[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2013-August-01, 11:53, said:

Do you think the above is inadequate advice? If so, why?

It is the best advice which could be written in a Law or in an interpretation. It is inadequate, because the person correcting MI ---when the MI actually describes what he is holding---cannot really be sure what the real agreement is. He didn't bid according to it...and yet all of a sudden he somehow remembers that he misbid and that partner's explanation is technical MI.

It also feels shady from my convoluted sense of right and wrong, which is irrelevant to the legalities.

[blackshoe]

I suspect that your feeling that it's "shady" is coloring your opinion of the adequacy of the advice.

"Cannot really be sure"? Again, I think this is sour grapes. Have you been bitten by a situation in which a player misbid, his partner misexplained, and the player corrected the explanation, when the misexplanation matched his hand and the corrected explanation did not? I suppose if you have it's natural to regard such situations with suspicion - but really it's just "rub of the green".

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2013-August-01, 14:38, said:

I suspect that your feeling that it's "shady" is coloring your opinion of the adequacy of the advice.

"Cannot really be sure"? Again, I think this is sour grapes. Have you been bitten by a situation in which a player misbid, his partner misexplained, and the player corrected the explanation, when the misexplanation matched his hand and the corrected explanation did not? I suppose if you have it's natural to regard such situations with suspicion - but really it's just "rub of the green".

No, I doubt it would ever occur to the player in question to do that. Nor would it occur to me in that situation to pedantically rub the green. Be forewarned, that if Pard ever gives MI which describes exactly what I have in my hand, I will be breaking the laws by keeping my mouth shut.

Get ready with your PP.

[nige1]

 pran, on 2013-July-25, 13:39, said:

To this date I haven't come across a single player who apparently thought it was OK to intentionally break the rules.

 barmar, on 2013-July-25, 15:07, said:

Me, either. No one thinks it's OK to revoke, bid/play out of turn, or make an insufficient bid intentionally.

Blackshoe quoted TFLB L20F4 which said:

If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4.

 blackshoe, on 2013-August-01, 07:10, said:

Failure to do what one "must" do is "a serious matter indeed".

 barmar, on 2013-August-01, 08:39, said:

Maybe so, but I can't recall anyone ever calling the TD in this situation.

[nige1]

A simpler rule is to announce all partner's calls at all levels (instead of alerting them) -- unless your opponents ask you not to do so. Each table would have card of common explanations to reduce disturbance to neighbouring tables.

[blackshoe]

Or we could put each table in its own room or isolation booth.

[RMB1]

 nige1, on 2013-August-01, 19:40, said:

Each table would have card of common explanations to reduce disturbance to neighbouring tables.

And partnerships could collect their uncommon explanations on to one big card and give it to the opponents at the start of each round.

[jallerton]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-29, 11:04, said:

this is fine for 1♠-4♣, but some pairs would play 1♠-4♥ as natural

You seem to be forgetting that the whole purpose of alerting is for the opponents' benefit! As the player in 4th seat, I want to know whether 4♥ is natural or not without having to give away information about my own hand by asking. If bids like 1♠-Pass-4♥ are not alertable, then the only way I can protect my interests is by asking on every hand. If I do that, the UI for the opening side will be more apparent, not less.

[Vampyr]

 RMB1, on 2013-August-02, 01:43, said:

And partnerships could collect their uncommon explanations on to one big card and give it to the opponents at the start of each round.

Yes, and their common ones too. If only we had something like that...

[Cyberyeti]

 jallerton, on 2013-August-02, 14:18, said:

You seem to be forgetting that the whole purpose of alerting is for the opponents' benefit! As the player in 4th seat, I want to know whether 4♥ is natural or not without having to give away information about my own hand by asking. If bids like 1♠-Pass-4♥ are not alertable, then the only way I can protect my interests is by asking on every hand. If I do that, the UI for the opening side will be more apparent, not less.

In theory this is true, in practice not so much. If you ask only when you need to ask and then pass, the chance of partner bidding is minimal. There may be a little UI in the play, but it's manageable.

