ACBL Alert of 2NT response after weak 2 opener?

[Bob Richardson]

Reading the ACBL alert procedure it seems that 2NT is not alertable, or an
announcement, UNLESS 2NT is non-forcing. So whether you play Feature, Ogust,
or whatever, 2NT is not alertable, so long as it's forcing. Is that correct?

[raija d]

Post by Bob Richardson
Reading the ACBL alert procedure it seems that 2NT is not alertable, or an
announcement, UNLESS 2NT is non-forcing. So whether you play Feature,
Ogust, or whatever, 2NT is not alertable, so long as it's forcing. Is that
correct?

Yes. But the responses are still alertable. Non-forcing 2NT would be
alertable.

[raija d]

Post by raija d

Post by Bob Richardson
Reading the ACBL alert procedure it seems that 2NT is not alertable, or
an announcement, UNLESS 2NT is non-forcing. So whether you play Feature,
Ogust, or whatever, 2NT is not alertable, so long as it's forcing. Is
that correct?

Yes. But the responses are still alertable. Non-forcing 2NT would be
alertable.

PS. I am no authority, but I read the same Alert Procedures, and agree that
is correct.

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

Feature rebids would not be alertable. They are considered natural bids
(Showing high card strength or length when forced to bid, the
definition of natural). If 3NT shows something specific, like a solid
suit or whatever, then it would be alertable. If it is just an offer to
play 3NT (maximum preempt or one-and-onehalf stops outsie or something
like that), then it is not alertable.

[Richard Lawson]

Correct.

The response to 2NT by opener must be alerted, though, if you are playing
those conventions.

-Richard

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by Bob Richardson
Reading the ACBL alert procedure it seems that 2NT is not alertable, or an
announcement, UNLESS 2NT is non-forcing. So whether you play Feature, Ogust,
or whatever, 2NT is not alertable, so long as it's forcing. Is that correct?

Correct.

Before there was a General Convention Chart, the allowable conventions
were divided into six classes A through F. Class A included
conventions practically everybody played, such as takeout doubles,
Blackwood, Stayman. Classes E and F conventions were only for things
like the Spingold. The rule was that any convention that was not in
class A was alertable, with exactly one exception...a 2NT response to a
weak 2 opener was specifically not alertable, although it was a Class C
convention.

-- Adam

[p***@infi.net]

Post by Bob Richardson
Reading the ACBL alert procedure it seems that 2NT is not alertable, or an
announcement, UNLESS 2NT is non-forcing. So whether you play Feature, Ogust,
or whatever, 2NT is not alertable, so long as it's forcing. Is that correct?

It seems particularly important NOT to alert 2NT playing Ogust (or
similar) since that informs partner your rebids are artificial.

[David Stevenson]

Post by p***@infi.net

Post by Bob Richardson
Reading the ACBL alert procedure it seems that 2NT is not alertable, or an
announcement, UNLESS 2NT is non-forcing. So whether you play Feature, Ogust,
or whatever, 2NT is not alertable, so long as it's forcing. Is that correct?

It seems particularly important NOT to alert 2NT playing Ogust (or
similar) since that informs partner your rebids are artificial.

So what? Unless partner is a cheat, he knows perfectly well not to
act on an alert. If you play with a normal ethical player then it
matters not whether you alert as far as he is concerned.

[p***@infi.net]

Well, around here, everyone plays either Features or Ogust, and it's
about 50-50. People play with various partners, so this is a common
point of misunderstanding. At a tournament a couple of years ago, my
partner announced (without being asked) "Ogust" over my 2NT inquiry
(which happened not to be our agreement.) The director was called and
imposed a procedural penalty. (I'm sure I treated his response as a
feature, but can't recall any details.) My point is that merely
alerting 2NT under the prevailing conditions in this area has exactly
the same effect as my partner's egregious announcement, and the
director's comment was that partner was telling me what his rebids
meant. So was the penalty unjustified? Or should everyone who alerts
2NT get the same treatment?

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by p***@infi.net
Well, around here, everyone plays either Features or Ogust, and it's
about 50-50. People play with various partners, so this is a common
point of misunderstanding. At a tournament a couple of years ago, my
partner announced (without being asked) "Ogust" over my 2NT inquiry
(which happened not to be our agreement.) The director was called and
imposed a procedural penalty. (I'm sure I treated his response as a
feature, but can't recall any details.) My point is that merely
alerting 2NT under the prevailing conditions in this area has exactly
the same effect as my partner's egregious announcement, and the
director's comment was that partner was telling me what his rebids
meant. So was the penalty unjustified? Or should everyone who alerts
2NT get the same treatment?

If you're pretty certain that "alert" means "Ogust" and "no alert"
means "feature", then penalizing an alerter might be appropriate. But
I wouldn't assume this automatically in all cases. I'm sure there are
some players who alert 2NT because it would surprising to them that an
artificial asking bid other than Stayman and Blackwood would be
unalertable. Especially an asking bid that used to be a Class C
convention.

This brings up a question that I'd like some opinions on. Suppose I'm
asked to explain my partner's 2NT response. Should I tell them what
2NT is asking for, or should I just say that it "asks for a further
description" and let them ask about opener's rebid after it comes up?
It seems to me that saying "Ogust" might be too much. You're not
supposed to use a proper name to explain a convention anyway, because
the opponents might have a different understanding of what the name
means. But I think saying "Ogust" is too much even if the opponents
understand the meaning perfectly, because now you're not only telling
them what information partner is interested in, you're telling him what
your rebids are going to be. On the other hand, just saying "asking me
to describe further" might be too little---the opponents are entitled
ot know what information partner is interested in. Any thoughts on
this?

-- Adam

[Stu Goodgold]

Post by Adam Beneschan
This brings up a question that I'd like some opinions on. Suppose I'm
asked to explain my partner's 2NT response. Should I tell them what
2NT is asking for, or should I just say that it "asks for a further
description" and let them ask about opener's rebid after it comes up?
It seems to me that saying "Ogust" might be too much. You're not
supposed to use a proper name to explain a convention anyway, because
the opponents might have a different understanding of what the name
means. But I think saying "Ogust" is too much even if the opponents
understand the meaning perfectly, because now you're not only telling
them what information partner is interested in, you're telling him what
your rebids are going to be. On the other hand, just saying "asking me
to describe further" might be too little---the opponents are entitled
ot know what information partner is interested in. Any thoughts on
this?

The opps would do best not to ask the meaning of 2NT prior to the your
partner's response. But if they do ask, in the interest of full
disclosure you should provide a reasonable and complete explanation.
2NT Ogust asks for further description alright, but so do other
conventions, such as Stayman. Would you describe 1N - 2C as asking for
further description, or asking for a 4-card major? Likewise I think
you should describe 2N Ogust as "Ogust, asking for general strength of
my hand and quality of my suit".

Yes, we are not supposed to answer questions by merely giving the name
of the convention, but that does not mean we must omit the name from
the description. Almost all the time, the name of the convention would
be enough to prompt the asker to stop you from further verbiage. Once
at a regional, our bidding went (1N) - 2H!.
3rd seat asked what the alert was, and I explained: "Hamilton, showing
hearts and a minor". Then I looked up at RHO and added sheepishly:
"But I guess you know that." RHO was Fred Hamilton.

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by Stu Goodgold

Post by Adam Beneschan
This brings up a question that I'd like some opinions on. Suppose I'm
asked to explain my partner's 2NT response. Should I tell them what
2NT is asking for, or should I just say that it "asks for a further
description" and let them ask about opener's rebid after it comes up?
It seems to me that saying "Ogust" might be too much. You're not
supposed to use a proper name to explain a convention anyway, because
the opponents might have a different understanding of what the name
means. But I think saying "Ogust" is too much even if the opponents
understand the meaning perfectly, because now you're not only telling
them what information partner is interested in, you're telling him what
your rebids are going to be. On the other hand, just saying "asking me
to describe further" might be too little---the opponents are entitled
ot know what information partner is interested in. Any thoughts on
this?

