another alert question and an oops
#381
Posted 2012-April-13, 19:53
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#382
Posted 2012-April-13, 23:04
kevperk, on 2012-April-13, 18:49, said:
Kevin
Precisely.
But much of the discussion in this thread has been about what constitutes "full description", and the argument (which recently was definitely shown to be in error) has been that "full description" includes description of the response structure.
If that had been the case then they would have been required to explain the response structure as part of their explanation of the bid itself, Most of us have always understood that this is untenable.
#383
Posted 2012-April-14, 07:57
pran, on 2012-April-13, 23:04, said:
Right, so the responses are described only in a reply to a further question. So what is all the fuss about? There seems to be no disagreement.
#384
Posted 2012-April-15, 07:30
kevperk, on 2012-April-13, 18:49, said:
Kevin
Then we agree 100%.
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#385
Posted 2012-April-15, 08:00
blackshoe, on 2012-April-13, 19:53, said:
Have we not been given (documented) evidence that descriptions of "answer" calls are not part of descriptions of their corresponding "asking" bids (See posts #366 and #367)?
Consequently when asking for an explanation of a bid requesting information from partner you are not entitled to information about the various calls that eventually will give this information.
Example: The explanation of RKCB 4NT may include the information (if relevant) that the bidder knows about second control in all suits (or he would not risk asking for aces) and that he is not void in any suit (or he would have used exclusion Blackwood instead). But this explanation does not include information on whether for instance a 5♣ response will show 0 or 1 Aces etc., that is part of the explanation of response calls (to be given after a response call has been made).
I thought this question was settled once and for all by reference to WBFLC minutes etc.?
#386
Posted 2012-April-15, 10:05
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#387
Posted 2012-April-15, 12:10
pran, on 2012-April-15, 08:00, said:
That example is a frequent situation around these parts. The majority of opponents know three possible explanations of 4NT:
--Regular Wood
--1430
--Quantitative (they don't use this one, but they know it exists)
So, when partner bids 4NT, the next player asks, "1430?". They are conditioned to think RKCB and 1430 are the same thing, yet we happen to be 0314 people. Regardless of the poor form of the question, I answer: "It asks for Key Cards in support of...". (Or, "No, it isn't asking for Keys at all; it is....")
Then, since they asked about 4NT earlier and did not receive an answer about what the responses will be, partner explains the response after the auction is over (or when they further inquire after the response has been made).
#388
Posted 2012-April-17, 09:15
bluejak, on 2012-February-21, 13:49, said:
If you are asked what 2NT is in response to a weak two you should say whether it is Ogust or a feature ask or whatever.
If both partners have that they play RKCB on their BBO profiles and convention cards, is a 4NT bid asking for key cards alertable? I was told by the TD that all artificial bids were alertable! ACBL documents do not support this ruling.
#389
Posted 2012-April-17, 10:12
jmuncie, on 2012-April-17, 09:15, said:
They were wrong. While most artificial bids are alertable, many common conventions are not, and Blackwood is one of them. The ACBL Alert Procedures specifically says:
Quote
However, whether a bid is alertable does not change your requirement to explain it properly if asked about it. If you play RKCB, you must not explain the the 4NT bid as just Blackwood.
#390
Posted 2012-April-17, 19:12
#391
Posted 2012-April-17, 21:15
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#392
Posted 2012-April-18, 00:46
Vampyr, on 2012-April-17, 19:12, said:
There is a very simple rule that should be easy to apply:
The explanation of a call should include everything that is relevant about that call as such, but nothing that can aid as a reminder on which response call to select.
In the case of Blackwood/RKCB or whatever 4NT is supposed to be this excludes everything that will remind responder whether to bid 5♣, 5♦, 5♥, 5♠ or any other call.
#393
Posted 2012-April-18, 02:47
1) There is no such rule. You may wish there was, but there isn't.
2 Your rule is hardly simple, since it is contradicting itself. The responses can be "relevant about the asking bid as such". Actually if your rule would really exist, you would not be able to explain that Stayman asks for a four card major, since that "can already aid as a reminder on which response call to select". (Someone might have bid 2♣ thinking that it asks for aces.)
Conclusion: It is good that your rule doesn't exist.
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#394
Posted 2012-April-18, 04:43
Trinidad, on 2012-April-18, 02:47, said:
1) There is no such rule. You may wish there was, but there isn't.
2 Your rule is hardly simple, since it is contradicting itself. The responses can be "relevant about the asking bid as such". Actually if your rule would really exist, you would not be able to explain that Stayman asks for a four card major, since that "can already aid as a reminder on which response call to select". (Someone might have bid 2♣ thinking that it asks for aces.)
Conclusion: It is good that your rule doesn't exist.
Rik
The rule definitely exists:
20F1 said:
Information on calls not yet made is not included in the list and is therefore explicitly excluded until after such (or alternative) call has been made. This understanding of the law has been confirmed in one of the WBFLC minutes (quoted earlier in this thread).
So in your case of Stayman: It is indeed part of the explanation that Stayman asks about possible four card major suit(s), but it is not part of this explanation for instance whether an answer bid in 2 ♥ can show spades in addition to hearts or shows hearts only, or whether an answer bid of 2NT shows both majors or a maximum strength NT opening bid without any of the majors.
#395
Posted 2012-April-18, 06:27
pran, on 2012-April-18, 04:43, said:
It is? Aren't you supposed to explain what hand types are included in the Stayman bid without reference to what opener may or may not show later?
-- Bertrand Russell
#396
Posted 2012-April-18, 11:59
mgoetze, on 2012-April-18, 06:27, said:
pran, on 2012-April-18, 04:43, said:
It is? Aren't you supposed to explain what hand types are included in the Stayman bid without reference to what opener may or may not show later?
Sure it is.
At the time opener's partner makes a Stayman bid he is (supposedly) not giving any information about his own hand, but his apparent interest in whether opener has a 4-card major suit is relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding.
How the opener is going to respond to this interest is (in case) to be explained after the response call has been made.
#397
Posted 2012-April-18, 13:08
pran, on 2012-April-18, 11:59, said:
Nonsense, of course he is giving information about his own hand.
-- Bertrand Russell
#398
Posted 2012-April-18, 13:49
#399
Posted 2012-April-18, 16:44
barmar, on 2012-April-18, 13:49, said:
Just so long as people choose to ignore:
kevperk, on 2012-April-06, 01:17, said: