[peachy]

Codo, on Jul 14 2009, 01:40 AM, said:

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

I hope you were not reading my comments as "we don't have to explain our agreement". I never said or meant that.

[gnasher]

In a competitive auction it seems pointless not to tell the opponents the information that they most need, which is what the possible hand types are.

If it goes (1NT) dbl (rdbl) or (1NT) 2S (2NT), the explanation "forces partner to bid 2/3♣" is completely useless to the opponents. Almost everybody would play different methods over
(a) Any weak one-suiter
than over
(b) Weak with clubs or various strong hands

If someone gave me an answer like that, I wouldn't call the director, but I would always ask a followup question, and I would wonder why I had been given such an unhelpful answer.

[helene_t]

Cascade, on Jul 13 2009, 10:37 PM, said:

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

So when my regular p opens a SA 1♦ and opps (who play a similar natural system but don't know the specifics of SA, let alone our style) ask what it means, I have to tell them immediately that:
- it denies a balanced 15-17, by which we evaluate the hand as 75% the strength in notrumps plus 25% the strength in a suit contract, and are slightly more likely to downgrade than upgrade.
- 6322 would be opened 1NT if the suit is weaker than AQT9xx or if we have positional stoppers in two sidesuits. Same for 2254 and 4252. 2452 also, and also if evaluates to less than an average 17. Also 4=4=4=1 and 1=4=4=4 if the singleton is an ace or a king, unless the diamonds contain 3 of the top 4 honours.
- Could include a 5-card major only if it has 6+ diamonds, and not if 5-6 reds with less than GF strength opposite a positive response if the hearts are better than the diamonds.
- etc etc (in total some 300 lines of text)

The law may say that but it has nothing to do with reality.

Of course I must tell them everything that is likely to be important to them if it is not something they would think of asking about otherwise. And also I should try to avoid the need for them to ask additional questions, since those additional questions might give me and my p information which we are not entitled to.

But if a call can be based on multiple weak and multiple strong variants, I think it is best to explain just the weak variants and add ".... or certain strong hands".

[cherdanno]

peachy, on Jul 13 2009, 08:27 PM, said:

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.

Sorry, but in my opinion you fail to understand the word 'agreement'. Due to your agreement, the 2NT bidder can only have a couple of specific hand types. That is an agreement, and you should explain it as it may be important for opponents.
(Just assume for a second that you haven't discussed the follow-up auction
2NT (3S) P (P)
X
I suppose the partner of the 2NT bidder will have a guess what kind of hands double shows. And that's because you have an agreement about what 2NT showed.)

[blackshoe]

Law 40B6{a} said:

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s inquiry (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.

That is the reality. That players disregard it, either willfully or through ignorance, does not make it any less real. Such players take the chance of running afoul of the second part of this law:

Law40B6{b} said:

The director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for an opponent’s choice of action and that opponent is thereby damaged.

Granted, "crucial" is a pretty stiff criterion. Still, it's clear that not doing as this law requires may well get you a director call and a score adjustment.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Jul 14 2009, 03:51 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 13 2009, 10:37 PM, said:

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

...
The law may say that but it has nothing to do with reality.

And I think he knows that...

[Lobowolf]

helene_t, on Jul 14 2009, 03:51 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 13 2009, 10:37 PM, said:

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

So when my regular p opens a SA 1♦ and opps (who play a similar natural system but don't know the specifics of SA, let alone our style) ask what it means, I have to tell them immediately that:
- it denies a balanced 15-17, by which we evaluate the hand as 75% the strength in notrumps plus 25% the strength in a suit contract, and are slightly more likely to downgrade than upgrade.
- 6322 would be opened 1NT if the suit is weaker than AQT9xx or if we have positional stoppers in two sidesuits. Same for 2254 and 4252. 2452 also, and also if evaluates to less than an average 17. Also 4=4=4=1 and 1=4=4=4 if the singleton is an ace or a king, unless the diamonds contain 3 of the top 4 honours.
- Could include a 5-card major only if it has 6+ diamonds, and not if 5-6 reds with less than GF strength opposite a positive response if the hearts are better than the diamonds.
- etc etc (in total some 300 lines of text)

I'm not sure that anyone is suggesting that. It seems to me the camps are those who (when asked about 1♦ by someone knowing nothing about SA) would say something like, "Generally 11-21 HCPs and at least 4 diamonds, 3 if specifically 4-4-3-2" and those who would say something like, "It's non-forcing."

[aguahombre]

Cascade, on Jul 13 2009, 05:56 PM, said:

"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.

That is more concise than my usual explanation, thanks --will use it.

And for the "other" lebensohl, after partner's reverse -- "Artificial, showing less than 9 HCP." (Stopping there, because it does not require a 3C response even though it requires some further action because of the reverse itself?)

[JoAnneM]

Yes, I meant 2c, sorry.