The opps would do best not to ask the meaning of 2NT prior to the your
partner's response. But if they do ask, in the interest of full
disclosure you should provide a reasonable and complete explanation.
2NT Ogust asks for further description alright, but so do other
conventions, such as Stayman. Would you describe 1N - 2C as asking for
further description, or asking for a 4-card major? Likewise I think
you should describe 2N Ogust as "Ogust, asking for general strength of
my hand and quality of my suit".

OK. Here's the main point I was trying to get at: Is there any reason
to say, "Ogust, asking for general strength of my hand and quality of
my suit" as opposed to, "Asking for general strength of my hand and
quality of my suit"---i.e. without mentioning the O word? The "Ogust"
convention is, of course, not just the asking bid but the entire
structure. Thus, the second form of response, without the "Ogust",
will tell the opponents what they need to know about the 2NT bidder's
hand, including what he was asking for; adding the name "Ogust" adds, I
believe, no information that helps the opponents know what's in the 2NT
bidder's hand, but provides only information about how the opener is
going to respond---information that I think should be given by the 2NT
bidder and not the weak 2 opener. So would it be either MI or failure
to adhere to full disclosure if you leave the name Ogust out of it?
(Of course, I'm talking about F2F bridge without screens.)

Maybe this explains more clearly what I was trying to ask about---my
previous post might have obfuscated the issue a bit.

But I do agree that, in any case, "asking for a further description" is
probably not enough, even if a better answer does help remind the 2NT
bidder that opener is not going to be showing a feature.

Post by Stu Goodgold
Once at a regional, our bidding went (1N) - 2H!.
3rd seat asked what the alert was, and I explained: "Hamilton, showing
"But I guess you know that." RHO was Fred Hamilton.

Hmmm ... I wonder how he would have reacted if you had answered
"Cappelletti"?

-- Adam

[David Stevenson]

Post by Adam Beneschan
OK. Here's the main point I was trying to get at: Is there any reason
to say, "Ogust, asking for general strength of my hand and quality of
my suit" as opposed to, "Asking for general strength of my hand and
quality of my suit"---i.e. without mentioning the O word?

The answer wiht Ogust in is more helpful, because many people know
what Ogust is, and it speeds their understanding of the answer.

Post by Adam Beneschan
The "Ogust"
convention is, of course, not just the asking bid but the entire
structure. Thus, the second form of response, without the "Ogust",
will tell the opponents what they need to know about the 2NT bidder's
hand, including what he was asking for; adding the name "Ogust" adds, I
believe, no information that helps the opponents know what's in the 2NT
bidder's hand, but provides only information about how the opener is
going to respond---information that I think should be given by the 2NT
bidder and not the weak 2 opener.

Helpfulness is actually desirable at this game, especially in
explanations.

Post by Adam Beneschan
So would it be either MI or failure
to adhere to full disclosure if you leave the name Ogust out of it?
(Of course, I'm talking about F2F bridge without screens.)

No, neither, but discourteous. In fact, of course, lots of people
respond "asking" which certainly is not full disclosure.

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Adam Beneschan
OK. Here's the main point I was trying to get at: Is there any reason
to say, "Ogust, asking for general strength of my hand and quality of
my suit" as opposed to, "Asking for general strength of my hand and
quality of my suit"---i.e. without mentioning the O word?

The answer wiht Ogust in is more helpful, because many people know
what Ogust is, and it speeds their understanding of the answer.

Hmmm . . .

My main point with my question had to do with whether one should, when
explaining a bid, give information about what the *next* bid is going
to mean. But this raises a different question. Basically, I try to
avoid using convention names like this at all, primarily because not
everyone understands these names to mean the same thing. So while
using the term "Ogust" could speed up someone's understanding, it could
also speed up their misunderstanding. (And following it up with a full
description isn't likely to help if someone has heard the convention
name, figured that was all they needed to know, and pretty much quit
listening.)

Granted, with some conventions it's unlikely. And perhaps any
misunderstanding about Ogust isn't going to be about what the 2NT bid
shows, anyway---it's more likely to be about what the responses mean
(there are different variations for what the 3D and 3H rebids mean,
e.g.). But my feeling about this was colored by an experience we had
long ago. After reading Ewen's excellent, but rather old, book
_Opening Leads_, we decided to adopt the "Journalist Leads" that he
described and recommended in his book, based on the lead system
described in the _Bridge Journal_. An opponent looked at our lead
chart and asked if we were playing Journalist Leads, so naturally we
said "yes"---but it turned out his understanding was different. The
term "Journalist Leads" had, unknown to us novices, become transformed,
and now meant that a 10 or 9 lead is either from the top of a sequence
or is from an interior sequence and shows two higher cards. The
original meaning, which is what we were playing, was to lead 10 from
any interior sequence, and 9 from 109x(...). So since then, more or
less, I've become leery of using proper names at all, and prefer to
simply tell the opponents what the bid shows.

-- Adam

[Barry Margolin]

Post by Adam Beneschan

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Adam Beneschan
OK. Here's the main point I was trying to get at: Is there any reason
to say, "Ogust, asking for general strength of my hand and quality of
my suit" as opposed to, "Asking for general strength of my hand and
quality of my suit"---i.e. without mentioning the O word?

The answer wiht Ogust in is more helpful, because many people know
what Ogust is, and it speeds their understanding of the answer.

Hmmm . . .
My main point with my question had to do with whether one should, when
explaining a bid, give information about what the *next* bid is going
to mean.

How would you explain Blackwood? I think few would consider "asking for
more information" to be a sufficient response. Pedantically it's
correct; the fact that it asks about aces (or key cards) can be inferred
by asking for an explanation of the responses.

Post by Adam Beneschan
But this raises a different question. Basically, I try to
avoid using convention names like this at all, primarily because not
everyone understands these names to mean the same thing. So while
using the term "Ogust" could speed up someone's understanding, it could
also speed up their misunderstanding. (And following it up with a full
description isn't likely to help if someone has heard the convention
name, figured that was all they needed to know, and pretty much quit
listening.)

If you give a full explanation, and they choose to tune it out, I think
that's their problem. I don't think you can be faulted for providing
more information.

Post by Adam Beneschan
Granted, with some conventions it's unlikely. And perhaps any
misunderstanding about Ogust isn't going to be about what the 2NT bid
shows, anyway---it's more likely to be about what the responses mean
(there are different variations for what the 3D and 3H rebids mean,
e.g.). But my feeling about this was colored by an experience we had
long ago. After reading Ewen's excellent, but rather old, book
_Opening Leads_, we decided to adopt the "Journalist Leads" that he
described and recommended in his book, based on the lead system
described in the _Bridge Journal_. An opponent looked at our lead
chart and asked if we were playing Journalist Leads, so naturally we
said "yes"---but it turned out his understanding was different. The
term "Journalist Leads" had, unknown to us novices, become transformed,
and now meant that a 10 or 9 lead is either from the top of a sequence
or is from an interior sequence and shows two higher cards. The
original meaning, which is what we were playing, was to lead 10 from
any interior sequence, and 9 from 109x(...). So since then, more or
less, I've become leery of using proper names at all, and prefer to
simply tell the opponents what the bid shows.

There's certainly a problem if a name has multiple meanings. Ogust can
also be an example -- I understand that many players swap the meanings
of 3D and 3H responses, but don't change the name of the convention
(I've occasionally heard reference to Reverse Ogust, but there doesn't
seem to be universal agreement over which form is normal and which is
reverse).

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by Adam Beneschan

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Adam Beneschan
OK. Here's the main point I was trying to get at: Is there any reason
to say, "Ogust, asking for general strength of my hand and quality of
my suit" as opposed to, "Asking for general strength of my hand and
quality of my suit"---i.e. without mentioning the O word?

The answer wiht Ogust in is more helpful, because many people know
what Ogust is, and it speeds their understanding of the answer.

Hmmm . . .
My main point with my question had to do with whether one should, when
explaining a bid, give information about what the *next* bid is going
to mean.

How would you explain Blackwood? I think few would consider "asking for
more information" to be a sufficient response. Pedantically it's
correct; the fact that it asks about aces (or key cards) can be inferred
by asking for an explanation of the responses.

