[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-February-04, 11:18, said:

I'm not sure if it's still there, but there used to be talk in the EBU literature about psyche control mechanisms not being allowed. If opener is not allowed to go back to spades in an auction like 1N-P-2♠-X-P-P-3♦ with 4♠/2-3 diamonds then this looks like one.

Hence my interest in an opinion from GordonTD.

[mycroft]

Mike, I agree with you and think your way of doing things is clearly the right way. And I think you know that.

My first of several comments about the new convention card was "it is clear that the ab initio assumption was that it has to fit in the current CC holders. That assumption is fatally wrong. It needs to be two-sided, and there needs to be a big "things the opponents should know" section.

Yes, that was the assumption ("it has to fit on the table"). No, it was not going to be changed. Yes, there's going to be a "things the opponents should know" section - which for you and me is going to be incomplete and full, because it's two tiny lines at the top there. For many others, it's going to be even more incomplete and not full, because it won't be treated the way the section on the WBF card (or the EBU card, or the ABF card, or...) is. Because it's tiny, and not 1/4 of the page right staring you in the face, because it's not two-sided.

But for every one of us, there's someone who likes to play these things and doesn't mind if the opponents don't get any warning. There's someone who's "an expert" but freaks out when it goes 1♣-1NT! (takeout) because "they need to be able to come up with a defence" - never mind that last week they were playing Blue Club and only mentioned that "some of our bids are canapé".) There's someone who thinks that proper disclosure of 1♣ Precision- 1♦ is "waiting", or "we play standard carding" (well, coded 10s and 9s and Lavinthal, and A from AK,... you know, "standard"). or that the proper explanation of 5♥ in a 4NT auction, with two fit suits shown, is "two".

And then there are those who read the instructions *looking* for how to minimize disclosure. And are smug when it happens, and even more so when it works, and are madly offended when the director says "this is not adequate disclosure" - because they are strictly following the letter of the regulations, so how can it be wrong? Those are the people that I'd love to play 1NT (10-12)-p-2♠ as "to play 2♠", and carefully not mention that it sometimes doesn't have any spades. Along with the rest of the EHAA system, which, provided we move our 2-bids to 4-11 HCP, isn't Pre-Alertable, and basically isn't Alertable either, except for 1NT (which has to be Announced no matter what) and 2♣ (because it's Natural). But I never would do that in general, of course.

[nullve]

The idea that methods can generally be disclosed fully at the table is incredibly naive.

For example, how would any of you describe exactly the set of hands on which you would open 1♠ in 1st seat V vs. NV?

[akwoo]

nullve, on 2022-February-06, 06:41, said:

The idea that methods can generally be disclosed fully at the table is incredibly naive.

For example, how would any of you describe exactly the set of hands on which you would open 1♠ in 1st seat V vs. NV?

Perfect disclosure is impossible. That doesn't mean we don't aim to give as good disclosure as possible.

In terms of bridge law, a failure to disclose that doesn't harm the opponents has no penalty(*), so there is a limit to how close to perfection one is required to get to.

(*) Well - procedural penalties are still possible, but we're well beyond procedural penalty realm here.