[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2011-September-26, 08:32, said:

Supposing I was playing against you and I asked about your methods. I might notice with interest the word “usually” and because of that might ask more to elicit what was going on.

What right would you have to suggest this is "about asking multiple questions with a reasonable hand to try to induce a pass"? If you suggested that I would put in a formal complaint to the EBU L&EC about this unjustified and unjustifiable accusation.

It would never occur to me that you were going to pass a forcing pass and the idea that I would be trying to induce a pass I consider nonsensical and offensive.

People ask questions because they want to know what is going on.

I should have been clearer.

To me this is fine:

"forcing usually to a redouble"
"usually ?"
"yes I can bid 2 of a suit if I feel like it"

But this isn't if you have a decent flat hand that would like to defend 1Nx and has no desperate wish to play anywhere else in particular (the man has said it's forcing, why ask again):

"forcing usually to a redouble"
"usually ?"
"yes I can bid 2 of a suit if I feel like it"
"but I'm absolutely 100% guaranteed another bid"
"yes"

I think you should at least be asked the question as to why you asked the follow up.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2011-September-26, 07:13, said:

Why shouldn't East ask?

Why shouldn't one take one's time to decide how to signal with a doubleton, or think about the hand in general before playing a singleton? Given the clear warning at 3E5, E's actions are a breach of L73D2 - that is if we agree with the spin put on them in the OP. We might say that S protests to distract attention from his own operation, and laugh how he was hoist by his own petard. But even the guilty have a right to due process.

[bluejak]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-26, 08:52, said:

I should have been clearer.

To me this is fine:

"forcing usually to a redouble"
"usually ?"
"yes I can bid 2 of a suit if I feel like it"

But this isn't if you have a decent flat hand that would like to defend 1Nx and has no desperate wish to play anywhere else in particular (the man has said it's forcing, why ask again):

"forcing usually to a redouble"
"usually ?"
"yes I can bid 2 of a suit if I feel like it"
"but I'm absolutely 100% guaranteed another bid"
"yes"

I think you should at least be asked the question as to why you asked the follow up.

How about "I play 2♦ different from pass then 2♦" [which I do]? I still cannot see this business of inducing an opponent to tell lies by asking questions.

If you play it as forcing you play it as forcing and my asking questions does not affect that, and if it does, that is your own stupidity. But the suggestion I ask questions so that you shall pass a forcing call is from the planet Zarg.

[mrdct]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-26, 08:10, said:

I open a lot more slightly unusual weak no trumps than my partner, not flat out psyches but little distortions (xx, Q10xx, xx, AKQ9x which he would open 1♣ for example yesterday in 3rd seat to shut out the spades). This means that I do something other than redouble (I'd bid 2♣ here if 1N-x came back to me) much more often than he does, and I don't think he'd ever pass out 1Nx while I have 2 or 3 times in 15 years.

While our system agreement is the same for both of us, our propensity for bending system agreements is different, meaning that even though we would both pull 1Nx on the same hands, he wouldn't have opened 1N in the first place with many of them, meaning the odds at the table of something other than a redouble are different.

A side effect is that I explain his forcing pass subtly differently to the way he explains mine. I explain his as "forcing usually to a redouble", he explains mine as "forcing to a redouble". I don't think this has been a conscious decision by either of us up to this point, it just comes out like that.

How close does this come to breaking the "both partners must play the same system" requirement.

I'm not expert on EBU requirements, but flicking through the Orange Book, I think you are OK:

10 A 2: Both members of a partnership must have the same bidding agreements and play the same system of leads, signals and discards.

4 D 5: The two members of a partnership may play a different style from each other, for example while opening pre-empts one player may take more liberties with suit quality than the other. Such differences in style should be explained in answer to a question, and, where suitable, disclosed on the convention card.

However, you do need to be careful with your disclosure obligations, starting with indicating on your convention card the different styles adopted for your 1NT openings and the implications this has on your escape mechanism after you've been doubled.

You also need to be careful with using the term "forcing" in the EBU as it is regulated there that if the term is used without qualification it must convey that the forcing nature is based on strength, refer:

3 B 6: ‘Forcing’ means a call which a partnership has agreed cannot be passed. Forcing, without qualification, means forcing from strength. If a forcing bid might be made with a weak hand, a player must qualify any explanation to make this clear.

3 B 7: Whilst all agreements must be disclosed, they do not constitute an undertaking to the opposition. For instance, a player is quite entitled to pass a forcing bid, as long as the partnership has no agreement that this might happen.

Under EBU regulations, if you have a partnership agreement that partner's forcing pass can be passed you must explicitly disclose that agreement in your explanation.

