[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2014-May-22, 01:10, said:

A partner of mine once said that the most important information about a call is the information from alternative available calls that were not used.

The only thing that can be said as description of the 2NT bid at this time is that he wants more information from the opener.

Why? Your guess is as good as mine.

If "pass or correct" shall be a correct description of 3♠ in response to Multi 2♦ I would want to know why he did not instead responded 2♠ which I understand would also be a "pass or correct" response?

And you should ask why he didn't respond 2♠ (although anybody where multi is common would assume 2♠ to be potentially 0-2♠/3-4♥ as against 3♠ which will be (2-)3 spades and 4+ hearts). Unless you specified otherwise, it would normally be understood here that a 2N response is a good hand, if it isn't, you need to tell people.

[jeffford76]

Bbradley62, on 2014-May-21, 17:50, said:

If the auction goes (1M)-2M-(p)-2NT, I would describe 2NT as asking 2M bidder to name his minor; I don't think it's necessary to explain what types of hands might be interested in this information. Same with pran's 2NT.

Opponents *are* entitled to a description of what types of hands are interested in the information, especially in light of whatever other calls were available to elicit different information. Saying "asks for a minor" is a shortcut for full disclosure, and rarely harmful, but it doesn't meet your complete obligation.

I've never seen a case where "he could have anything" was a correct description of an asking bid, and once there are hands you can't have, opponents are entitled to know which ones.

[barmar]

pran, on 2014-May-22, 01:10, said:

A partner of mine once said that the most important information about a call is the information from alternative available calls that were not used.

The Law says that an opponent may ask about alternative calls, but it doesn't say that you have to offer this information spontaneously. There's usually up to almost 3 dozen calls that could have been made but weren't.

[pran]

pran, on 2014-May-22, 01:10, said:

A partner of mine once said that the most important information about a call is the information from alternative available calls that were not used.

barmar, on 2014-May-22, 09:47, said:

The Law says that an opponent may ask about alternative calls, but it doesn't say that you have to offer this information spontaneously. There's usually up to almost 3 dozen calls that could have been made but weren't.

His point was, and mine is that if a player calls "A" in a position where he equally well could have called "B" the complete description of call "A" should include what hands (kind of) that are excluded because he did not call "B".

Sometimes this is obvious, like if opener bids 1♦ and responder bids 1NT he can in most natural systems have more than three cards in either major.

In other situations (although hardly in this particular example) it might be critical information as when a 2♣ Stayman bid (over 1NT) is responded to with a 2♥ or 2♠ bid. Does this bid deny 4 Cards in the other major suit? And so on.

[wank]

if i ever play against pran i'll be hoping i never have to ask for an explanation - i would be bored to tears once he'd finished.

[barmar]

wank, on 2014-May-23, 08:57, said:

if i ever play against pran i'll be hoping i never have to ask for an explanation - i would be bored to tears once he'd finished.

I often wonder how much people practice what they preach here. It's easy to pontificate in the forum on what the ideal explanations should be, but at the table it's easy to get lazy.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-May-23, 10:22, said:

I often wonder how much people practice what they preach here. It's easy to pontificate in the forum on what the ideal explanations should be, but at the table it's easy to get lazy.

It certainly is. That said, I do at least try to practice what I preach.

[jfnrl]

Thank you for your very interesting contributions.
I am not involved in the case (a Swiss team in Nouvelle-Calédonie) whereas I live in Europa.
As I said, it was an expert event : BSC was allowed in the same (roughly) conditions as by WBF.
I don't know the strong option of the multi (if any).
The score was adjusted from 100 (4H -2) to 480 (4S+2).
The case was discussed in the FFB's forum. The highest authorities gave their opinion, justifying the decision of the TD and the appeal committee.