[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-14, 12:12, said:

I think, Stefanie, that you're reading more — much more — into Kathryn's post than is actually there. I suggest a less confrontational stance.

Maybe. What I read was that she would intentionally mislead the opponents, and if caught out, lie to the director.

In her most recent post she says that she thinks or knows that they want an explanation of the continutations (not sure if "Jacoby" is even accurate if the continuations are not as originally set out) but will not give it to them without further questioning. She admits that it is unethical but doesn't seem committed to not doing it again.

I think that Jillybean has a responsibility here. She has (one dares to hope) picked up a rudimentary understanding of the Laws from reading these forums, and is content not to follow them. Ignorance can no longer be an excuse, so I hope that PPs follow and will make an impression.

[blackshoe]

Let me add that I am of the opinion that if a call has not yet been made, a question about the meaning of that call is not appropriate, and need not be answered (yet). I do not consider this position to be in opposition to the Principle of Full Disclosure. I do not buy any of the arguments I've seen that the answer to such a question may be crucial to a player's immediate action. I do believe that when a call has been made, a question about alternative calls to the one made may be asked, and must be answered. For example, if in response to a Jacoby 2NT partner bids 3♦, perhaps described as "short in diamonds", it is appropriate to ask what 4♦ would mean, had he made that bid.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-14, 16:21, said:

Let me add that I am of the opinion that if a call has not yet been made, a question about the meaning of that call is not appropriate, and need not be answered (yet).

The position in question was after the auction was finished. But thanks for sharing.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-14, 13:32, said:

I don't see how "would you like an explanation of our auction?" can be seen as condescending, unless they are severely over sensitive. You don't have to point out that they didn't ask about alerted bids.

That's what I said wasn't it, only you said it better

[jillybean]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-14, 15:48, said:

Maybe. What I read was that she would intentionally mislead the opponents, and if caught out, lie to the director.

In her most recent post she says that she thinks or knows that they want an explanation of the continutations (not sure if "Jacoby" is even accurate if the continuations are not as originally set out) but will not give it to them without further questioning. She admits that it is unethical but doesn't seem committed to not doing it again.

I think that Jillybean has a responsibility here. She has (one dares to hope) picked up a rudimentary understanding of the Laws from reading these forums, and is content not to follow them. Ignorance can no longer be an excuse, so I hope that PPs follow and will make an impression.

Are you saying that when the opponents ask if a 2N/1M bid is "jacoby" (opening strength and support of at least four cards in the opening bidder's major suit), I should in fact use my judgement to decide that it is the continuations they need to know about and explain what my continuations are? Imo, this thinking is flawed.

As for a PP, we don't get PP's here but I would accept any warning about my disclosure practices without question.

[Vampyr]

jillybean, on 2012-April-14, 18:08, said:

Are you saying that when the opponents ask if a 2N/1M bid is "jacoby" (opening strength and support of at least four cards in the opening bidder's major suit), I should in fact use my judgement to decide that it is the continuations they need to know about and explain what my continuations are? Imo, this thinking is flawed.

You said yourself that you were pretty sure that was what they wanted to know. So you should tell them. (Besides the fact that with rebids that aren't the original ones, it is unclear to me whether "Jacoby" is accurate.)

[blackshoe]

"Explaining" a convention by naming it is explicitly deprecated (perhaps prohibited is a better word, I don't know — I'd have to read the regulation again) by the ACBL alert regulation. So saying "it's Jacoby", or replying "yes" to "is that Jacoby" is not adequate disclosure, even if your agreement is precisely that. When your version of Jacoby is different to what most people expect, it's even more important to explain it fully.

I don't know why you felt they wanted to know what the followups would mean, but as I've said I don't think you're obligated to describe the response structure in anything other than the most general terms. Not until partner makes a response.

[Vampyr]

jillybean, on 2012-April-12, 12:19, said:

Or, at the end of an auction an opponent simply asks "thats Jacoby is it?" (

My understanding is that "at the end of an auction" means that all of the bids have been made. Perhaps the banging on about bids that have not been made could be reserved for the thread that is specifically about that.