I think I mentioned in a previous response (to Stu?) that I agreed that
"asking for information" is insufficient. Here, "asking for aces" or
"asking for key cards" is good enough (for the key-card case, I'd tell
the opponents what suit was considered the key-card suit if we had an
agreement about that---and my regular partner and I do have agreements
that cover all cases, I think. Fortunately, we don't use a 6-key-card
variety). What I think *might* be wrong would be to respond something
like "1430 RKC", because the "1430" part now tells the opponents
information about the explainer's next bid, and this information sheds
no additional light on the meaning of the 4NT bid.

-- Adam

[Arthur Hoffman]

Post by Adam Beneschan

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Adam Beneschan
OK. Here's the main point I was trying to get at: Is there any reason
to say, "Ogust, asking for general strength of my hand and quality of
my suit" as opposed to, "Asking for general strength of my hand and
quality of my suit"---i.e. without mentioning the O word?

The answer wiht Ogust in is more helpful, because many people know
what Ogust is, and it speeds their understanding of the answer.

Hmmm . . .
My main point with my question had to do with whether one should, when
explaining a bid, give information about what the *next* bid is going
to mean. But this raises a different question. Basically, I try to
avoid using convention names like this at all, primarily because not
everyone understands these names to mean the same thing. So while
using the term "Ogust" could speed up someone's understanding, it could
also speed up their misunderstanding. (And following it up with a full
description isn't likely to help if someone has heard the convention
name, figured that was all they needed to know, and pretty much quit
listening.)
Granted, with some conventions it's unlikely. And perhaps any
misunderstanding about Ogust isn't going to be about what the 2NT bid
shows, anyway---it's more likely to be about what the responses mean
(there are different variations for what the 3D and 3H rebids mean,
e.g.). But my feeling about this was colored by an experience we had
long ago. After reading Ewen's excellent, but rather old, book
_Opening Leads_, we decided to adopt the "Journalist Leads" that he
described and recommended in his book, based on the lead system
described in the _Bridge Journal_. An opponent looked at our lead
chart and asked if we were playing Journalist Leads, so naturally we
said "yes"---but it turned out his understanding was different. The
term "Journalist Leads" had, unknown to us novices, become transformed,
and now meant that a 10 or 9 lead is either from the top of a sequence
or is from an interior sequence and shows two higher cards. The
original meaning, which is what we were playing, was to lead 10 from
any interior sequence, and 9 from 109x(...). So since then, more or
less, I've become leery of using proper names at all, and prefer to
simply tell the opponents what the bid shows.

Me too.

Post by Adam Beneschan
-- Adam

[David Stevenson]

Post by Adam Beneschan

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Adam Beneschan
OK. Here's the main point I was trying to get at: Is there any reason
to say, "Ogust, asking for general strength of my hand and quality of
my suit" as opposed to, "Asking for general strength of my hand and
quality of my suit"---i.e. without mentioning the O word?

The answer wiht Ogust in is more helpful, because many people know
what Ogust is, and it speeds their understanding of the answer.

Hmmm . . .
My main point with my question had to do with whether one should, when
explaining a bid, give information about what the *next* bid is going
to mean. But this raises a different question. Basically, I try to
avoid using convention names like this at all, primarily because not
everyone understands these names to mean the same thing. So while
using the term "Ogust" could speed up someone's understanding, it could
also speed up their misunderstanding. (And following it up with a full
description isn't likely to help if someone has heard the convention
name, figured that was all they needed to know, and pretty much quit
listening.)

Of course, for many things, the opposition do not need a full
description, and anyway, if you give one and they do not listen, that's
their fault.

But a bid that asks for features, and a bid that asks for trump
quality and strength, are different bids, with different meanings, and
the opposition have a right to know which bid you are making.

[David Stevenson]

Post by Adam Beneschan
This brings up a question that I'd like some opinions on. Suppose I'm
asked to explain my partner's 2NT response. Should I tell them what
2NT is asking for, or should I just say that it "asks for a further
description" and let them ask about opener's rebid after it comes up?
It seems to me that saying "Ogust" might be too much. You're not
supposed to use a proper name to explain a convention anyway, because
the opponents might have a different understanding of what the name
means. But I think saying "Ogust" is too much even if the opponents
understand the meaning perfectly, because now you're not only telling
them what information partner is interested in, you're telling him what
your rebids are going to be. On the other hand, just saying "asking me
to describe further" might be too little---the opponents are entitled
ot know what information partner is interested in. Any thoughts on
this?

You will get answers that disagree with this, but there is no doubt in
my mind. You should describe your methods in full, and asking is not in
full. For opponents who understand Ogust, saying Ogust will be half the
answer, though you should also indicate whether it shows values or not.

You have not described a convention in full if the opponents do not
know form your description which convention it is.

What about giving UI to partner? That is not illegal, but giving MI
ot opponents is. If your partner is a cheat, so be it, but make sure
your own ethics are pure. Personally, if my partner was a cheat who
would use UI deliberately in such a case I would never play with him
again.

[Steve Willner]

Post by David Stevenson
You will get answers that disagree with this, but there is no doubt in
my mind. You should describe your methods in full, and asking is not in
full. For opponents who understand Ogust, saying Ogust will be half the
answer, though you should also indicate whether it shows values or not.

Oh, goody, a chance to disagree with David. :-) I agree that the
requirement is to describe "in full," but I disagree that describing the
answers will do that. Asking bids are tough to describe, but the goal
must be to describe as best you can the hand types that will use the bid.

To describe an Ogust 2NT over 2S, I would suggest something along the
lines of: "Artificial and forcing. [In principle] invitational values or
better [though he may be fooling around with a weak hand, usually with
spade support if so]. [Usually] not a good suit of his own, therefore
often balanced or semi-balanced. [Not a hand that can place the
contract in 3NT or 4S.]"

Leave out the bits in brackets if they don't apply to you. You may need
to add other qualifiers depending on what other choices responder had
available. For example, if you play new suits non-forcing, responder
might well have a good suit. The key thing, though it's hard to do, is
to explain the negative inferences that arise from responder's having
failed to choose a different call.

Exercise for the student: give a proper explanation of Stayman or Blackwood.

Post by David Stevenson
What about giving UI to partner?

I am not in the least concerned with UI here. Opponents are entitled to
a complete explanation, and "asking for strength and suit quality" is
very far from being adequate. (Sad to say, it is often all you will get
from your opponents.)

[David Stevenson]

Post by Steve Willner

Post by David Stevenson
You will get answers that disagree with this, but there is no doubt
in my mind. You should describe your methods in full, and asking is
not in full. For opponents who understand Ogust, saying Ogust will
be half the answer, though you should also indicate whether it shows
values or not.

Oh, goody, a chance to disagree with David. :-) I agree that the
requirement is to describe "in full," but I disagree that describing
the answers will do that. Asking bids are tough to describe, but the
goal must be to describe as best you can the hand types that will use
the bid.
To describe an Ogust 2NT over 2S, I would suggest something along the
lines of: "Artificial and forcing. [In principle] invitational values
or better [though he may be fooling around with a weak hand, usually
with spade support if so]. [Usually] not a good suit of his own,
therefore often balanced or semi-balanced. [Not a hand that can place
the contract in 3NT or 4S.]"

That's nowhere near full disclosure. Opponents have a right to know
what is being asked about. You might just as well say "asking" as your
reply. You must say what is asked.

[raija d]

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Steve Willner

Post by David Stevenson
You will get answers that disagree with this, but there is no doubt in
my mind. You should describe your methods in full, and asking is not in
full. For opponents who understand Ogust, saying Ogust will be half the
answer, though you should also indicate whether it shows values or not.

Oh, goody, a chance to disagree with David. :-) I agree that the
requirement is to describe "in full," but I disagree that describing the
answers will do that. Asking bids are tough to describe, but the goal
must be to describe as best you can the hand types that will use the bid.
To describe an Ogust 2NT over 2S, I would suggest something along the
lines of: "Artificial and forcing. [In principle] invitational values or
better [though he may be fooling around with a weak hand, usually with
spade support if so]. [Usually] not a good suit of his own, therefore
often balanced or semi-balanced. [Not a hand that can place the contract
in 3NT or 4S.]"

