[mycroft]

I am willing to say either: "it's a 4+card game-forcing raise of (M); our followups are not standard Jacoby" or "4+card GF raise" and at the end of the auction, the 95% of the time we're declaring, explain the rest of the auction before the opening lead. The former does have the downside of potentially waking up partner (or looking like it does), but in practise I've never seen anyone have a problem.

I would feel very uncomfortable letting them lead with a likely misunderstood auction.

[aguahombre]

helene_t, on 2012-April-17, 05:30, said:

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.

This works. We take "Jacoby?", "weak?" "Unusual?" "Michaels?" "New Minor?" and all other inquiries which name something to mean "please explain". Then we explain the call.

Some understand what we are doing, others would rather just have a "yes" and get impatient with the answer; but, they will never get just a "yes", or a "no".

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-17, 10:29, said:

This works. We take "Jacoby?", "weak?" "Unusual?" "Michaels?" "New Minor?" and all other inquiries which name something to mean "please explain". Then we explain the call.

Some understand what we are doing, others would rather just have a "yes" and get impatient with the answer; but, they will never get just a "yes", or a "no".

But when you explain the call, do you make sure to remove the opponent's misconception that you play the convention they asked about? If they ask "Jacoby?", and you explain "Game forcing raise", they're likely to assume that you're simply describing Jacoby.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2012-April-18, 09:43, said:

But when you explain the call, do you make sure to remove the opponent's misconception that you play the convention they asked about? If they ask "Jacoby?", and you explain "Game forcing raise", they're likely to assume that you're simply describing Jacoby.

When in-fact it is not what they "named", the explanation starts with "NO,...". If we know it to be a variation of what they "named", then we say, for instance, "Yes, unusual; but showing the red suits".

It can get tricky. I can't speak for Jacoby 2NT variations, because we do not use 2NT for that purpose; but, when they have (we believe) accurately named what we play, the best we can do is explain what the bid means and let them assume we are merely descibing that. In other words..the reason for not using names when describing conventions is because our use of the convention might not be their understanding of its use; so we don't use the name.

We can't be responsible for knowing all the names or knowing their interpretation of the names; but we can try to avoid misunderstanding if we do have that knowledge.

So, an answer to your question might be found in:

1NT-2S (Alert). "MSS?" "It shows both minors, weak or strong; or merely weak with long diamonds." We have described 2S, and believe "MSS" was accurate; but whether they believe we are merely describing MSS and whether their understanding of it varies from that is not our problem. We didn't bring in the name to the conversation.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-April-18, 09:43, said:

But when you explain the call, do you make sure to remove the opponent's misconception that you play the convention they asked about? If they ask "Jacoby?", and you explain "Game forcing raise", they're likely to assume that you're simply describing Jacoby.

I don't see why. If you were describing Jacoby, would you not say "Yes"?

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2012-April-24, 17:31, said:

If you were describing Jacoby, would you not say "Yes"?

No.

1. I won't participate in or encourage using names in disclosure.
2. I won't be responsible for knowing their understanding of the method with that name.
3. I won't assume my understanding of the use of a convention is the current standard understanding.