[aguahombre]

or perhaps the banging on about Jacoby on a Puppet thread could end.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-14, 21:16, said:

or perhaps the banging on about Jacoby on a Puppet thread could end.

To be fair, the thread is really about disclosure.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-14, 21:20, said:

To be fair, the thread is really about disclosure.

That's true. Disclosure of Puppet. We could conceivably go for a world record currently contended for in the "oops" thread.

[jeffford76]

jillybean, on 2012-April-14, 13:25, said:

As Blackshoe says, I think you are reading more into it, and I am not 100% sure that my description is illegal. “That's Jacoby is it?” appears to be asking if 2NT is a game forcing major raise, which it is. Rather than responding with a “yes” I should reply “2N is showing a 4 card major raise, asking partner to describe their hand further”. I don't believe I should list the responses that are available but that is being discussed in another thread. The unethical part is that I am quite sure that they really want to ask about the continuations and not the 2NT bid and while it may leave an uncomfortable feeling, I am not obliged to suggest they ask or to provide that information. In fact it would be a violation to do so.

I think your correct response to "Jacoby?" is "It's a 4-card game forcing raise, but not standard Jacoby". Then they can ask about followups if they want to.

[jillybean]

jeffford76, on 2012-April-16, 09:32, said:

I think your correct response to "Jacoby?" is "It's a 4-card game forcing raise, but not standard Jacoby". Then they can ask about followups if they want to.

If the question is at the end of the auction, yes I agree.

[Vampyr]

jillybean, on 2012-April-16, 12:21, said:

If the question is at the end of the auction, yes I agree.

Well, during the auction you don't want to just say "yes" if that is likely to mislead them. But you wouldn't, since convention names are not proper disclosure.

[jillybean]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-16, 12:41, said:

Well, during the auction you don't want to just say "yes" if that is likely to mislead them. But you wouldn't, since convention names are not proper disclosure.

During the auction "yes" is marginal at worst, its a 4 card gf raise, Im not going to alert the opponents and my partner that we don't play standard follow ups.

[barmar]

If they ask "Jacoby?", I think a proper response would be something like "It's a 4-card GF raise, but not Jacoby." Not clarifying regarding Jacoby seems to be clearly misleading, since they've made it clear that they're assuming the specific structure.

[Cthulhu D]

Doesn't it make sense to say 'Yeah, it's a 4 card GF raise' or if you're worried that's misleading 'It's a card GF raise.'

[Lanor Fow]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-April-16, 19:52, said:

Doesn't it make sense to say 'Yeah, it's a 4 card GF raise' or if you're worried that's misleading 'It's a card GF raise.'

If it is a 4 card raise that isn't jacoby (which I believe is what we're discussing) then starting the answer to the quetsion 'Is it jacoby' with 'yeah' is more than misleading, it's surely misinformation, even when coupled with the rest of the response (which doesn't do anything to dispell this belief opponents now have that you play jacoby). Saying that a convention name isn't sufficient disclosure is not the same as saying that it's white noise that can, and will, be ignored.

Whilst Blackshoe may well be right with regards to the laws, I personally find it impossible to consider this 'full disclosure' for any definition of the word full that I have come across. Perhaps we should instead call it the principle of 'limited disclosure'.

[helene_t]

So if some random opps at the club ask "is it jacoby?", which is more likely:

1: they are aware of the differences between jacoby and other conventions that use 2nt as a gf raise (such as jordan), and they want to know which of the follow-ups they use

2: by "jacoby" they just mean "gf raise". They don't care about the follow-ups.

I think (2:) will be the case more than 90% of the time. But if (1:) is the case it would be bad to assume that opps don't know what "jacoby" means.

So better to pretend not to know the term "jacoby". You are not obliged to provide names for your conventions and you shouldn't do it when there is a significant risk that opps will make wrong assumptions about what those convention names mean to you.

[barmar]

If I ask "Jacoby?", it's because I want to know whether it's the common convention, so I don't need them to explain all the details, or something else that I should get more information about.

Although, even if they say "yes", I might still ask about the followups, just in case THEY aren't aware that their agreement isn't standard Jacoby. So I guess I'm really just interested in confirming that it's a GF raise of some form, as opposed to some other conventional use of 2NT.