That's nowhere near full disclosure. Opponents have a right to know
what is being asked about. You might just as well say "asking" as your
reply. You must say what is asked.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\

I think ACBL alert regs have it right = 2NT response to a weak two, no
matter what its meaning is (unless non-forcing), is not to be alerted.
Similarly, opponents should not be asking about unalerted calls. Wait until
the opener bids over the 2NT and then ask what the response means and at
that time "Ogust" plus full description of the bid will be correct.

Asking about unalerted bids is IMO somewhat indicative of interest in the
hand in progress.

[David Stevenson]

Post by raija d

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Steve Willner

Post by David Stevenson
You will get answers that disagree with this, but there is no doubt in
my mind. You should describe your methods in full, and asking is not in
full. For opponents who understand Ogust, saying Ogust will be half the
answer, though you should also indicate whether it shows values or not.

Oh, goody, a chance to disagree with David. :-) I agree that the
requirement is to describe "in full," but I disagree that describing the
answers will do that. Asking bids are tough to describe, but the goal
must be to describe as best you can the hand types that will use the bid.
To describe an Ogust 2NT over 2S, I would suggest something along the
lines of: "Artificial and forcing. [In principle] invitational values or
better [though he may be fooling around with a weak hand, usually with
spade support if so]. [Usually] not a good suit of his own, therefore
often balanced or semi-balanced. [Not a hand that can place the contract
in 3NT or 4S.]"

That's nowhere near full disclosure. Opponents have a right to know
what is being asked about. You might just as well say "asking" as your
reply. You must say what is asked.

I think ACBL alert regs have it right = 2NT response to a weak two, no
matter what its meaning is (unless non-forcing), is not to be alerted.
Similarly, opponents should not be asking about unalerted calls. Wait until
the opener bids over the 2NT and then ask what the response means and at
that time "Ogust" plus full description of the bid will be correct.
Asking about unalerted bids is IMO somewhat indicative of interest in the
hand in progress.

You cannot stop people playing bridge because you do not like or
follow their methods. If they need to know, then they ask, and that is
a right given them by the Laws. The trouble with not asking an
unalerted call is that different people play it different ways.

But it is true that we are generally talking about something
theoretical here. While not telling people what sort of asking bid is
not full disclosure, in practice the misinformation it creates will very
rarely result in damage.

The main reason for not giving a correct answer is one of the
following:

The answerer is discourteous
The answerer is ignorant of Full Disclosure
The answerer assumes or knows his partner uses UI

Bridge would be a better game if people cheerfully gave adequate
answers without producing mendacious reasons not to do so.

[raija d]

Post by David Stevenson

Post by raija d

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Steve Willner

Post by David Stevenson
You will get answers that disagree with this, but there is no doubt in
my mind. You should describe your methods in full, and asking is not in
full. For opponents who understand Ogust, saying Ogust will be half the
answer, though you should also indicate whether it shows values or not.

Oh, goody, a chance to disagree with David. :-) I agree that the
requirement is to describe "in full," but I disagree that describing the
answers will do that. Asking bids are tough to describe, but the goal
must be to describe as best you can the hand types that will use the bid.
To describe an Ogust 2NT over 2S, I would suggest something along the
lines of: "Artificial and forcing. [In principle] invitational values or
better [though he may be fooling around with a weak hand, usually with
spade support if so]. [Usually] not a good suit of his own, therefore
often balanced or semi-balanced. [Not a hand that can place the contract
in 3NT or 4S.]"

That's nowhere near full disclosure. Opponents have a right to know
what is being asked about. You might just as well say "asking" as your
reply. You must say what is asked.

I think ACBL alert regs have it right = 2NT response to a weak two, no
matter what its meaning is (unless non-forcing), is not to be alerted.
Similarly, opponents should not be asking about unalerted calls. Wait until
the opener bids over the 2NT and then ask what the response means and at
that time "Ogust" plus full description of the bid will be correct.
Asking about unalerted bids is IMO somewhat indicative of interest in the
hand in progress.

You cannot stop people playing bridge because you do not like or
follow their methods. If they need to know, then they ask, and that is
a right given them by the Laws. The trouble with not asking an
unalerted call is that different people play it different ways.
But it is true that we are generally talking about something
theoretical here. While not telling people what sort of asking bid is
not full disclosure, in practice the misinformation it creates will very
rarely result in damage.
The main reason for not giving a correct answer is one of the
The answerer is discourteous
The answerer is ignorant of Full Disclosure
The answerer assumes or knows his partner uses UI
Bridge would be a better game if people cheerfully gave adequate
answers without producing mendacious reasons not to do so.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\

Quoting David:

"The trouble with not asking an unalerted call is that different people play
it different ways."

Not sure what you meant by this. Everyone knows that different people play
it in different ways. That was not in doubt, I hope:)

I also know that asking is legal at one's turn to call. That was not in
dispute. And I know that giving a complete and correct answer to an
opponent's question is the right thing to do, of course.

However, the case under discussion was that in ACBL, a weak two is opened,
next hand passes, responder bids 2NT which is not alerted, and now it is the
fourth person's turn.

I think the nature of the opponent's unalerted 2NT call (whatever 2NT is
asking) cannot affect the fourth person's bidding decision. Asking is legal,
but in this case it yields no information the asker can use. It is either a
waste of breath, or an effort to ask for the benefit of one's partner which
is illegal (is it?). Or it could convey keen interest in the hand
(typically values and typically not an advanced player) perhaps out of
ignorance inadvertently rather than intentionally, but the end result is the
same UI. I know creation of UI is legal although the use of it is illegal,
but I see no point in asserting one's right to ask when asking will only
stall/delay/interrupt the auction and create a potential UI problem, because
everyone at the table knows that whatever the answer is, makes no difference
to the asker in selecting his call over the 2NT.

Raija

[David Stevenson]

Post by raija d
"The trouble with not asking an unalerted call is that different people play
it different ways."
Not sure what you meant by this. Everyone knows that different people play
it in different ways. That was not in doubt, I hope:)
I also know that asking is legal at one's turn to call. That was not in
dispute. And I know that giving a complete and correct answer to an
opponent's question is the right thing to do, of course.
However, the case under discussion was that in ACBL, a weak two is opened,
next hand passes, responder bids 2NT which is not alerted, and now it is the
fourth person's turn.
I think the nature of the opponent's unalerted 2NT call (whatever 2NT is
asking) cannot affect the fourth person's bidding decision. Asking is legal,
but in this case it yields no information the asker can use. It is either a
waste of breath, or an effort to ask for the benefit of one's partner which
is illegal (is it?). Or it could convey keen interest in the hand
(typically values and typically not an advanced player) perhaps out of
ignorance inadvertently rather than intentionally, but the end result is the
same UI. I know creation of UI is legal although the use of it is illegal,
but I see no point in asserting one's right to ask when asking will only
stall/delay/interrupt the auction and create a potential UI problem, because
everyone at the table knows that whatever the answer is, makes no difference
to the asker in selecting his call over the 2NT.

It is not your job to teach the lawmakers: if you are asked a
question, the Laws require a Full Disclosure answer.

[Frances]

Post by raija d

Post by raija d
I think ACBL alert regs have it right = 2NT response to a weak two, no
matter what its meaning is (unless non-forcing), is not to be alerted.
Similarly, opponents should not be asking about unalerted calls. Wait until
the opener bids over the 2NT and then ask what the response means and at
that time "Ogust" plus full description of the bid will be correct.
Asking about unalerted bids is IMO somewhat indicative of interest in the
hand in progress.

<snip>

Post by raija d
However, the case under discussion was that in ACBL, a weak two is opened,
next hand passes, responder bids 2NT which is not alerted, and now it is the
fourth person's turn.
I think the nature of the opponent's unalerted 2NT call (whatever 2NT is
asking) cannot affect the fourth person's bidding decision.

I play a 2NT response to a weak two as a transfer to clubs.
Are you really suggesting that fourth hand's bidding decision cannot be
affected by that?