[helene_t]

Lobowolf, on Jul 14 2009, 04:03 PM, said:

It seems to me the camps are those who (when asked about 1♦ by someone knowing nothing about SA) would say something like, "Generally 11-21 HCPs and at least 4 diamonds, 3 if specifically 4-4-3-2" and those who would say something like, "It's non-forcing."

I think everybody would say something like your first version. In fact I would give a little more information if playing at the local club where everyone assumes weak notrump.

Anyway, it's a very far cry of "all information" that the 1♦ opening conveys to me otbo special agreements.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Jul 15 2009, 07:04 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jul 14 2009, 04:03 PM, said:

It seems to me the camps are those who (when asked about 1♦ by someone knowing nothing about SA) would say something like, "Generally 11-21 HCPs and at least 4 diamonds, 3 if specifically 4-4-3-2" and those who would say something like, "It's non-forcing."

I think everybody would say something like your first version. In fact I would give a little more information if playing at the local club where everyone assumes weak notrump.

Anyway, it's a very far cry of "all information" that the 1♦ opening conveys to me otbo special agreements.

I am not so sure. I frequently hear things as brief as "could be short as two" for a Standard American 1♣ opener or Precision 1♦.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jul 14 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 15 2009, 07:04 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jul 14 2009, 04:03 PM, said:

It seems to me the camps are those who (when asked about 1♦ by someone knowing nothing about SA) would say something like, "Generally 11-21 HCPs and at least 4 diamonds, 3 if specifically 4-4-3-2" and those who would say something like, "It's non-forcing."

I think everybody would say something like your first version. In fact I would give a little more information if playing at the local club where everyone assumes weak notrump.

Anyway, it's a very far cry of "all information" that the 1♦ opening conveys to me otbo special agreements.

I am not so sure. I frequently hear things as brief as "could be short as two" for a Standard American 1♣ opener or Precision 1♦.

That's because that is all that is required by ACBL regulations. It's an announcement, not an alert. Obviously if the opponents ask for the details, they should be given.

I know you're probably playing somewhere where ACBL regulations don't apply, I'm just saying that's why people explain those bids that way.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 15 2009, 09:01 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 14 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 15 2009, 07:04 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jul 14 2009, 04:03 PM, said:

It seems to me the camps are those who (when asked about 1♦ by someone knowing nothing about SA) would say something like, "Generally 11-21 HCPs and at least 4 diamonds, 3 if specifically 4-4-3-2" and those who would say something like, "It's non-forcing."

I think everybody would say something like your first version. In fact I would give a little more information if playing at the local club where everyone assumes weak notrump.

Anyway, it's a very far cry of "all information" that the 1♦ opening conveys to me otbo special agreements.

I am not so sure. I frequently hear things as brief as "could be short as two" for a Standard American 1♣ opener or Precision 1♦.

That's because that is all that is required by ACBL regulations. It's an announcement, not an alert. Obviously if the opponents ask for the details, they should be given.

I know you're probably playing somewhere where ACBL regulations don't apply, I'm just saying that's why people explain those bids that way.

I am not referring to announcements I am referrign to answers to questions.

My experience with ACBL announcements is purely online and pretty much they seem to be ignored. For example noone seems to announce their strong no trump and often not their transfers, and almost never their short 1♣.

[blackshoe]

Actually, the correct form of announcement for a minor opening that could be shorter than 3 cards is "could be short", not "could be as short as 2" or whatever.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Jul 14 2009, 10:10 AM, said:

Law 40B6{a} said:

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s inquiry (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.

That is the reality. That players disregard it, either willfully or through ignorance, does not make it any less real.

I think what confuses people is the vague "matters generally known to bridge players." For instance, in Helene's extreme example of explaining a 1♦ opening, many would consider all those details to be general bridge knowledge, and unnecessary to disclose explicitly. But her point is that this assumes the opponents are familiar with your basic system. Is there anything about bidding systems that can really be considered general bridge knowledge, especially in an international context like BBO? About the only thing I can think would fall under this is the approximate strength required in a partnership to expect a reasonable chance of making various contracts (e.g. about 25-26 combined HCP with balanced hands for 3NT). But even then, someone would need to know your system to know when a bid is to play rather than conventional.

What I think saves us from having to go into the details that Helene asks about is that there isn't really that much variation in bidding systems. They all fall under a few broad categories: 5-card majors, 4-card majors, strong ♣, Polish ♣, Canape, Strong/Weak/Mini NT, etc. If you know the basic approach of the opponent's system, you can generally make all the right inferences without requiring the opponents to spell them out. So all someone really needs to know about SA is that it's 5-card majors with strong NT.

[helene_t]

My point is more that I cannot disclose all the finer details of our understanding, such as which borderline hands p could or could not have. Not only because it would take too much time, but also because much of my perception of partner's calls is at the subconscious level.

We play a 2♣ opening as either weak with diamonds, or certain strong hands. That is exactly how I disclose it. Of course they can ask what those strong options are, but nobody has ever done so. They sometimes ask in next round when it has been revealed that my p has a strong hand. Of course I alert those strong rebids if they say something more than just a strong hand with length in the suit named.