[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2012-July-04, 23:13, said:

Earlier I said that dummy explaining his own calls would be an irregularity. I will go further: even if "normally" were included as you suggest, the word "should" indicates that a player explaining the meanings of his own calls is an infraction of law, and again I would get the TD's permission before asking a player to do that - and if I was the player asked, I would call the TD myself.

It's very odd; I remembered that the law said "normally", and looked it up and found that it was there; now it is not.

But if you want to call the director, you will have to do it every time one of the declaring side explains the auction after it is over. Is that really practical?

[mjj29]

 Vampyr, on 2012-July-05, 00:24, said:

It's very odd; I remembered that the law said "normally", and looked it up and found that it was there; now it is not.

But if you want to call the director, you will have to do it every time one of the declaring side explains the auction after it is over. Is that really practical?

Given that (for the declaring side) if a mistake is made in the explanations then it must be corrected by the other player immediately, everyone shortcuts this to allow them just to explain straight away. Is it technically incorrect? Sure. Does it make the game run more smoothly to just have one player run through the whole thing rather than have to alternate? Definitely. Or allow dummy to answer and let declarer think (dummy hasn't got anything else to do). Or even to have the more eloquent of the pair give the answer. I certainly know I've played in partnerships where oppo are better informed if I give the explanations than if partner does.

[gnasher]

 mjj29, on 2012-July-05, 02:19, said:

Does it make the game run more smoothly to just have one player run through the whole thing rather than have to alternate?

Sometimes this can disadvantage the opponents. For example:

Player A bids 4NT, systemically a spade cue-bid, intended as a spade cue-bid, but interpreted by Player B as Keycard.
After the auction, Player A explains both partner's own bids.
Player B hears the explanation of 4NT, and realises that he has got the system wrong.
Player B has no legal obligation to tell anyone about his misunderstanding, so he doesn't.

If the players had each explained their partner's bids, the misunderstanding would have come to light. Hence the failure to follow proper procedure has benefited the explaining side.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2012-July-05, 00:24, said:

It's very odd; I remembered that the law said "normally", and looked it up and found that it was there; now it is not.

It was in the 1997 version of the Law.

[bluejak]

 barmar, on 2012-July-03, 09:22, said:

Because it seems disingenuous to answer almost every question with that type of answer, even if it's technically accurate.

Example: I sit down with someone and agree to play 2/1, no other discussion. Then we have the auction "1♣-1♠-1NT-2♦", and I alert the 2♦ bid. If asked, should I really say that we didn't discuss whether this was New Minor Forcing or not? As far as I'm concerned, this is implicitly part of the 2/1 system that we agreed to play (the only potential discussion point would have been to play 2-way Checkback instead of normal NMF), and I'm going to explain it as if we agreed on it.

Disingenuous, hey? Using long words to confuse poor little me.

I don't care whether it is disingenuous, whatever that means, I just dislike misinforming opponents. And I think the Laws are on my side in this matter.

 Vampyr, on 2012-July-04, 22:57, said:

Maybe you ignored it, but I did not. According to L20F1, explanations should normally be given by the partner of the player whose action is explained applies during the auction period only. And even if this were not the case, "normally" implies that it is done unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, as there would be here.

I was going to say - before someone pointed out it has disappeared from the Laws - that "normally" means in the opinion of the TD, so you should call him. It appears that the new Law has merely clarified this.

Of course there are times when you do not follow the Laws and no-one cares. But if I play against you, and I am declarer, and you refer all questions about our bidding to my partner whether they are calls I have made or she has made, I shall call the TD and say that you are being blatantly rude. Perhaps this is disingenuous of me, whatever that means, but why should you do so if not to upset declarer?

[barmar]

 bluejak, on 2012-July-06, 10:33, said:

Disingenuous, hey? Using long words to confuse poor little me.

I don't care whether it is disingenuous, whatever that means, I just dislike misinforming opponents. And I think the Laws are on my side in this matter.

Disingenuous = insincere, typically by pretending that one knows less than one actually does.

That seems to be the right word for this -- you believe you have an agreement, but claim to be unsure.

If you're wrong about having the agreement, that's a different problem.

[bluejak]

When you have made an agreement to play 2/1 GF I think that you have not agreed to play 2-way NMF - or even NMF - because not everyone does, it is not automatic. It may be a reasonable guess that you are. But to give the accurate response instead of an inaccurate response seems to me badly described as disingenuous, if that is what it means. Of course, since you are probably going to guess what partner's 2m means, you could expand the answer. So

"We just agreed to play 2/1 GF, which I believe includes New Minor Forcing" is a fairly helpful and accurate answer, but

"That is New Minor Forcing" is misinformation.