[raija d]

Post by Frances

Post by raija d

Post by raija d
I think ACBL alert regs have it right = 2NT response to a weak two, no
matter what its meaning is (unless non-forcing), is not to be alerted.
Similarly, opponents should not be asking about unalerted calls. Wait until
the opener bids over the 2NT and then ask what the response means and at
that time "Ogust" plus full description of the bid will be correct.
Asking about unalerted bids is IMO somewhat indicative of interest in the
hand in progress.

<snip>

Post by raija d
However, the case under discussion was that in ACBL, a weak two is opened,
next hand passes, responder bids 2NT which is not alerted, and now it is the
fourth person's turn.
I think the nature of the opponent's unalerted 2NT call (whatever 2NT is
asking) cannot affect the fourth person's bidding decision.

I play a 2NT response to a weak two as a transfer to clubs.
Are you really suggesting that fourth hand's bidding decision cannot be
affected by that?

No, I am not suggesting that. Using 2NT as a transfer to clubs would be
alerted in ACBL (unexpected use of 2NT; expected use is *asking opener to
describe his hand* in some manner, whether it be singleton, feature, range,
side suit, general willingness to be in game.) and asking about an alerted
call is perfectly normal, whether it makes a difference to one's decision at
that time or not.

[Frances]

Post by raija d

Post by Frances

Post by raija d

Post by raija d
I think ACBL alert regs have it right = 2NT response to a weak two, no
matter what its meaning is (unless non-forcing), is not to be alerted.
Similarly, opponents should not be asking about unalerted calls. Wait until
the opener bids over the 2NT and then ask what the response means and at
that time "Ogust" plus full description of the bid will be correct.
Asking about unalerted bids is IMO somewhat indicative of interest in the
hand in progress.

<snip>

Post by raija d
However, the case under discussion was that in ACBL, a weak two is opened,
next hand passes, responder bids 2NT which is not alerted, and now it is the
fourth person's turn.
I think the nature of the opponent's unalerted 2NT call (whatever 2NT is
asking) cannot affect the fourth person's bidding decision.

I play a 2NT response to a weak two as a transfer to clubs.
Are you really suggesting that fourth hand's bidding decision cannot be
affected by that?

No, I am not suggesting that. Using 2NT as a transfer to clubs would be
alerted in ACBL (unexpected use of 2NT; expected use is *asking opener to
describe his hand* in some manner, whether it be singleton, feature, range,
side suit, general willingness to be in game.) and asking about an alerted
call is perfectly normal, whether it makes a difference to one's decision at
that time or not.

Well, I don't pretend to know the ACBL regs. You are the one who said
that a forcing 2NT response to a weak 2 is not alerted WHATEVER ITS
MEANING.

[raija d]

Post by Frances

Post by raija d

Post by Frances

Post by raija d

Post by raija d
I think ACBL alert regs have it right = 2NT response to a weak two, no
matter what its meaning is (unless non-forcing), is not to be alerted.
Similarly, opponents should not be asking about unalerted calls.
Wait
until
the opener bids over the 2NT and then ask what the response means
and
at
that time "Ogust" plus full description of the bid will be correct.
Asking about unalerted bids is IMO somewhat indicative of interest
in
the
hand in progress.

<snip>

Post by raija d
However, the case under discussion was that in ACBL, a weak two is opened,
next hand passes, responder bids 2NT which is not alerted, and now it
is
the
fourth person's turn.
I think the nature of the opponent's unalerted 2NT call (whatever 2NT is
asking) cannot affect the fourth person's bidding decision.

I play a 2NT response to a weak two as a transfer to clubs.
Are you really suggesting that fourth hand's bidding decision cannot be
affected by that?

No, I am not suggesting that. Using 2NT as a transfer to clubs would be
alerted in ACBL (unexpected use of 2NT; expected use is *asking opener to
describe his hand* in some manner, whether it be singleton, feature, range,
side suit, general willingness to be in game.) and asking about an alerted
call is perfectly normal, whether it makes a difference to one's decision at
that time or not.

Well, I don't pretend to know the ACBL regs. You are the one who said
that a forcing 2NT response to a weak 2 is not alerted WHATEVER ITS
MEANING.

I did add "unless non-forcing", but even that was inaccurate.

ACBL Alert Chart says under Opening Two-Level Bids in a Suit and Responses:
Not Alertable: Conventional and/or forcing 2NT responses.

The Alert Procedure makes it more specific:
2D,2H,2S -P-2NT: Not Alertable if it asks for further clarification.
Natural, non-forcing 2NT responses to opening two bids must be Alerted.
NOTE: A non-forcing suit response to a weak two-bid requires an Alert.
A simple raise (2H-P-3H, for example) of a weak two-bid that is invitational
or better requires an Alert.

2NT that is a transfer to 3C would supposedly be alertable in ACBL, as a) it
is not asking for further clarification and b) it is an unexpected meaning.
Once it is alerted, there is every reason to ask opponents about the call.

Thanks for making me go back for a second look. Always something to learn.

Raija

[Barry Margolin]

Post by raija d

Post by Frances
Well, I don't pretend to know the ACBL regs. You are the one who said
that a forcing 2NT response to a weak 2 is not alerted WHATEVER ITS
MEANING.

I did add "unless non-forcing", but even that was inaccurate.
Not Alertable: Conventional and/or forcing 2NT responses.
2D,2H,2S -P-2NT: Not Alertable if it asks for further clarification.
Natural, non-forcing 2NT responses to opening two bids must be Alerted.
NOTE: A non-forcing suit response to a weak two-bid requires an Alert.
A simple raise (2H-P-3H, for example) of a weak two-bid that is invitational
or better requires an Alert.
2NT that is a transfer to 3C would supposedly be alertable in ACBL, as a) it
is not asking for further clarification and b) it is an unexpected meaning.
Once it is alerted, there is every reason to ask opponents about the call.

I think the rule that highly unusual meanings must be alerted takes
precedence over most of the specific entries in the alert chart. It's a
catch-all that covers all the cases they didn't anticipate, even if they
seem to fit a description.

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by raija d
I think ACBL alert regs have it right = 2NT response to a weak two, no
matter what its meaning is (unless non-forcing), is not to be alerted.
Similarly, opponents should not be asking about unalerted calls. Wait until
the opener bids over the 2NT and then ask what the response means and at
that time "Ogust" plus full description of the bid will be correct.
Asking about unalerted bids is IMO somewhat indicative of interest in the
hand in progress.

I'll remember that if I play against you and we make one of our
cue-bids-that-sounds-like-Michaels-but-isn't. This is unalertable in
the ACBL. So I'll be watching you, and I'll be able to tell a lot
about your hand based on whether you ask about which two suits we're
showing.

-- Adam

[Arthur Hoffman]

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Steve Willner

Post by David Stevenson
You will get answers that disagree with this, but there is no doubt in
my mind. You should describe your methods in full, and asking is not in
full. For opponents who understand Ogust, saying Ogust will be half the
answer, though you should also indicate whether it shows values or not.

Oh, goody, a chance to disagree with David. :-) I agree that the
requirement is to describe "in full," but I disagree that describing the
answers will do that. Asking bids are tough to describe, but the goal
must be to describe as best you can the hand types that will use the bid.
To describe an Ogust 2NT over 2S, I would suggest something along the
lines of: "Artificial and forcing. [In principle] invitational values or
better [though he may be fooling around with a weak hand, usually with
spade support if so]. [Usually] not a good suit of his own, therefore
often balanced or semi-balanced. [Not a hand that can place the contract
in 3NT or 4S.]"

That's nowhere near full disclosure. Opponents have a right to know
what is being asked about. You might just as well say "asking" as your
reply. You must say what is asked.

You seem to be asking for "full disclosure". Full disclosure of what? You
are disclosing that the 2NT bid is asking the weak two-bidder to describe
his hand beyond holding 6 cards in the major with 5-11hcp. In addition, you
are disclosing that the 2 NT bid is forcing and invitational or better. The
person answering the question knows very little about his partner's hand
beyond knowing that his partner is asking for a further description. I
suggest that this constitutes "full disclosure".

If this isn't full disclosure, how exactly would you give the "full
disclosure" that you are talking about.