I'm not sure what your 1NT escape mechanism is, but if there are negative inferences from responder's failure to redouble or bid a suit at the two level, this should also be disclosed in your explanation of the pass. For example, if you play something like SWINE where single-suiters redouble as a puppet to 2♣ you need to describe responder's pass as something like, "pass asks me to redouble which he's either going to pass to play or bid the lower of his two-suits, so he's either a hand suitable to play 1NTxx or a weak two-suiter; but if I've got a good suit of my own I can bid that rather than redouble and I could even pass 1NTx".

[Cyberyeti]

What we normally actually do is say that pass is forcing (usually) to a redouble and ask if they want more info on hand types. Normally that redouble is forcing is all they need to know at this stage.

We do not have an agreement that the forcing pass can be passed, nor sufficient behaviour to indicate a CPU unless you consider 2 or 3 times in 15 years to be that.

[mrdct]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-27, 00:52, said:

What we normally actually do is say that pass is forcing (usually) to a redouble and ask if they want more info on hand types. Normally that redouble is forcing is all they need to know at this stage.

I don't think that's adequate disclosure. The pass by responder carries with it some quite detailed information about the sorts of hand-types it may include that your opponents could not reasonably be expected to work-out for themselves and, indeed, by only saying that it's "forcing (usually) to a redouble" it could quite easily be miscontrued as showing strength which certainly isn't always the case.

Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-27, 00:52, said:

We do not have an agreement that the forcing pass can be passed, nor sufficient behaviour to indicate a CPU unless you consider 2 or 3 times in 15 years to be that.

The Orange Book requirement is that you must have "no agreement that this might happen" which seems to contemplate even the rarest of transgressions from the "forcing" nature of responder's pass. You are probably right that 2 or 3 times in 15 years wouldn't lead to a CPU, but if you've actually discussed it with your partner or your partner happens to read this forum, it's starting to look like an agreement to me.

Adding to my earlier comments about members of a partnership playing a different style from each other, I must say that in the real world there are plenty of partnerships, including some fairly high-profile partnerships, where the two players do have quite different pre-empting styles in particular, but I can't recall ever seeing that disclosed on a convention card for a major event. If anyone can dig-up an example I'd be pleased to see it.

[Cyberyeti]

If you can find anybody in the UK (and possibly the world) that plays this pass as always showing strength, I'll buy you an e-beer, I think (particularly in the UK where it's fairly common) unless you're a complete beginner you will know that this is "to play in 1Nxx or some variety of weak hands", so while it would not be complete disclosure, it suffices as it would be nigh on impossible to claim damage.

You can hardly write on the convention card the real situation as regards this pass, which is that it's forcing unless RHO shows a lot of discomfort and asks several questions to ensure that I'm definitely going to bid again.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-27, 00:52, said:

We do not have an agreement that the forcing pass can be passed, nor sufficient behaviour to indicate a CPU unless you consider 2 or 3 times in 15 years to be that.

That depends. If you passed it out in years 2, 7 and 12, I agree that you probably have no agreement to do this. If, on the other hand, you had 13 years of always redoubling, followed by two years during which you passed three times, that sounds like an agreement.

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2011-September-27, 03:35, said:

That depends. If you passed it out in years 2, 7 and 12, I agree that you probably have no agreement to do this. If, on the other hand, you had 13 years of always redoubling, followed by two years during which you passed three times, that sounds like an agreement.

No argument with that, it is the former.

[barmar]

mrdct, on 2011-September-27, 01:26, said:

I don't think that's adequate disclosure. The pass by responder carries with it some quite detailed information about the sorts of hand-types it may include that your opponents could not reasonably be expected to work-out for themselves and, indeed, by only saying that it's "forcing (usually) to a redouble" it could quite easily be miscontrued as showing strength which certainly isn't always the case.

He said he provides more details if they want them. Many opponents are familiar with the basics of common NT runout systems, so they don't need the full details immediately. In particular, what the "pass forces redouble" systems usually have in common is that you won't know whether responder has a good or bad hand until his NEXT call (if he passes the redouble, he has the good one).

[mrdct]

barmar, on 2011-September-27, 16:33, said:

He said he provides more details if they want them. Many opponents are familiar with the basics of common NT runout systems, so they don't need the full details immediately. In particular, what the "pass forces redouble" systems usually have in common is that you won't know whether responder has a good or bad hand until his NEXT call (if he passes the redouble, he has the good one).

The problem is that in the EBU if a forcing call includes a weak option you are required to explicitly qualify your explanation to make that clear. Even if this is a common treatment in the UK, where I guess weak 1NT openings are fairly prevalent, the disclosure requirements of the Regulatory Authority still need to be followed.

