kevperk

Some directors apply Law 11 more than others.

As I posted earlier, his ban was referring to agreements that currently (in the ACBL) require users to provide a written defense (one that is approved by the ACBL) in order to play, ie. some Midchart conventions.

A prepared defense is one which is required (in the ACBL) by players wishing to play certain conventions. So, basically he advocates no mid chart conventions which required a provided written defenses (which must be approved by the ACBL). It sounds like he wouldn't stop there.

Yes, if it is specifically requested. If I just ask for an explanation of the bid itself, I don't want them to volunteer the response structure. Kevin

As the opponent, I would much rather the response structure not be disclosed BEFORE the response is made. In my experience in these situations, the potential UI problems are far more of a real problem than the MI problems.

For ACBLScore, put NP will mark the board at LATE. This way, it can be easy to find. One can go to the table at the end of game, and remove the score, allowing the table to enter the score.

Putting in NP is for the time when the table will not be playing the board and an artificially adjusted score is to be entered into the scoring program (ACBLScore). LP is for the time when the table has a late play. At the end of round, the Bridgepad will return to the board, to allow the score to be entered. Both entries will put LATE into ACBLScore. By just removing the entry, the score will be brought back in.

I have check with ACBLScore, and to the best of my ability, I can't see how your way is different from what is actually done, save the display of the blanks on the boards. The percentages didn't change for a test file when I entered NP or their session score. Your complaint seems to be on par with those who want the scores factored to a different average, no real difference - just cosmetic. Either way, the scores for others are Neuberged

1) Yes, of course 2) Yes, of course 3) No question asked 4) Yes, but if the opponent asks about the subsequent 3 club bid and also other available bids (in other words, the response structure), the opponent still just might have drawn the inference himself. If the opponents are damaged by not know the inference, then the can appeal to the director for redress.

In the minutes of the WBFLC in Beijing, it says "20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents’ >prior< auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation >only< of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing." Why did they choose to use the words "prior" and "only"? It just seems that if they wanted the laws to be interpreted the way you suggest, they certainly wouldn't have worded it this way.

Sorry, when I asked should it include Ogust, I meant do you see any problem with including the name, thereby implying what the responses will be. I guess I should have asked should it not include "Ogust" in the explanation.

I cannot believe that this is what is intended, even if it is the correct strict reading of the sentence. I think that they didn't think about your interpretation. If they did, I'm sure they would have included the phrase "or has no meaning at all." This is yet another time that I feel people stray by not trying to understand the lawmaker's and regulation-maker's intent. Sure, it would be great if the laws and regulations were written in a clear and unambiguous manner, but when situations like this come up, surely common sense must prevail. If one tries to write the law/regulation to cover the way meant(in my mind) one can easily see the problem. This seems much more plausible than the nonsensical consequence that bids that are clearly not natural are not defined as artificial.

So, do you believe an explanation of a 2NT response to a weak two bid should include "Ogust" in the response (assuming that is the agreement)"? For those who know Ogust, this amounts to disclosing the meaning of calls not yet made. Or, in other situations, the responses to the call are on their card. Or, if one know the opponents methods. I'm not sure of the answer to all this, but it can't be right for the correct procedure to help side making the calls.

I don't think there is a legal requirement, but I do feel that an opponent who claims damage by lack of knowledge of the negative inferences about a bid will have a case if the director is called. By actively giving these negative inferences, this will be avoided. In theory, the director will give the benefit of the doubt to the opponents, so one is better off giving the info up front.

Sometimes it is hard not to blurt out something like this, or think it is helpful, but it causes more problems. There is an issue with the substituted bid. If the north-south pair have no systemic way of play 2[d], but only 3[d], and the hand only makes 2, or goes down, the board may need to be adjusted. Otherwise, the pair benefits from the enforced pass.

