[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-10, 08:40, said:

Don't look now, but you are dangerously close to getting back to what I wanted to know.

Perhaps I should have created a poll:

--Whether the inverted raise denies a major should be part of the initial explanation.
--Only the possibility that we might have a major is sufficiently unexpected that we should include it.
--The issue of a major, IMO, is not currently required but I include it anway.
--the issue of a major, IMO, is not currently required, and they can jolly well ask.

Option one is correct.

[Phil]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-10, 13:21, said:

Option one is correct.

So if EW play that the raise denies a major, and South didn't compete in a major(s) because the explanation was 'incomplete', you'd find grounds for adjustment?

[barmar]

Phil, on 2012-October-10, 14:14, said:

So if EW play that the raise denies a major, and South didn't compete in a major(s) because the explanation was 'incomplete', you'd find grounds for adjustment?

I think this is the most pertinent question.

While it may be correct to include this detail, I think that it's rare that omitting it will actually cause damage. And there has to be damage for there to be grounds for adjustment -- a less than complete explanation is not automatic grounds for adjustment.

The opponent can ask if responder could have a 4-card major. Can this cause a UI problem? I think they should be indemnified against UI issues if they had to ask the question because the original explanation was incomplete, although I'm not sure the Laws actually support this. If they're not safe, it means that the only relief they can get is by an adjustment after the fact rather than being able to request complete information and a normal bridge result.

[mycroft]

I agree with barmar that this is a very important question. I assume since the start, and almost all the posters here are or were ACBL oriented, that we can take that jurisdiction as read (I certainly did the last post), and so, continuing my quote of the Alert Procedures:

Quote

• Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.
  
• Adjustments for violations are not automatic.
  
• There must have been misinformation.
  
• An adjustment will be made only when the misinformation was a direct cause of the damage.
  
• Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation.

The first is the answer to Phil's question. I, or anyone around my area with any experience, who claims to have been damaged by failure to explain that the raise denies a 4cM, deserve what they get, which shouldn't involve giggling, but only because TDing is a PR job first. Were we to be in an area where invm w/4cM is popular (is there one?) then a similar argument would apply *in that area*, and if you could convince the TD that you come from that area, and have never realized differently, and that caused you to misdefend, there may be a case. If you're a newer player in the open game and don't yourself play invm, and the fact that the bid denied a 4cM damaged you, then you're more likely to have an adjustment in your favour (how would you know what to ask, never mind that there is anything to ask?)

Frankly, although there's a large hope that after many reasks they'll just learn to do the right thing the first time (at least when playing against me), that's the primary reason I ask for a real explanation almost invariably; because they might be playing this convention some "wrong" way ("Flannery" that could be 4=6+, DONT overcalls that require 5=5 minimum, "reverse" Bergen, or "upgunned" Bergen to match their 10-15 openings, RKGerber, ...) and it's important that I don't get blindsided by it. I also refuse to answer the question "what do you want to know?" when I ask for an explanation of a call/the auction (by refuse, I usually say "what does that call systemically mean?") partly because it's the right thing to do, partly because some people who ask that are listening carefully to what I need to know, and what that means about my hand, and partly because I might not ask the right question, because I don't even know what I need to know.

I'm also going to point out, like Vampyr, to lalldonn that "inverted" means GF. At least it does throughout District 18 and 19. In fact, if you ask something about whether it could be limit raise strength, they will look at you as if you come from a different planet, because "that's not what inverted means". OTOH, that does give me a small advantage when I bid invm (you know, unless they ask...)

[blackshoe]

I might find grounds for adjustment, yes. Barry and Phil have covered the criteria, I think, particularly Barry's point that an adjustment is not automatic.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2012-October-10, 17:42, said:

I'm also going to point out, like Vampyr, to lalldonn that "inverted" means GF. At least it does throughout District 18 and 19. In fact, if you ask something about whether it could be limit raise strength, they will look at you as if you come from a different planet, because "that's not what inverted means". OTOH, that does give me a small advantage when I bid invm (you know, unless they ask...)

In D25 it generally means limit+.

