak if diamonds, but invitational if spades, or perhaps to show 4 spades with a heart stopper, or to show values for 3NT, but deny a spade suit and show a heart stopper...you get the idea.

But "Weak 1-suiter with any suit"? You know it, it's fast and simple to explain, and you should tell the opponents. They already asked. It's not what the bid asks partner to do; it's what the bid reveals about the bidder's hand, and his partner should let the opponents in on it.

[jdonn]

Just one more case where common sense dictates not following a completely literal reading of the laws. I should make a list.

Best case scenario: I say "relay to 2♣, could be a bunch of different types of hands" and the opponents call the director because I didn't give all information the first time asked. I will have a hard time stopping laughing when the director asks me if it's true.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Jul 13 2009, 05:24 PM, said:

Just one more case where common sense dictates not following a completely literal reading of the laws. I should make a list.

Best case scenario: I say "relay to 2♣, could be a bunch of different types of hands" and the opponents call the director because I didn't give all information the first time asked. I will have a hard time stopping laughing when the director asks me if it's true.

I see obvious advantages to "could be a bunch of different types of hands" as compared to a much more convoluted explanation (as in Lebensohl).

I don't see the advantage when the full explanation "any weak 1-suiter" is more brief than the vague one.

[Cascade]

Lobowolf, on Jul 14 2009, 09:48 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 13 2009, 04:37 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on Jul 14 2009, 05:52 AM, said:

It seems like with the auction 1nt-x-xx, the explanation "forces 3c" should be the only explanation necessary because that is the exact agreement for the bid.  You don't really know what partner might do next.  It's usually a pass, but it's not guaranteed.

Disagree.

This is deliberately hiding information from the opponents.

I also disagree with Josh who seems to think that you need to wait for the opponents to ask subsequent questions before giving them all of the information.

The laws require all information in response to the initial question.

I agree with this in principle, and with respect to the 1NT-(X)-XX auction, I think the response should be that it's a relay to 2♣, showing a weak one-suited hand with any suit (if that's what it is, of course).

But if the bid were a 2NT Lebensohl call, after, say, 1NT-(2♥), I'd say that it's a relay to 3♣, and shows a wide variety of hands, and ask if they wanted to know, or wait for me to explain the next bid. I think it invites confusion to say that it could be intending to pass 3♣, or bid a new suit, which would be weak if diamonds, but invitational if spades, or perhaps to show 4 spades with a heart stopper, or to show values for 3NT, but deny a spade suit and show a heart stopper...you get the idea.

But "Weak 1-suiter with any suit"? You know it, it's fast and simple to explain, and you should tell the opponents. They already asked. It's not what the bid asks partner to do; it's what the bid reveals about the bidder's hand, and his partner should let the opponents in on it.

I don't see the problem.

"Weak with a lower ranking suit, Invitational with a higher ranking suit, or strong with a heart stopper" and if necessary whatever else seems easily understood and no trouble to me.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 14 2009, 10:24 AM, said:

Just one more case where common sense dictates not following a completely literal reading of the laws. I should make a list.

Best case scenario: I say "relay to 2♣, could be a bunch of different types of hands" and the opponents call the director because I didn't give all information the first time asked. I will have a hard time stopping laughing when the director asks me if it's true.

Unfortunately you don't get to choose where you are allowed to follow the laws and where you are allowed to ignore them.

[mycroft]

"forcing, artificial. Start of a runout with <list hands>." For me, "forcing, artificial. Unspecified one-suited runout." 2C gets Alerted as "non-forcing, artificial. Forced; 'pass or correct.'"

"forces 2C" is a) useless, because it doesn't say anything about strength or suit; tells partner what you are going to do; and c) is not your agreement about the hand - just what you're supposed to do this round. You know what hands XX; the opponents are entitled to that information.

The people who bid 1NT-2S "transfer to clubs" when in fact it's a bad hand in either minor drive me nuts for the same reason. "asking me to bid 3C" doesn't say anything. "either minor, weak or slamtry+" does - especially when I have clubs myself.

I feel uncomfortable explaining Lebensohl 2NT, because the hand types are so varied. I do try to cheat with the convention name - but it still is "Lebensohl, shows a wide variety of hands. I can enumerate them for you if you wish." "Forces 3C" is a really, really, wrong explanation for Lebensohl 2NT.

[peachy]

mycroft, on Jul 13 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

I feel uncomfortable explaining Lebensohl 2NT, because the hand types are so varied. I do try to cheat with the convention name - but it still is "Lebensohl, shows a wide variety of hands. I can enumerate them for you if you wish." "Forces 3C" is a really, really, wrong explanation for Lebensohl 2NT.

The 2NT (Lebensohl) does not SHOW any hand or hand type; only the followup after the forced 3C does the showing. I think a simple "forces partner to bid 3C" is fine and if opponents ask "what type of hand would he have to use the Lebensohl 2NT" then the answer is going to be a long one and still does not inform the opponents what hand type the 2NT is showing because the possibilities are numerous and in fact, again, it is not SHOWING anything, it is making a command to partner to bid 3C without even looking at his hand.

[Codo]

peachy, on Jul 14 2009, 10:27 AM, said:

The 2NT (Lebensohl) does not SHOW any hand or hand type; only the followup after the forced 3C does the showing. I think a simple "forces partner to bid 3C" is fine and if opponents ask "what type of hand would he have to use the Lebensohl 2NT" then the answer is going to be a long one and still does not inform the opponents what hand type the 2NT is showing because the possibilities are numerous and in fact, again, it is not SHOWING anything, it is making a command to partner to bid 3C without even looking at his hand.

This statement would only be true when you have no implied or explicit agreement how to use Lebensohl.

Maybe this is true for you, but it is surely not true for anybody else.

And when you have an agreement, you have to explain it.

Whether this explanation in practice is just "Lebensohl" and claryfing after being asked or a complete statement depends on you and your opps.

When I play competent opps from my own country and a fairly normal Lebensohl structure, the one word will be enough. Against lesser players or people from other places who may have a different understanding of Lebensohl, I would try to explain it in one sentence like Wayne did.