[mycroft]

an accurate and *in*complete explanation, you mean.

Please note that most explanations are mostly accurate, and mostly complete, and the incompleteness is generally not a problem, either because of GBK or lack of relevance, or one of those "never happens" cases (for instance, in one partnership, 1♣(strong)-1♦(negative); 1♥(*)-1♠(forced); 4♣ shows a strong 6-5 minor hand. I never remember that, and describe 1♥ as "hearts, less than a standard 2♣, or one of several balanced ranges").

When it does cause a problem, we rule, correctly, MI. Even when the incompleteness was ambiguous, and taken the wrong way, provided it was reasonable to take it the wrong way (as in this case).

[bluejak]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-May-30, 14:40, said:

This particular case is interesting because they have given an accurate and complete explanation, it is 15-19 as they explained, any 15-19, it's just that people assume that this will be a balanced hand then don't protect themselves by checking as I would have.

No, you are misquoting yourself.

It was explained as 15-19, which is incomplete.

You and not the explanation said "any 15-19" which is a much more complete explanation.

[dburn]

Did anyone ask West whether, if his partner had responded 2♦ instead of 2♥, he would still rebid 2NT?

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2012-May-30, 18:03, said:

No, you are misquoting yourself.

It was explained as 15-19, which is incomplete.

You and not the explanation said "any 15-19" which is a much more complete explanation.

Maybe I should have punctuated better, what I meant was "15-19" is a totally complete and accurate description of what the bid meant if every 15-19 hand would be bid this way.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2012-May-30, 14:05, said:

I suspect they may have assumed that since the bid was alerted, it would not be expected to be natural.

The point is that the strength of the bid (15-19) already made 2NT alertable (see second to last paragraph in the OP). That makes this situation pretty much equivalent to:
1NT opening
"Alert!"
- "Yes?"
"12-14"

Is there anybody who would think that this could mean "12-14, any distribution"? I think that everybody would assume it to be natural, unless specified otherwise.

Rik

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-May-31, 01:39, said:

Maybe I should have punctuated better, what I meant was "15-19" is a totally complete and accurate description of what the bid meant if every 15-19 hand would be bid this way.

So, 1NT-"Alert!"-"Yes?"-"12-14" would be a totally complete and accurate description of the 1NT opening if every 12-14 hand would open 1NT?

Language is more than the words spoken. It is included in a context. People do not describe things that are "normal" or can be reasonably inferred, given the context. Most bridge playing linguists would consider "a balanced NT" a tautology: The "balanced" is already included in the "NT", whereas the range isn't. (Therefore, "a 15-17 NT" or "a 12-14 NT" are not tautologies.)

If the two of us are in my kitchen and I talk to you about water, you will naturally assume that I mean liquid water. That is normal in the context of a kitchen. If I meant ice or steam, I would say that specifically. Even if I meant water in any aggregation state (solid, liquid, gas or as a component of mayonaise or kitchen salt) I would have to specify that. If you sue a plumber for the poor work he did and a lawyer would ask you under oath: "Did you have any water in the kitchen?", you might answer: "No". If he then accuses you of purgery, because you had mayonaise in the fridge and ice deposits in your freezer, he is chemically correct (mayo) and physically correct (ice), but barking mad at the same time.

If, on the other hand, I am talking about the processes in my car and I will tell you that the catalytic converter converts harmful exhaust into carbon dioxide and water, you will understand that to mean steam and not liquid water. It would be silly to object and say that I must be wrong, because the temperature in the catalytic converter is way over the boiling point of water.

Contexts change meanings: In the kitchen "water" means the liquid; in my car exhaust "water" means the gas.

In a similar way, a strength range explanation in the context of a NT bid means that strength range "AND balanced (or natural)". In the context of a 1♣ opening, a strength range (e.g. "16+") can mean that strength range "AND any distribution".

Context is important. Many times the context in which something is said is more important than the actual words.

Rik

[campboy]

If the correct explanation were "15-19 balanced" then "15-19" would be accurate, as far as it went. Therefore "15-19" cannot be complete, since it does not distinguish between these two possibilities.

The difference between the two cases is that in this case only one explanation is plausible (the wrong one), and explainer might be expected to realise this. In the "weak takeout double" case either explanation is plausible and asker might be expected to realise this.

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2012-May-31, 03:34, said:

Contexts change meanings: In the kitchen "water" means the liquid; in my car exhaust "water" means the gas.

You have a better car than I do.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2012-May-31, 03:34, said:

Context is important. Many times the context in which something is said is more important than the actual words.

True, but that's not all. People have shared understandings, and a speaker can often omit details that he can reasonably expect the listeners to assume. But in contrast, if the listeners can't be expected to assume something, or worse could be expected to make a contrary assumption, they should be explicit.