This is a regulation that does nothing but good for serious players, but can cause havoc in clubs.

[paulg]

 jallerton, on 2013-August-02, 14:18, said:

You seem to be forgetting that the whole purpose of alerting is for the opponents' benefit! As the player in 4th seat, I want to know whether 4♥ is natural or not without having to give away information about my own hand by asking. If bids like 1♠-Pass-4♥ are not alertable, then the only way I can protect my interests is by asking on every hand. If I do that, the UI for the opening side will be more apparent, not less.

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-August-06, 17:52, said:

In theory this is true, in practice not so much. If you ask only when you need to ask and then pass, the chance of partner bidding is minimal. There may be a little UI in the play, but it's manageable.

This is a regulation that does nothing but good for serious players, but can cause havoc in clubs.

Or, as I watched a pair bid last week,

2NT (Pass) 4♠

Natural or, as it actually was, a mild slam try in diamonds? Partner is never bidding but you might like to help him if he is on lead. Hard to do this with last week's regulations.

[suprgrover]

 paulg, on 2013-August-07, 00:38, said:

Or, as I watched a pair bid last week,

2NT (Pass) 4♠

Natural or, as it actually was, a mild slam try in diamonds? Partner is never bidding but you might like to help him if he is on lead. Hard to do this with last week's regulations.

Law 19G1 says "It is improper to ask a questions solely for partner's benefit."

[pran]

 suprgrover, on 2013-August-18, 05:23, said:

Law 19G1 says "It is improper to ask a questions solely for partner's benefit."

If after the auction
2NT - pass - 4 ♠ - pass
pass - "What is 4♠ please?" pass

a spade is lead with success I shall almost always adjust the result on the board to a likely result with a different lead.
More often than not shall I also impose a PP on the player asking the question, he should know better than asking a lead-directing question.

[gnasher]

 suprgrover, on 2013-August-18, 05:23, said:

Law 19G1 says "It is improper to ask a questions solely for partner's benefit."

But it's entirely proper to ask questions in order to find out whether a lead-directing double is a good idea, which is what Paul was talking about.

[mgoetze]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-28, 05:21, said:

More tongue in cheek, what is the first round of bidding ?

From experience, people in Germany have trouble with the concept that 1♠-p-4♣ may be alertable when p-p-1♠-p; 4♣ is not.

[Cyberyeti]

 mgoetze, on 2013-August-18, 18:05, said:

From experience, people in Germany have trouble with the concept that 1♠-p-4♣ may be alertable when p-p-1♠-p; 4♣ is not.

Which at least is an absurdity the EBU have avoided by their definition of first round.

[aguahombre]

So, is a Pass a bid? Or is a bid a bid? It would seem clear to me, anyway, that a partnership both bidding is a round of bidding ---but one person passing and the other one bidding is not.

[blackshoe]

It may depend on how the regulation is worded. The ACBL's says "beginning with the opener's first rebid" so if there are passes before the opening bid, they don't count.

And no, "pass" is not a bid. It's a call, though.

[campboy]

 blackshoe, on 2013-August-18, 20:59, said:

It may depend on how the regulation is worded. The ACBL's says "beginning with the opener's first rebid" so if there are passes before the opening bid, they don't count.

The EBU regulation defines the first round as "the first bid and the next three calls".

[VixTD]

Under the new regulations a 3♣ Stayman response to a natural opening bid of 2NT is announceable, a 5-card / puppet Stayman or Baron response is alertable. Of all these responses, simple Stayman is by far the least common.

At Brighton one of the junior players suggested to me the following ruse:

• If I open 2NT with a five-card major and partner responds 3♣ I alert, because we are playing puppet Stayman.
  
• If I open 2NT with a four-card major and partner responds 3♣ I announce "Stayman", because we are playing ordinary Stayman.

I said that they'll find this difficult in a tournament where the use of convention cards is stricly observed (although they might get away with it by saying they've changed their system recently and not got round to updating the card), and that they can't do it more than once in a round. I can see there could be some advantage to playing such a devious system.