[barmar]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In the US, I've never yet encountered a player who didn't include 1-way NMF as a default convention in 2/1 GF; as far as I'm concerned, these are universally linked among ACBL 2/1 players, along with Jacoby 2NT, Forcing 1NT, and 4th Suit Forcing to game. While many of them may have other agreements in their regular partnerships, they'll assume these defaults when sitting down with a new partner and just agreeing on "2/1". If there's time for discussion, the question is never "do you play NMF?", but "Do you play 2-way NMF?" -- if the answer is "no" the implication is that you play 1-way NMF.

Yes, "We agreed to play 2/1, which I believe includes NMF" may be more accurate, but I'm not so sure it's more helpful. It suggests more uncertainty than I think is appropriate, and that may be misleading. How is the opponent supposed to judge how likely it is that my belief is correct, if they have less experience with ACBL players than I do? They're pretty much forced to assume I'm right, so I might as well have said "It's NMF".

On the other hand, I suppose the opponent might know my new partner better than I do, and know what he considers default conventions in 2/1. So knowing that we didn't discuss this specifically could be useful to that opponent.

To the pedants: in the above, please assume that where I used NMF in an explanation that I give the actual explanation, not just the convention name, and I was just abbreviating to keep the post size reasonable.

[blackshoe]

Well, you can say you've encountered one now. Given a choice, I would play Two Way Checkback Stayman as defined by George Rosenkranz in Our Man Godfrey, but at the moment I play no form of checkback at all with the three different players with whom I play 2/1 GF.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2012-July-06, 17:45, said:

Well, you can say you've encountered one now. Given a choice, I would play Two Way Checkback Stayman as defined by George Rosenkranz in Our Man Godfrey, but at the moment I play no form of checkback at all with the three different players with whom I play 2/1 GF.

What you play with regular partners is not relevant, what matters is what you would assume as a default with a new partner and no specific discussion of that section of the CC. E.g. you're a kibitzer, and hear an announcement that they need someone to fill in for a player who just took ill, so you volunteer your services. You take your place and your new partner suggests "2/1 Game Forcing, 4-way transfers, 1430, UDCA, OK?", you say "Yes", and start bidding.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2012-July-07, 14:31, said:

What you play with regular partners is not relevant, what matters is what you would assume as a default with a new partner and no specific discussion of that section of the CC. E.g. you're a kibitzer, and hear an announcement that they need someone to fill in for a player who just took ill, so you volunteer your services. You take your place and your new partner suggests "2/1 Game Forcing, 4-way transfers, 1430, UDCA, OK?", you say "Yes", and start bidding.

My point was that I don't "include NMF as a default convention in 2/1". I would not assume it with a pickup partner (generally, I don't assume anything with a pickup partner).

[Vampyr]

 gnasher, on 2012-July-05, 05:41, said:

Sometimes this can disadvantage the opponents. For example:

Player A bids 4NT, systemically a spade cue-bid, intended as a spade cue-bid, but interpreted by Player B as Keycard.
After the auction, Player A explains both partner's own bids.
Player B hears the explanation of 4NT, and realises that he has got the system wrong.
Player B has no legal obligation to tell anyone about his misunderstanding, so he doesn't.

If the players had each explained their partner's bids, the misunderstanding would have come to light. Hence the failure to follow proper procedure has benefited the explaining side.

Well, if you do it blackshoe's way misunderstandings/misexplanations by declarer would come to light, but not until the hand is over.

So perhaps it is best if we all do what we already do, which is let dummy make corrections if necessary.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2012-July-07, 19:38, said:

My point was that I don't "include NMF as a default convention in 2/1". I would not assume it with a pickup partner (generally, I don't assume anything with a pickup partner).

That must make for lots of difficult situations when you play without decent time to discuss. Not just in disclosure, but the fact that you have no idea what many of your auctions mean.

Or do you just avoid the situation where you don't have time to discuss system (i.e. you would never have volunteered in the above example)?

[blackshoe]

II would, and have, volunteered to fill in. I generally would answer "okay, but anything we haven't discussed is natural" to the question you posed. If we get into a problem because my partner assumes some agreement we haven't discussed, well, shame on him.

[gnasher]

 barmar, on 2012-July-08, 13:16, said:

That must make for lots of difficult situations when you play without decent time to discuss. Not just in disclosure, but the fact that you have no idea what many of your auctions mean.

Disclosure isn't at all difficult. You alert, and when asked say "We only had time to agree 2/1 Game Forcing, 4-way transfers, 1430, UDCA; it's possible that this is intended as conventional." Then the opponents have exactly as much information as you do.

The only time you should go any further than this is if you know more about your partner than the opponents do. For instance, if the opponents are visiting from Australia, you might add something about what people usually play.