And are you saying that when you are the director, you would really consider
invoking law 40C when the answer is as I have indicated above?
40C. Director's Option
If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents'
failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an
adjusted score.

--

Post by David Stevenson
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~

[David Stevenson]

Post by Arthur Hoffman

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Steve Willner

Post by David Stevenson
You will get answers that disagree with this, but there is no doubt in
my mind. You should describe your methods in full, and asking is not in
full. For opponents who understand Ogust, saying Ogust will be half the
answer, though you should also indicate whether it shows values or not.

Oh, goody, a chance to disagree with David. :-) I agree that the
requirement is to describe "in full," but I disagree that describing the
answers will do that. Asking bids are tough to describe, but the goal
must be to describe as best you can the hand types that will use the bid.
To describe an Ogust 2NT over 2S, I would suggest something along the
lines of: "Artificial and forcing. [In principle] invitational values or
better [though he may be fooling around with a weak hand, usually with
spade support if so]. [Usually] not a good suit of his own, therefore
often balanced or semi-balanced. [Not a hand that can place the contract
in 3NT or 4S.]"

That's nowhere near full disclosure. Opponents have a right to know
what is being asked about. You might just as well say "asking" as your
reply. You must say what is asked.

You seem to be asking for "full disclosure". Full disclosure of what? You
are disclosing that the 2NT bid is asking the weak two-bidder to describe
his hand beyond holding 6 cards in the major with 5-11hcp. In addition, you
are disclosing that the 2 NT bid is forcing and invitational or better. The
person answering the question knows very little about his partner's hand
beyond knowing that his partner is asking for a further description. I
suggest that this constitutes "full disclosure".
If this isn't full disclosure, how exactly would you give the "full
disclosure" that you are talking about.

You are assuming, as a lot of players tend to in North America, but
less os elsewhere, that you **know** how opponents play. But full
disclosure means you have to tell them.

Full disclosure in the Ogust case means you have ot tell them whether
the bid is asking, as it nearly always is: whether ti shows values,
which some people guarantee and others do not: and what it asks for,
which seems ot be the thing that people here think they have a right to
hide.

Post by Arthur Hoffman
And are you saying that when you are the director, you would really consider
invoking law 40C when the answer is as I have indicated above?
40C. Director's Option
If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents'
failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an
adjusted score.

No. While it is discourteous and against the Laws not to disclose
fully, in fact this is a position where such misinformation is extremely
unlikely to cause damage. As an excuse for giving misinformation, that
stinks.

[Arthur Hoffman]

Post by Arthur Hoffman

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Steve Willner

Post by David Stevenson
You will get answers that disagree with this, but there is no doubt in
my mind. You should describe your methods in full, and asking is not in
full. For opponents who understand Ogust, saying Ogust will be half the
answer, though you should also indicate whether it shows values or not.

Oh, goody, a chance to disagree with David. :-) I agree that the
requirement is to describe "in full," but I disagree that describing the
answers will do that. Asking bids are tough to describe, but the goal
must be to describe as best you can the hand types that will use the bid.
To describe an Ogust 2NT over 2S, I would suggest something along the
lines of: "Artificial and forcing. [In principle] invitational values or
better [though he may be fooling around with a weak hand, usually with
spade support if so]. [Usually] not a good suit of his own, therefore
often balanced or semi-balanced. [Not a hand that can place the contract
in 3NT or 4S.]"

That's nowhere near full disclosure. Opponents have a right to know
what is being asked about. You might just as well say "asking" as your
reply. You must say what is asked.

You seem to be asking for "full disclosure". Full disclosure of what?
You
are disclosing that the 2NT bid is asking the weak two-bidder to describe
his hand beyond holding 6 cards in the major with 5-11hcp. In addition, you
are disclosing that the 2 NT bid is forcing and invitational or better.
The
person answering the question knows very little about his partner's hand
beyond knowing that his partner is asking for a further description. I
suggest that this constitutes "full disclosure".
If this isn't full disclosure, how exactly would you give the "full
disclosure" that you are talking about.

You are assuming, as a lot of players tend to in North America, but less
os elsewhere, that you **know** how opponents play.

Let's start by my saying that you are wrong when you say [I am] assuming
that [I] **know** how opponents play. I don't. That's precisely why I
don't include "Ogust" in my explanation of 2NT when asked about it. I don't
assume that any opponent knows what Ogust is, at least the way I play it.
And incidentally, why should you introduce anything about the way North
American players play versus those elsewhere in this thread? Wasn't it you
who made Herculian efforts a while back that posters should state where they
come from? The OP in this thread clearly stated that he was asking about an
ACBL venue.

But full

disclosure means you have to tell them.

I believe I did.

Full disclosure in the Ogust case means you have ot tell them whether
the bid is asking, as it nearly always is: whether ti shows values, which
some people guarantee and others do not: and what it asks for, which seems
ot be the thing that people here think they have a right to hide.

You say this is "full disclosure". I can't see any difference in what I
said and what you say is full disclosure.

You say full disclosure is 1. "you have ot (sic) tell them whether the bid
is asking".
I said, "the 2NT bid is asking the weak two-bidder to describe
his hand beyond holding 6 cards in the major with 5-11hcp".

You say 2. "whether ti (sic) shows values".
I said, "the 2 NT bid is forcing and invitational or better."

You say 3. "and what it asks for".
I said, "the 2NT bid is asking the weak two-bidder to describe
his hand beyond holding 6 cards in the major with 5-11hcp".

What am I missing here?

If what I have said is not "full disclosure", according to your guidelines
enumerated above, please provide me with a script that would contain the
words you would say if you were a player answering the question from an
opponent, "What does 2NT mean?" I really want to know. I do not want to
hear again what a director would say because that doesn't seem to have any
more information than what I have provided.

Incidentally I consulted with a well respected ACBL Director today. He said
that my statement was adequate. When I then asked what more he would have
said. He replied, "Ogust". I convinced him that isn't necessary.

Post by Arthur Hoffman
And are you saying that when you are the director, you would really consider
invoking law 40C when the answer is as I have indicated above?
40C. Director's Option
If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents'
failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an
adjusted score.

No. While it is discourteous and against the Laws not to disclose
fully, in fact this is a position where such misinformation is extremely
unlikely to cause damage. As an excuse for giving misinformation, that
stinks.

If I am giving "misinformation" by my answer, please tell me what that
misinformation is? Please also tell me how I am discourteous.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~

[David Stevenson]

Post by Arthur Hoffman

You are assuming, as a lot of players tend to in North America, but less
os elsewhere, that you **know** how opponents play.

Let's start by my saying that you are wrong when you say [I am] assuming
that [I] **know** how opponents play. I don't. That's precisely why I
don't include "Ogust" in my explanation of 2NT when asked about it. I don't
assume that any opponent knows what Ogust is, at least the way I play it.
And incidentally, why should you introduce anything about the way North
American players play versus those elsewhere in this thread? Wasn't it you
who made Herculian efforts a while back that posters should state where they
come from? The OP in this thread clearly stated that he was asking about an
ACBL venue.

I am allowed to make side comments in my answers. Ok, everyone else
is, so I presume I am as well. It is a fact that the effects of
questions and failure to ask questions is different in the ACBL - why
should i not say so?

Post by Arthur Hoffman
You say 3. "and what it asks for".
I said, "the 2NT bid is asking the weak two-bidder to describe
his hand beyond holding 6 cards in the major with 5-11hcp".
What am I missing here?

People have a right to know whether it is a feature ask, or a suit
quality ask.

[raija d]

Post by Arthur Hoffman

You are assuming, as a lot of players tend to in North America, but less
os elsewhere, that you **know** how opponents play.

Let's start by my saying that you are wrong when you say [I am] assuming
that [I] **know** how opponents play. I don't. That's precisely why I
don't include "Ogust" in my explanation of 2NT when asked about it. I don't
assume that any opponent knows what Ogust is, at least the way I play it.
And incidentally, why should you introduce anything about the way North
American players play versus those elsewhere in this thread? Wasn't it you
who made Herculian efforts a while back that posters should state where they
come from? The OP in this thread clearly stated that he was asking about an
ACBL venue.