There have been threads in rec.games.bridge and General Bridge Forum (and possibly other forums here that I don't read) where some posters have opined that invm w/4cM is playable and even preferable (the main issue being what bids in the major show after the raise -- most play that they just show controlled suits looking for NT, but this requires showing suits naturally). But I don't think I've ever played with anyone who plays that way in real life.

[bluejak]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-09, 23:56, said:

If you are really not clear on what "inverted" means that's one thing, but assuming you really know what they mean and are just trying to teach them a lesson, I think that is a waste of everyone's time. Do you really do that?

I know what inverted means because I play it. But are you really suggesting that means I know how other people play it? I do not know what inverted means when someone else says it because they may not play it my way.

After 1♣ - 2♣ - I rebid 2♠ to show a spade stop, and no heart or diamond stop. I have run into quite a few people who play it as natural. Why? I have no idea: perhaps they have not given up on a 4-4 fit.

I rebid 2NT to show a minimum with stops, may be passed. I was flabbergasted by someone in the ACBL who told me only an idiot plays that. Not because he was rude to me - there seems an international agreement that people are allowed to be rude to me specifically - but because until then I assumed everyone played that.

So, you may know what inverted means when an opponent says it, but I don't.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-October-10, 18:35, said:

I know what inverted means because I play it. But are you really suggesting that means I know how other people play it? I do not know what inverted means when someone else says it because they may not play it my way.

After 1♣ - 2♣ - I rebid 2♠ to show a spade stop, and no heart or diamond stop. I have run into quite a few people who play it as natural. Why? I have no idea: perhaps they have not given up on a 4-4 fit.

I rebid 2NT to show a minimum with stops, may be passed. I was flabbergasted by someone in the ACBL who told me only an idiot plays that. Not because he was rude to me - there seems an international agreement that people are allowed to be rude to me specifically - but because until then I assumed everyone played that.

So, you may know what inverted means when an opponent says it, but I don't.

Are you happy to know that if we ever played together we wouldn't have to spend much time discussing our inverted minor style?

[lalldonn]

bluejak, on 2012-October-10, 18:35, said:

I know what inverted means because I play it. But are you really suggesting that means I know how other people play it? I do not know what inverted means when someone else says it because they may not play it my way.

After 1♣ - 2♣ - I rebid 2♠ to show a spade stop, and no heart or diamond stop. I have run into quite a few people who play it as natural. Why? I have no idea: perhaps they have not given up on a 4-4 fit.

I rebid 2NT to show a minimum with stops, may be passed. I was flabbergasted by someone in the ACBL who told me only an idiot plays that. Not because he was rude to me - there seems an international agreement that people are allowed to be rude to me specifically - but because until then I assumed everyone played that.

So, you may know what inverted means when an opponent says it, but I don't.

I think the greater problem is you don't seem to know what "if" means. Please combine my first phrase in the quoted post (prior to the comma) with your third sentence in the reply, and then you should realize that everything else you wrote was unnecessary.

Nor do you seem aware that we were discussing the auction 1m - 2m, not 1m - 2m - 2♠ or 2NT. It would be very creative for someone to explain either of those two bids as "inverted" but I have yet to come across such a thing, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

[barmar]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-10, 11:13, said:

But never mind that. You obviously didn't read the context in which the comment was made. Blackshoe has made it clear that after opponents 'explain' by naming their convention he routinely asks them just to teach them some sort of lesson ("maybe one day they'll learn"), not because he actually needs more information to make his next decision. I'm sure he is well meaning but I find that behavior pretty obnoxious. It's not the job of a player to go around slowing down the game on a mission to to fix every technicality that bugs him and educate the world, even if he is also a director. Rationalizing by saying they are wasting the time instead of him is not true. He is the one asking a question he doesn't need the answer to.

It's called "passive-aggression". It may be a popular way to entertain oneself, but I think it rarely works as a teaching method.

[barmar]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-10, 19:07, said:

Nor do you seem aware that we were discussing the auction 1m - 2m, not 1m - 2m - 2♠ or 2NT. It would be very creative for someone to explain either of those two bids as "inverted" but I have yet to come across such a thing, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

I think what he's saying is that when someone describes a bid as "inverted minors", they're implicitly describing that bid PLUS many of the followon sequences. Just as describing 1NT-2♣ as "Stayman" explains what responder's next bid means, and similarly with Blackwood and its variants. These terms don't just name individual bids, they name a collection of sequences and understandings that are included in that convention.