How did it come to light that your partner thought you had opened 1♥? If the director asked at the table, this director needs a refresher. If your partner volunteered this info unquestioned, then partner needs to be enlightened. Either way, this information is unauthorized. You may not use the unauthorized info, so the question is, "what does the UI suggest"? I haven't decide yet - without the UI, partner could have been opening 1NT himself, or thinking you opened a minor and is bidding a nonforcing NT, or thinking you opened a major and is bidding a forcing NT(if that is the agreement)

No, 3♦ is alertable playing any form of puppet stayman, because it denies a 5-card major.

I don't think following my advice is giving inadequate disclosure. Knowing that a 2NT response to a weak two is asking for "some kind" of information, or that a minimum club response to a NT bid is asking for major holdings, or that a 4NT bid is asking for ace/keycards, is adequate for me as long as the disclosure is not misleading. I feel that most of those who think it is inadequate are just worried about their opponents hiding something, and not really thinking about how these responses will be adequate 99% of the time.

I am NOT trying to avoid giving information. I have all along been thinking about this from the point of my opponents. I don't want my opponents to not fully disclose their methods, but I also don't want them to help themselves by giving more than required, if it means it could help them. I don't understand why some are so worried about people that don't want to disclose their methods, or misdescribe their methods. If my opponents do that, I can easily get redress. I have NEVER had that problem and not get adequate protection. I HAVE had opponents potential help each other by explaining the way some advocate. I even gave examples earlier where "I" COULD have been helped. Not one person has address how my way can in any way hurt me if my opponents follow it, or how the way others advocate NOT potentially help my opponents.

=When my opponents bid 2♣, they are asking about "majors", I'll find out what responses they play when the responder bids. I don't see a problem. If I really think I need to know whether they are asking about four-card or five-card majors before responder bids, I can inquire(look at the card, or ask if I must), but I sure don't want them to volunteer the info unasked. = Ok, you choose to believe some here want to hide part of the meaning. I understand there are some like that. I don't think they are the ones posting here. If some here do want that, I agree they are wrong. You seem so worried about them that you fail to address my concerns.

You keep addressing a problem is not being discussed. Noone is advocating not telling the opponents what the question is. I, and others are advocating not telling in a way that helps partner know how one is going to answer the question. If you are saying that the only way to tell the opponents what the question is requires telling the table what the responses are, then say that. I think that one CAN make it clear what is being asked without giving UI to partner. 2 clubs over 1NT asks "what is your major suit holding" not "what is your response to puppet stayman"

The particular person is someone who's opinion I usually agree with, so would like to understand the nature of the disagreement.

As a tournament and club director, I only play to fill in. Many times I am in the situation where my partner has opened a weak 2, or opened 2NT, or we were in the slam zone. I want to ask with 2NT,3 clubs, or 4NT, respective, but wasn't sure what responses we were playing. With the approach of saying - "Ogust",or "Puppet Stayman", or "1430 keycard", I will find out FROM MY PARTNER what his responses will be. I have always made up my mind beforehand(and have been right so far), but I can't see how anyone would know if I made no guess and just waited for my partners answer. This just seems an unacceptable way for this to happen. If anyone can give me ANY reason why my way is bad and the other way is good, other than the vague "you're being unethical and not giving full disclosure", please do.

I'm not other people. I never argued this, because, like you, I feel it IS being unethical in hiding ones methods. I'm not sure why anyone would want to know the answer, but how is the dialogue - "asking for clarification" - "what form of asking bid" - "Ogust"/"feature" - not better than "Ogust" or "feature" right away. Again, I would much rather my opponents use the former rather than the latter. Most of the time, I believe noone would ask for the responses(he will find out the response that describes the hand on the very next bid), again, I can't see why someone would need to know at that time. I am surprised that you don't see the problem with the approach that you suggest. What is the problem with the approach I suggest?

No it is not. Ogust is not in response to a weak two, but in response to the asking bid response to the weak two. How can it be unethical if noone will be damaged, and it cannot benefit. Does the bid 2NT show any different type of hand if one plays Ogust than if one plays feature? If I wanted to be unethical, I would want it the way you suggest. In this situation, from the start, I have been thinking about it from the point of the opponents of the bidding side. I don't want my opponents helping each other by explaining what their bids are going to mean.