[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-27, 11:06, said:

In the ACBL, NT ranges are announced. All of these would require the announcement "15-17". If opponents want more info, they have to ask about style. I do not think you would get redress here if you failed to ask about style, assumed one of the above, and later found it to be another one. The only way one of these would require an alert is if it were considered "highly unusual and unexpected", and then you would disclose your style (which would be what makes it "highly unusual and unexpected") in your initial explanation. But I don't think any of them fits that criterion.

Sure, "15-17" doesn't mislead opponents since it says nothing about shape, but it would still be incomplete in answer to a question. Announcements on the other hand are not expected to be complete explanations, and "15-17" is the correct announcement for all three pairs in the EBU too.

[PeterAlan]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-27, 16:56, said:

Sarcasm? Perhaps the regualtors have thought this through rather more thoroughly than they expressed in the Orange Book Glossary. They didn't make it clear, and you did.

You are a hard person to agree with, apparently.

If I misunderstood your post, I apologise. You're a lot more succinct than me!

Peter

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2011-November-27, 10:44, said:

Pair A plays old fashioned strong 1NT openings. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

Pair B plays a slightly more modern style. Their 1NT opening can contain a five card major. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

Pair C plays a more modern style. They can have a six card minor or a 2245 distribution with a five card minor and a four card side suit. (But typically not 5 clubs and 4 spades). Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

I find it incredible that anyone believes that this is adequate disclosure when people play vastly different methods but describe them the same.=

I disagree that these are "vastly" different. They're only a little different.

The ACBL CC has a check-box for "5 card majors common".

I think being flexible in your NT openings is "just bridge". I've seen plenty of people open NT with nontraditional shapes, but I think it's usually just personal judgement, not a partnership agreement. There's an occasional player in our club who doesn't have a regular partner, so he always plays with pickups, and he likes to mastermind by opening NT whenever he feels like it. This obviously doesn't come up in the 5 minutes of system discussion before the game.

[bluejak]

StevenG, on 2011-November-27, 03:17, said:

They are not playing different methods. They are playing the same method, but using significantly different judgement.

They are not playing the same method.

Consider, for example, a pair that plays an opening 1♣ as 14+ because they judge that works better: they are not playing the same methods as a normal player who opens on 11+ - or less with distributional hands. Both are playing a natural 1♣ opening.

Bridge is not a game of secret agreements.

Trinidad, on 2011-November-27, 10:44, said:

Pair A plays old fashioned strong 1NT openings. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

Pair B plays a slightly more modern style. Their 1NT opening can contain a five card major. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

Pair C plays a more modern style. They can have a six card minor or a 2245 distribution with a five card minor and a four card side suit. (But typically not 5 clubs and 4 spades). Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

I find it incredible that anyone believes that this is adequate disclosure when people play vastly different methods but describe them the same.

So do I. If they describe them as the same they are practicing inadequate disclosure and gaining an unfair advantage.

Trinidad, on 2011-November-27, 10:44, said:

Or to get back to the topic of 2♣ openers: You are exagerating. The difference between the different 2♣ openers is marginal. The biggest difference lies in the bidding a round later when the opponents interfere. For some a pass would be forcing, for others it isn't. The cure: Alert the fact that the pass is forcing. This would at the same time make life easier on palooka's who don't know what a forcing pass is, whether they now play your method A, B and C. After all, they wouldn't need to alert. (You can't alert an agreement that you don't have, even less an agreement that you don't even know what it is or that it exists.)

The difference is enormous. I know that some players open a hand with 2♣ that is eight to ten points lighter than I open but they do not tell people.

Trinidad, on 2011-November-27, 10:44, said:

P.S. It may be an idea to keep the word "palooka" out of posts that also involve regulations of the complexity of the Orange book. After all, a palooka is not able to understand the orange book.

When an answer is made clearer by using the term palooka, I use the term palooka. But if you think this argument is about Orange book regulations then you have no idea what we are arguing about: we are disagreeing over the complete failure by some people to follow the Laws on full disclosure, not regulations at all.

[PeterAlan]

bluejak, on 2011-November-28, 03:21, said:

Trinidad, on 2011-November-27, 10:44, said:

Pair A plays old fashioned strong 1NT openings. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

Pair B plays a slightly more modern style. Their 1NT opening can contain a five card major. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

Pair C plays a more modern style. They can have a six card minor or a 2245 distribution with a five card minor and a four card side suit. (But typically not 5 clubs and 4 spades). Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

I find it incredible that anyone believes that this is adequate disclosure when people play vastly different methods but describe them the same.

So do I. If they describe them as the same they are practicing inadequate disclosure and gaining an unfair advantage.

This is all very well, but it's not so straightforward in practice. First, what campboy says above is correct:

campboy, on 2011-November-27, 17:22, said:

Sure, "15-17" doesn't mislead opponents since it says nothing about shape, but it would still be incomplete in answer to a question. Announcements on the other hand are not expected to be complete explanations, and "15-17" is the correct announcement for all three pairs in the EBU too.

and the expected form is specified:

Orange Book said:

5 B 8 Always use a consistent form of wording when announcing, preferably the recommended form.
...

5 ALERTING AND ANNOUNCING

5 C Announcements – 1NT Openings and Responses
5 C 1 Natural 1NT openings are announced by stating the range, eg by saying “12 to 14”.
5 C 2 Where a 1NT opening which is in principle natural may be made by agreement on
some hands which contain a singleton, it is announced by stating the range followed by
“possible singleton”.

Moreover, none of these natural 1NT openings are alertable in EBU-land:

Orange Book said:

5 G 3 Players should not alert:
(a) The calls specified in 5 C ... as announceable.
...
(c ) Opening bids:
...
(3) A natural 1NT opening that has some agreed distributional constraints such
as having no four card major, or allowing a six card minor.

The standard EBU system card has a "Shape Constraints" section that all pairs are expected to complete. Beyond this, the requirements above place the onus on them NOT to make further unasked-for disclosures.

The intention, evidently, is that opponents should either consult that section or ask questions (or both) if they want clarification on just what methods (to use the term above) are being played. This is the process that's mandated to overcome the shortcomings of the announcements which, as Rik highlights, are indeed "inadequate disclosure" if not otherwise supplemented.

Moreover, there's no backing for by-passing the OB requirements in the interests of better disclosure, since the Orange Book begins:

Orange Book said:

1 C 2 Players are required to comply with regulations even though they may doubt the legality of the regulations (under the Laws of bridge).

Peter

[bluejak]

I am talking about Full Disclosure. Full Disclosure means disclosing fully within the rules set down by the TO. So if you open 1NT your partner announces without mentioning shape restraints [except singletons in the EBU/WBU]. But that does not mean they do not put the shape restraints on their SC and give them in answer to questions.

Similarly, if you play a legal 2♣ opening in the EBU/WBU you are required to describe your methods fully. Sure, all you do is alert when they are opened, whichever one. But you are still required to describe your agreements, and 23+ or game forcing is inadequate on the SC or in answer to questions when in practice you know a lot more about the partnership agreement.