I am allowed to make side comments in my answers. Ok, everyone else is,
so I presume I am as well. It is a fact that the effects of questions and
failure to ask questions is different in the ACBL - why should i not say
so?

Post by Arthur Hoffman
You say 3. "and what it asks for".
I said, "the 2NT bid is asking the weak two-bidder to describe
his hand beyond holding 6 cards in the major with 5-11hcp".
What am I missing here?

People have a right to know whether it is a feature ask, or a suit
quality ask.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\

Yes, people have the right to know. And they find out in due course, when
opener's response is alerted and the person next to bid after that call asks
what it means. The response could be one of many things, not just suit
quality or a feature.

[David Stevenson]

Post by raija d

Post by David Stevenson
People have a right to know whether it is a feature ask, or a suit
quality ask.

Yes, people have the right to know. And they find out in due course, when
opener's response is alerted and the person next to bid after that call asks
what it means. The response could be one of many things, not just suit
quality or a feature.

It is against the basic principles of the game to hide information
from one's opponents, and deliberately to do so when asked a question is
unethical. Saying that an opponent can wait to find out is both
discourteous and illegal.

[raija d]

Post by raija d

Post by David Stevenson
People have a right to know whether it is a feature ask, or a suit
quality ask.

Yes, people have the right to know. And they find out in due course, when
opener's response is alerted and the person next to bid after that call asks
what it means. The response could be one of many things, not just suit
quality or a feature.

It is against the basic principles of the game to hide information from
one's opponents, and deliberately to do so when asked a question is
unethical. Saying that an opponent can wait to find out is both
discourteous and illegal.

I would never say that and have never done it. If the opponent asks, I will
answer in full, of course. The point I am making, I guess is not going to
get across no matter what I say. So forget it.

[Julian Lighton]

Post by Arthur Hoffman

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Steve Willner
To describe an Ogust 2NT over 2S, I would suggest something along the
lines of: "Artificial and forcing. [In principle] invitational values or
better [though he may be fooling around with a weak hand, usually with
spade support if so]. [Usually] not a good suit of his own, therefore
often balanced or semi-balanced. [Not a hand that can place the contract
in 3NT or 4S.]"

That's nowhere near full disclosure. Opponents have a right to know
what is being asked about. You might just as well say "asking" as your
reply. You must say what is asked.

You seem to be asking for "full disclosure". Full disclosure of what? You
are disclosing that the 2NT bid is asking the weak two-bidder to describe
his hand beyond holding 6 cards in the major with 5-11hcp. In addition, you
are disclosing that the 2 NT bid is forcing and invitational or better. The
person answering the question knows very little about his partner's hand
beyond knowing that his partner is asking for a further description. I
suggest that this constitutes "full disclosure".

Knowing what question has been asked can tell you something about the
hand of the player that chose to ask it. People don't invoke Ogust and
feature asks on the same subset of hands.

Also, the choice of method tells you something about the pair's weak
two style.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by Julian Lighton
Knowing what question has been asked can tell you something about the
hand of the player that chose to ask it. People don't invoke Ogust and
feature asks on the same subset of hands.

While there may be some subtle differences, I think they most of the
hands that will use any kind of asking bid fit the description "strong".
Although I suppose one could "psyche" a 2NT -- perhaps you have a hand
that should simply raise the preempt to 4, but you want to talk LHO out
of doubling, so first you bid 2NT and then bid what you were going to
bid regardless of the answer. Is there any restriction against using
asking bids when you don't care about the answer, just to confuse the
opponents (sometime last year I recall someone posting that they
routinely use Stayman followed by a jump to 3NT even without a 4-card
major)?

Do you generally need to know this distinction immediately (is it likely
to affect whether you interfere) or just by the time you're on defense?

Post by Julian Lighton
Also, the choice of method tells you something about the pair's weak
two style.

Very good point. Availability of Ogust is often used as an excuse to be
less disciplined in opening weak 2's.

[Steve Willner]

SW>> To describe an Ogust 2NT over 2S, I would suggest something along the

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Steve Willner
lines of: "Artificial and forcing. [In principle] invitational values
or better [though he may be fooling around with a weak hand, usually
with spade support if so]. [Usually] not a good suit of his own,
therefore often balanced or semi-balanced. [Not a hand that can place
the contract in 3NT or 4S.]"

That's nowhere near full disclosure.

Perhaps there is some flaw in my suggested text, but you are going to
have a hard time convincing me that describing all partner's possible
hand types, including the negative inferences, is not full disclosure.

Post by David Stevenson
Opponents have a right to know
what is being asked about. You might just as well say "asking" as your
reply. You must say what is asked.

Why do opponents have a right to know how our followup bidding will go?
If opponents ask about your partner's 1H opening bid, do you describe
what the bid shows? Or do you describe your complete system of raises
plus all your options if you don't hold heart support?

I think you have fallen into the trap of assuming that the type of
answer you usually get is adequate.

Do we at least agree that describing _only_ the followup ("asking about
suit quality and overall strength") is very far from full disclosure?

[Arthur Hoffman]

Post by Adam Beneschan

Post by p***@infi.net
Well, around here, everyone plays either Features or Ogust, and it's
about 50-50. People play with various partners, so this is a common
point of misunderstanding. At a tournament a couple of years ago, my
partner announced (without being asked) "Ogust" over my 2NT inquiry
(which happened not to be our agreement.) The director was called and
imposed a procedural penalty. (I'm sure I treated his response as a
feature, but can't recall any details.) My point is that merely
alerting 2NT under the prevailing conditions in this area has exactly
the same effect as my partner's egregious announcement, and the
director's comment was that partner was telling me what his rebids
meant. So was the penalty unjustified? Or should everyone who alerts
2NT get the same treatment?

If you're pretty certain that "alert" means "Ogust" and "no alert"
means "feature", then penalizing an alerter might be appropriate. But
I wouldn't assume this automatically in all cases. I'm sure there are
some players who alert 2NT because it would surprising to them that an
artificial asking bid other than Stayman and Blackwood would be
unalertable. Especially an asking bid that used to be a Class C
convention.
This brings up a question that I'd like some opinions on. Suppose I'm
asked to explain my partner's 2NT response. Should I tell them what
2NT is asking for, or should I just say that it "asks for a further
description" and let them ask about opener's rebid after it comes up?
It seems to me that saying "Ogust" might be too much. You're not
supposed to use a proper name to explain a convention anyway, because
the opponents might have a different understanding of what the name
means. But I think saying "Ogust" is too much even if the opponents
understand the meaning perfectly, because now you're not only telling
them what information partner is interested in, you're telling him what
your rebids are going to be. On the other hand, just saying "asking me
to describe further" might be too little---the opponents are entitled
ot know what information partner is interested in. Any thoughts on
this?

Yes. If you say "Ogust", you are answering the question by naming a
convention, which the ACBL frowns upon. Moreover, the opponents may have no
understanding of what Ogust is. In this instance you might get these blank
stares from your opponents, if they don't know what Ogust is. So, merely
saying "Ogust" is out.

What I would say is, "Partner is making a forcing bid, has at least
invitational values, and is asking me to further describe my hand." If the
opponents persist, I say,"I suggest you wait until I have rebid and then ask
my partner what that means." If the opponents then ask if we are playing
"Ogust", I answer "yes".

If I try to answer the opponents with what all my rebids mean, I will most
likely forget something and possibly later be accused of not giving a
complete answer to their question.

Incidentally, some months ago there was a thread about what you should
answer to a question in a different auction about what 2NT means when your
partner has bid Lebensohl. At that time, I responded that I would say, "My
partner is asking me to bid 3C, after which he will either pass or bid
something else with a variety of different hands." I was severely
criticized by several posters, most notably Mr. Stevensen, who claimed that
my response was (woefully) inadequate. To this day, I disagree with that
criticism. And I feel likewise about a 2NT Ogust. You just can't cover all
the bases responding to a question as to what the alert means whether the
2NT bid is Ogust or Lebensohl. So, IMHO, make the simplest answer and be
ready for additional specific questions if they come.