[Siegmund]

@mycroft:

Quote

I'm also going to point out, like Vampyr, to lalldonn that "inverted" means GF. At least it does throughout District 18 and 19

No, it doesn't.

It is true that the first player I ever met who played it as GF is from District 19. I have even been asked to play it that way by one or two pickup partners in the last couple years. But in AK/ID/MT/UT I would say inv+ is the large majority method, and is certainly what I would assume when hearing an alert. I would not be surprised to learn that GF is popular in BC. I couldn't say what is popular in Seattle and Portland now (but up until 2005 it was inv+ there too.)

I guess I am glad it didn't come up when I was at your table last month!

***

Returning to the main thread, with the 4-way poll:

I would say 1 is the technically correct answer, but 2 has an element of truth in that failing to say "denies a 4CM" will rarely cause a problem and failing to say "may include a 4CM" will often cause a problem.

[blackshoe]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-10, 11:13, said:

Blackshoe has made it clear that after opponents 'explain' by naming their convention he routinely asks them just to teach them some sort of lesson ("maybe one day they'll learn"), not because he actually needs more information to make his next decision. I'm sure he is well meaning but I find that behavior pretty obnoxious. It's not the job of a player to go around slowing down the game on a mission to to fix every technicality that bugs him and educate the world, even if he is also a director. Rationalizing by saying they are wasting the time instead of him is not true. He is the one asking a question he doesn't need the answer to.

If that's what you got out of what I said, then clearly I wasn't clear. When someone "explains" his partnership agreement by naming a convention, I know how I understand that convention to work (if it's one that I know), but I don't know how he understands it to work. Since the latter is what I am entitled to know, and what he is required to tell me, I ask for further information. I may hope that others will do the same, and that some day, this player will understand, just from the fact that people keep asking, that his initial naming of the convention is not adequate, but that is by no means my primary purpose in asking. I'm not "on a mission to fix" anything, I'm not rationalizing anything, I'm not asking questions to which I don't need the answer, it is true that the player who provides inadequate explanations is wasting time, whatever you think, and I really don't appreciate your attributing to me attitudes and motives that just aren't mine.

[Zelandakh]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-10, 11:13, said:

First of all, the entire thread is about explaining 1m - 2m, so the meanings of the other bids doesn't matter. If someone plays it as at least a limit raise then it is 'inverted' (which I agree is legally not an adequate explanation). If they play it as game forcing then it's not. The player who said he plays a single raise as forcing to game never said he is playing inverted minors.

A recent thread - I think I would trust explanations from the OP there more than the average club player. It shows that while you know what you mean by the term, what A.N.Other random person means by it might be somewhat different.

[bluejak]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-10, 19:07, said:

Nor do you seem aware that we were discussing the auction 1m - 2m, not 1m - 2m - 2♠ or 2NT. It would be very creative for someone to explain either of those two bids as "inverted" but I have yet to come across such a thing, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

I am sorry, I did not mean to insult anyone by assuming they understood basic bridge. Allow me to explain.

The meaning of a 2♣ response to 1♣ is bound up in what can happen thereafter. If players can still find 4-4 major fits, then a 2♣ response shows a different hand from one where players cannot find 4-4 major fits. If a partnership can play in 2NT thereafter, 2♣ shows a different hand from one where the partnership cannot play in 2NT thereafter.

Sorry, this seemed so obvious I did not realise I had to spell it out.

[WellSpyder]

bluejak, on 2012-October-11, 05:31, said:

I am sorry, I did not mean to insult anyone by assuming they understood basic bridge. Allow me to explain.

The meaning of a 2♣ response to 1♣ is bound up in what can happen thereafter. If players can still find 4-4 major fits, then a 2♣ response shows a different hand from one where players cannot find 4-4 major fits. If a partnership can play in 2NT thereafter, 2♣ shows a different hand from one where the partnership cannot play in 2NT thereafter.