That's the point I was trying to make earlier about common versus uncommon agreements. It's well known that almost everyone plays NT openings as natural, and the only significant point of variation is the range, so when explaining a NT opening all you have to say is the range if there's nothing otherwise unusual about it.

But if you're using an unusual treatment, you should know that the opponents won't necessarily fill in the gaps in your explanation correctly. So you should strive to provide as many details explicitly as is reasonably possible. If the opponents don't know you're doing something weird, they'd have no reason to ask for more details. If you make a NT bid in a context where most would treat it as natural, they're going to assume this unless you deny it explicitly; you can't just leave out mention of distribution and expect them to understand that the omission means unrestricted.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2012-May-31, 01:59, said:

The point is that the strength of the bid (15-19) already made 2NT alertable (see second to last paragraph in the OP).

That's why I said it wasn't a great assumption, but I still think it's understandable.

[dburn]

Trinidad, on 2012-May-31, 03:34, said:

If he then accuses you of purgery, because you had mayonaise in the fridge and ice deposits in your freezer,

Not sure either of those would work. But if you had chilli powder in the cupboard and prunes in the blender...

[FrancesHinden]

barmar, on 2012-May-31, 09:41, said:

True, but that's not all. People have shared understandings, and a speaker can often omit details that he can reasonably expect the listeners to assume. But in contrast, if the listeners can't be expected to assume something, or worse could be expected to make a contrary assumption, they should be explicit.

But if you're using an unusual treatment, you should know that the opponents won't necessarily fill in the gaps in your explanation correctly. So you should strive to provide as many details explicitly as is reasonably possible. If the opponents don't know you're doing something weird, they'd have no reason to ask for more details. If you make a NT bid in a context where most would treat it as natural, they're going to assume this unless you deny it explicitly; you can't just leave out mention of distribution and expect them to understand that the omission means unrestricted.

I thought of this thread at the weekend, when our opponents bid uncontested
p - 1H
1NT - 2C
2NT - P

nothing was alerted. They were playing a strong 1C system, and the card said under responses to 1H
1S = 8+ natural
1NT = 8-13 {there wasn't a special section for passed hand responses}

Declarer turned out to have a 4234 11-count and we misdefended in the "knowledge" that she couldn't have four spades.
We asked after the hand if it was normal to conceal a 4-card spade suit in the 1NT response and were told "oh yes of course". Responder said a 1S response as a passed hand was weaker than 1NT, so she had to bid 1NT to get her strength across to partner. When we suggested (with the TD present) that 1NT should have been alerted, we had the interesting response "of course not. don't you know how to play Precision?" (to which my partner answered "no, but I know what's alertable")

Anyway the TD ruled that it should have been alerted and we had been given MI.

[Fluffy]

I've read some people who think it is perfectly normal to rebid 1NT with singleton in partner's suit, and it should be expected. This might be 100% correct in EBU, but outside it I can tell you it is completelly unexpected for many players.

I always alert 1♣-1♠*-1NT! where 1♠ is transfer walsh showing diamonds or balanced without 4c major. I alert 1NT because even when it is bid to become the final contract 90% of the time, it could contain a singleton diamond wich is unexpected for a NT rebid where I live.


My pet peeve about this is that right now I have to have a lenghty discussion every time someone opens 1NT against me, regarding if their standard opening with 5M332 is 1NT or not. Everyone thinks their method is mainstream :/

[campboy]

Fluffy, on 2012-June-05, 06:32, said:

I've read some people who think it is perfectly normal to rebid 1NT with singleton in partner's suit, and it should be expected. This might be 100% correct in EBU, but outside it I can tell you it is completelly unexpected for many players.

I think the reason some people aren't familiar with the idea of a 1NT rebid sometimes having a singleton in partner's suit is simply that it doesn't happen very often even for partnerships where it is ok. I would certainly rebid 1NT with my regular partner if I opened 1m on a 15-17 1=4=4=4 and heard a 1♠ response, but I can't remember the last time I did. I'll only hold that hand type once every 1315 boards and when I do maybe someone will open in front of me or partner won't bid 1♠.

[WellSpyder]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-June-05, 02:59, said:

We asked after the hand if it was normal to conceal a 4-card spade suit in the 1NT response and were told "oh yes of course". Responder said a 1S response as a passed hand was weaker than 1NT, so she had to bid 1NT to get her strength across to partner. When we suggested (with the TD present) that 1NT should have been alerted, we had the interesting response "of course not. don't you know how to play Precision?"

Gulp! I thought I had a reasonable idea of how to play Precision, but I have never come across this idea before....