Post by Adam Beneschan
-- Adam

[Stu Goodgold]

Post by Arthur Hoffman

Post by Adam Beneschan
This brings up a question that I'd like some opinions on. Suppose I'm
asked to explain my partner's 2NT response. Should I tell them what
2NT is asking for, or should I just say that it "asks for a further
description" and let them ask about opener's rebid after it comes up?
It seems to me that saying "Ogust" might be too much. You're not
supposed to use a proper name to explain a convention anyway, because
the opponents might have a different understanding of what the name
means. But I think saying "Ogust" is too much even if the opponents
understand the meaning perfectly, because now you're not only telling
them what information partner is interested in, you're telling him what
your rebids are going to be. On the other hand, just saying "asking me
to describe further" might be too little---the opponents are entitled
ot know what information partner is interested in. Any thoughts on
this?

Yes. If you say "Ogust", you are answering the question by naming a
convention, which the ACBL frowns upon. Moreover, the opponents may have no
understanding of what Ogust is. In this instance you might get these blank
stares from your opponents, if they don't know what Ogust is. So, merely
saying "Ogust" is out.
What I would say is, "Partner is making a forcing bid, has at least
invitational values, and is asking me to further describe my hand." If the
opponents persist, I say,"I suggest you wait until I have rebid and then ask
my partner what that means." If the opponents then ask if we are playing
"Ogust", I answer "yes".

Gee, if you had said "Ogust" in the first place RHO could have told you
to quit right there and made his call in the next 2 seconds instead of
waiting for you suggestion to wait until the next round of bidding.

The reason we use labels for conventions is to streamline
understanding. If they don't know the label, your following
explanation defines it. Next time they will know what Ogust means.

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[Arthur Hoffman]

Post by Stu Goodgold

Post by Arthur Hoffman

Post by Adam Beneschan
This brings up a question that I'd like some opinions on. Suppose I'm
asked to explain my partner's 2NT response. Should I tell them what
2NT is asking for, or should I just say that it "asks for a further
description" and let them ask about opener's rebid after it comes up?
It seems to me that saying "Ogust" might be too much. You're not
supposed to use a proper name to explain a convention anyway, because
the opponents might have a different understanding of what the name
means. But I think saying "Ogust" is too much even if the opponents
understand the meaning perfectly, because now you're not only telling
them what information partner is interested in, you're telling him what
your rebids are going to be. On the other hand, just saying "asking me
to describe further" might be too little---the opponents are entitled
ot know what information partner is interested in. Any thoughts on
this?

Yes. If you say "Ogust", you are answering the question by naming a
convention, which the ACBL frowns upon. Moreover, the opponents may have no
understanding of what Ogust is. In this instance you might get these blank
stares from your opponents, if they don't know what Ogust is. So, merely
saying "Ogust" is out.
What I would say is, "Partner is making a forcing bid, has at least
invitational values, and is asking me to further describe my hand." If the
opponents persist, I say,"I suggest you wait until I have rebid and then ask
my partner what that means." If the opponents then ask if we are playing
"Ogust", I answer "yes".

Gee, if you had said "Ogust" in the first place RHO could have told you
to quit right there and made his call in the next 2 seconds instead of
waiting for you suggestion to wait until the next round of bidding.

I really don't agree with what you have to say. I don't say Ogust at all
for two reasons. I said previously that it is frowned upon by the ACBL.
What the ACBL actually says (in italics) is, "Stating the common or popular
name of the convention is not sufficient." So, I don't say Ogust because
the ACBL frowns upon this. If I don't say Ogust, how can that be wrong?

To say Ogust at all may suggest to the opponents, who may also be playing a
version of Ogust, that we may be playing their version of Ogust, which we
might not be.

Post by Stu Goodgold
The reason we use labels for conventions is to streamline
understanding. If they don't know the label, your following
explanation defines it. Next time they will know what Ogust means.

I don't alert and explain the alert to teach opponents bridge (Ogust). I
alert and explain the alert because the rules require me to.

Post by Stu Goodgold
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

Post by Arthur Hoffman

Post by Stu Goodgold

Post by Arthur Hoffman

Post by Adam Beneschan
This brings up a question that I'd like some opinions on. Suppose I'm
asked to explain my partner's 2NT response. Should I tell them what
2NT is asking for, or should I just say that it "asks for a further
description" and let them ask about opener's rebid after it comes up?
It seems to me that saying "Ogust" might be too much. You're not
supposed to use a proper name to explain a convention anyway, because
the opponents might have a different understanding of what the name
means. But I think saying "Ogust" is too much even if the opponents
understand the meaning perfectly, because now you're not only telling
them what information partner is interested in, you're telling him what
your rebids are going to be. On the other hand, just saying "asking me
to describe further" might be too little---the opponents are entitled
ot know what information partner is interested in. Any thoughts on
this?

Yes. If you say "Ogust", you are answering the question by naming a
convention, which the ACBL frowns upon. Moreover, the opponents may have no
understanding of what Ogust is. In this instance you might get these blank
stares from your opponents, if they don't know what Ogust is. So, merely
saying "Ogust" is out.
What I would say is, "Partner is making a forcing bid, has at least
invitational values, and is asking me to further describe my hand." If the
opponents persist, I say,"I suggest you wait until I have rebid and then ask
my partner what that means." If the opponents then ask if we are playing
"Ogust", I answer "yes".

Gee, if you had said "Ogust" in the first place RHO could have told you
to quit right there and made his call in the next 2 seconds instead of
waiting for you suggestion to wait until the next round of bidding.

I really don't agree with what you have to say. I don't say Ogust at all
for two reasons. I said previously that it is frowned upon by the ACBL.
What the ACBL actually says (in italics) is, "Stating the common or popular
name of the convention is not sufficient." So, I don't say Ogust because
the ACBL frowns upon this. If I don't say Ogust, how can that be wrong?
To say Ogust at all may suggest to the opponents, who may also be playing a
version of Ogust, that we may be playing their version of Ogust, which we
might not be.

Although personally I rarely name the convention (especially since I
play very few conventions is full compliance with the WBF convention
book), it isn't illegal (or even "frowned upon" and you put it) to do
so. The alert regulations simply say that it is not sufficient. Stu's
comment that it could shorten the explanation, if he named the
convention is probably true.


Perhaps the ACBL C&C would like to change this to "You can use the name
of the convention, if you are playing it in full conformity with the
definition given in the WBF conventions booklet." But, there are some
conventions given there that I had never seen (or even seen discussed
on this newsgroup) until I read the booklet.

There are times when "Double Reverse Three-way Drury" would be an
adequate explanation. For instance, if you are playing *against* one of
your other frequent partners or your mentor or your student, the
explanation that "We play 'Abbreviated Ogust' the same way that you and
I do" would be adequate.

Post by Arthur Hoffman

Post by Stu Goodgold
The reason we use labels for conventions is to streamline
understanding. If they don't know the label, your following
explanation defines it. Next time they will know what Ogust means.

Well, the next time that they play *against you* they will know what
*you* mean by "Ogust".

Post by Arthur Hoffman
I don't alert and explain the alert to teach opponents bridge (Ogust). I
alert and explain the alert because the rules require me to.

[Steve Willner]

Post by Arthur Hoffman
Incidentally, some months ago there was a thread about what you should
answer to a question in a different auction about what 2NT means when your
partner has bid Lebensohl. At that time, I responded that I would say, "My
partner is asking me to bid 3C, after which he will either pass or bid
something else with a variety of different hands." I was severely
criticized by several posters, most notably Mr. Stevensen, who claimed that
my response was (woefully) inadequate.

I agree with David; your answer is hopelessly inadequate. How about
"Artificial and forcing. Shows a weak hand with clubs [or other suits]
or an invitational hand [with still other suits] or a balanced hand
[with some strength/stoppers]." For the bits in brackets, put in your
correct agreements as they apply to the actual auction.

Saying what you are supposed to bid is wrong. Failing to describe
partner's hand types is even worse. If there really are too many types
to list, at least mention all the types where partner could be weak.
Those are the ones the opponents are most likely to need to know.

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

... You do, however, have to alert the 2NT bid if it is a genuine offer
to play 2NT (or in Opener's second suit).