Sorry, this seemed so obvious I did not realise I had to spell it out.

barmar, on 2012-October-10, 19:15, said:

It's called "passive-aggression". It may be a popular way to entertain oneself, but I think it rarely works as a teaching method.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2012-October-10, 19:19, said:

I think what he's saying is that when someone describes a bid as "inverted minors", they're implicitly describing that bid PLUS many of the followon sequences. Just as describing 1NT-2♣ as "Stayman" explains what responder's next bid means, and similarly with Blackwood and its variants. These terms don't just name individual bids, they name a collection of sequences and understandings that are included in that convention.

This seems to be a somewhat dangerous assumption. For example, do you think that the majority of players who explain "Stayman" play the sequence 1NT - 2♣; any - 3♣ as a natural weak takeout? Because that is the (original) meaning in Stayman. Similarly for inverted minors - can you tell me what the standard collection of sequences and understandings is for this? Because I have no idea. Another example is Jacoby 2NT - how many players saying this do you think promise 16+ hcp? Because that is the original form as I understand it. Similarly for rebids by Opener - jumps to show voids came well before jumps to show a side suit. So what is standard? Or does standard just mean what you think it is, regardless of whether Aunty Betty has ever heard of the changes to their favourite convention that they learned 60 years ago?

[lalldonn]

bluejak, on 2012-October-11, 05:31, said:

I am sorry, I did not mean to insult anyone by assuming they understood basic bridge. Allow me to explain.

The meaning of a 2♣ response to 1♣ is bound up in what can happen thereafter. If players can still find 4-4 major fits, then a 2♣ response shows a different hand from one where players cannot find 4-4 major fits. If a partnership can play in 2NT thereafter, 2♣ shows a different hand from one where the partnership cannot play in 2NT thereafter.

Sorry, this seemed so obvious I did not realise I had to spell it out.

Apology accepted, and don't worry, I won't rub it in that what seems so obvious to you is not the least bit relevant to the discussion that was being had. But your post did a great job of solving why the following incredible mystery occurs.

bluejak, on 2012-October-10, 18:35, said:

there seems an international agreement that people are allowed to be rude to me specifically

[lalldonn]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-10, 22:16, said:

If that's what you got out of what I said, then clearly I wasn't clear. When someone "explains" his partnership agreement by naming a convention, I know how I understand that convention to work (if it's one that I know), but I don't know how he understands it to work. Since the latter is what I am entitled to know, and what he is required to tell me, I ask for further information. I may hope that others will do the same, and that some day, this player will understand, just from the fact that people keep asking, that his initial naming of the convention is not adequate, but that is by no means my primary purpose in asking. I'm not "on a mission to fix" anything, I'm not rationalizing anything, I'm not asking questions to which I don't need the answer, it is true that the player who provides inadequate explanations is wasting time, whatever you think, and I really don't appreciate your attributing to me attitudes and motives that just aren't mine.

I'm not attributing anything to you that you didn't say. These are your words.
"..as a player I tend to say "I don't know what that means, can you explain further, please?" Maybe some day they'll learn."
then later clarified to include
"It was a general statement. I do it whenever opps "explain" by naming a convention."
So you do it whenever your opponents explain a convention by naming it, regardless of what information you actually need to make your decision. That's what you said, you do it whenever they explain a convention by naming it! Now, if your opponents explains a 2♣ bid as "stayman" then you ask for more information, you don't consider that a waste of time? How has the opponent wasted time when the past 75 tables to whom he answered 'stayman' were satisfied with the explanation? If I can paraphrase bluejak from past statements, "we are trying to run a bridge game here".

[Phil]

Sometimes you have to read the fine print:

Quote

Tournament Director
SECTION ONE RESPONSIBILITIES
LAW 81 DUTIES AND POWERS

A. Official Status
The Director is the official representative of the sponsoring organization.

B. Restrictions and Responsibilities

1. Technical Management
The Director is responsible for the technical management of the tournament.

2. Observance of Laws and Regulations
The Director is bound by these Laws and by supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring organization.

C. Director's Duties and Powers
The Director's duties and powers normally include the following:

1. Assistants
to appoint assistants, as required, to perform his duties.

2. Entries
to accept and list entries.

3. Conditions of Play
to establish suitable conditions of play and to announce them to the contestants.

4. Discipline
to maintain discipline and to insure the orderly progress of the game.

5. Law
to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights in the most patronizing way possible and responsibilities thereunder.

6. Errors
to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C.