[barmar]

mrdct, on 2011-September-27, 20:36, said:

The problem is that in the EBU if a forcing call includes a weak option you are required to explicitly qualify your explanation to make that clear. Even if this is a common treatment in the UK, where I guess weak 1NT openings are fairly prevalent, the disclosure requirements of the Regulatory Authority still need to be followed.

So when you explain a transfer, you have to explicitly mention that he might have a weak hand? And what's the typical way to explain Lebensohl?

[mrdct]

barmar, on 2011-September-28, 00:49, said:

So when you explain a transfer, you have to explicitly mention that he might have a weak hand? And what's the typical way to explain Lebensohl?

Bear in mind that I'm only talking about the EBU here (a jurisdiction in which I've never played or directed) which seems to have a pretty clear regulation that if you describe a call as forcing and it could be weak, you need to say so. I strongly suspect that this regulation isn't strictly enforced for practical reasons, but don't have any evidence to back that up.

In describing a transfer, in any jurisdiction, I would never use the F-word and would simply describe it as "transfer to Y"; although when I'm playing a system which includes transfers on 4-card suits I say, "that shows 4+ Xs".

As for Lebensohl, if I'm playing against people who understand Lebensohl, I will simply say "Lebensohl", but if I have any doubt about whether my opponents understand it, I will give a detailed explanation along the lines of, "that's asking me to bid 3♣ which he's either going pass if he's weak with ♣, bid a new suit non-forcing or show a GF hand in which case he'll have a stopper in X".

[mjj29]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-27, 02:35, said:

If you can find anybody in the UK (and possibly the world) that plays this pass as always showing strength, I'll buy you an e-beer, I think (particularly in the UK where it's fairly common) unless you're a complete beginner you will know that this is "to play in 1Nxx or some variety of weak hands", so while it would not be complete disclosure, it suffices as it would be nigh on impossible to claim damage.

I've certainly heard of people who play XX=to play and P=forces XX, also to play, depending on which of the opponents you'd rather put on the spot - but I wouldn't be able to give you a name (and the story _might_ be apocryphal)

[Zelandakh]

Why not simply describe the pass as:
"Partner has either a hand that wants to play 1NT redoubled or various weak hand types. I am expected to redouble but may take other action with an unusual hand."

This seems to summarise your agreeemnt and applies to both partners.

[aguahombre]

"Forcing to redouble" is an explanation which states what the person explaining is going to do (not what the pass means). And, if the NT opener is allowed to do something else, it is just plain MI.

"Forcing to redouble, unless I have an unusual hand" is worse, because it gives more UI to partner.

"Forcing" would be the right explanation of the meaning of the pass.

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-28, 02:47, said:

"Forcing to redouble" is an explanation which states what the person explaining is going to do (not what the pass means). And, if the NT opener is allowed to do something else, it is just plain MI.

"Forcing to redouble, unless I have an unusual hand" is worse, because it gives more UI to partner.

"Forcing" would be the right explanation of the meaning of the pass.

"Forcing, not necessarily strong" seems to cover all the obligations.

[iviehoff]

I think "relay to redouble" is perhaps better wording, because the EBU would like us to reserve the term "forcing" to mean "forcing from strength".

I once had trouble getting a proper explanation from someone who was playing double as a relay to 2C. He initially described it as a "transfer to 2C", which I tend to take as implying that the bidder holds the suit transferred to. But suspecting that this may not be the case, I asked what hand-types the call was made on, and was told that his partner was free to make whatever bids he chose. After some further obfuscation, the director was called.

[campboy]

You are right about the meaning of transfer, but I think, in England at least, a relay is something else and this would be a puppet. I prefer the phrase "requires me to bid 2♣" to either.

[bluejak]

We tend to apply regulations with common sense. The reason for the regulation about forcing is for situations where there is doubt. When there is no doubt we do not expect silly adherence to unnecessary regulations.

Forcing to redouble seems the best way to keep opponents informed if that is what you play. UI is irrelevant: you should never fail to keep the opponents fully informed because of UI considerations, in fact it is illegal to do so.

"Transfer" is a specific abuse that the EBU is trying to stamp out: if you “transfer to clubs”, for example, you show clubs. So Lebensohl, for example is a puppet to clubs but not a transfer. Rubinsohl, or whatever it is called, where 2NT actually shows clubs, is a transfer to clubs. As campboy says, “relay” has different connotations as well.

But safest of all, as always, is to describe your agreements in terms that will not be misunderstood, and avoiding such words helps. Against good opponents I describe 1NT (2♠) 2NT as "Lebensohl" because I know they know what I mean and will not assume follow-ups of any specific type: against poor opponents I say "2NT forces me to bid 3♣, and shows a variety of hands, some strong, some weak."