Behaviour issues in Leeds

[Vampyr]

[previous post but one]

 

This is plausible, but the OP does not provide any information on whether this might be the case.

[mrdct]

Alternatively, perhaps East has identified a potential system inconsistency if North has ♦ and ♠ and just wants to double-check that this particular hand-type can be ruled out. My main point is that it's very hard to opine on a Laws and Rulings situation when there is no hand, no auction, no system information and an incomplete transcript of what was said at the table.

[blackshoe]

The suggestion that the transcript of what was said at the table is incomplete comes only from others who claim to have knowledge of the event, not from the OP. It would be perfectly reasonable to treat the OP as including a complete transcript of what was said. As to a ruling, we are asked, it seems to me, to rule on the question of whether the Proprieties have been violated, and if so by whom and to what extent, and what penalties, if any, should be awarded. We are not, as I read it, being asked to rule on whether there was MI or use of UI or whether there should be a score adjustment on the basis of one of those infractions. Knowing David, I find it highly unlikely he would post as he did if he wanted a ruling on the latter points.

[gnasher]

There have been a number of criticisms of this thread. I really think some of you should grow up. If you really think that your main object in life when you see a short story is, rather than to to make on-topic discussion of what you do or do not, is to go on about whether you can find out who th people were, whether there was more to the story, what the hands were, whether they were wearing blue or green shirts, whether the Australian cricket team was present, and so on, then I am sorry, i thin you have completely missed the point of these forums.

I think I must be rather missing the point both of these forums and of this thread. Until now, I thought that the purpose of this forum was:

(a) To discuss rulings.

(b) To discuss what the Laws currenly mean and how they are currently interpreted (but not in the way they do it on BLML).

 

How does telling a "short story" fit with that purpose?

[bluejak]

Well, yours was post 54 on the thread so it is obviously worth discussing. :)

[Trinidad]

Unless there is history between East and South, East's third question is not at all reasonable after his second question was asked and answered.

They say that dumb questions deserve dumb answers. I would add to that that dumb answers to good questions deserve dumb follow-up questions.

 

(Or are you really sure that the answer "No" to the first two questions adds up to full disclosure?)

 

Rik

[Bbradley62]

(Or are you really sure that the answer "No" to the first two questions adds up to full disclosure?)

If East wants a complete description, he should not be asking yes/no questions. Since the first two questions were yes/no questions, the responses were either correct or incorrect, but they cannot be incomplete. East should accept the answers he was given as correct and call the director if/when it becomes clear that they weren't.

[gnasher]

Well, yours was post 54 on the thread so it is obviously worth discussing. :)

OK, so I can post in this forum about any topic that I please, as long as other people are willing to discuss it? Good, I'm glad we've cleared that up.

[mrdct]

If East wants a complete description, he should not be asking yes/no questions. Since the first two questions were yes/no questions, the responses were either correct or incorrect, but they cannot be incomplete.

I don't necessarily agree with that. If a player is asked a yes/no question about a bid, particularly if it's the first question asked about the bid, some effort ought to be made to provide an answer that actual conveys the meaning of the bid, e.g:

 

East: "Does that show four spades?"

South: "No, it actually denies a four card major"

 

However, in the Orange Book 3 B 9 there is some guidance on this 'if an opponent merely says “Weak or strong?” it is not unreasonable for a player to answer “Weak”, since this is true (and since more complete answers have been known to elicit comments such as “I did not ask that.”)'. The EBU guidance doesn't actually say that you should or shouldn't give more comprehensive answers to binary choice questions. It seem common sense to me that one would actually make some effort towards explaining the meaning of a bid rather than giving a yes/no response which will inevitably lead to further questions; but under EBU rules it is "not unreasonable" to do the latter.

 

East should accept the answers he was given as correct and call the director if/when it becomes clear that they weren't.

After the second yes/no question, East obviously hadn't got the bottom of what North's bid meant as all he's been told is that it doesn't show 4♠ and can't have 4♠ so he wants to ask a further question or two to get a better grasp on what sort of hands North can and can't have.

[blackshoe]

Asking specific questions is dangerous. I would ask for an explanation of the agreement, and if I think the explanation given is incomplete I would ask if there's anything more I need to know. At that point, as far as I can see, I've done what's necessary to "protect myself", and besides, anything further might be viewed as harassment. B-) If it later turns out that I wasn't told something I needed to know, then clearly I was misinformed under the law, and if damaged I'm entitled to redress.

[Trinidad]

(Or are you really sure that the answer "No" to the first two questions adds up to full disclosure?)

If East wants a complete description, he should not be asking yes/no questions. Since the first two questions were yes/no questions, the responses were either correct or incorrect, but they cannot be incomplete. East should accept the answers he was given as correct and call the director if/when it becomes clear that they weren't.

Excuse me!?!

 

As soon as it is clear that East doesn't understand the NS agreements South is supposed to clarify the NS agreement in such a way that East understands it. That was at the point where East asked his second question.

 

But South' priorities were not with full disclosure. He tried to be as funny as possible in the eyes of his partner. If East's second question would have been: "What does it promise?" smart ass South would without any doubt have replied: "Less than 4 spades." (Chuckle chuckle).

 

Rik

[Bbradley62]

After the second yes/no question, East obviously hadn't got the bottom of what North's bid meant as all he's been told is that it doesn't show 4♠ and can't have 4♠ so he wants to ask a further question or two to get a better grasp on what sort of hands North can and can't have.

After the second yes/no question, East obviously hadn't got the bottom of what North's bid meant because he (East) hadn't bothered to ask a comprehensive question. If his third question had been "could North have four hearts?", that would at least not have contradicted the previous answer, although his approach would be tiresome.

 

The sentence you quote from the Orange Book is followed by:

Unless the questioner really only wants to know something specific he should merely ask "What does that call mean?". If the questioner asks a more specific question then a TD or Appeals Committee is unlikely to consider it misinformation if he gets a correct but incomplete answer to his question. Furthermore, asking "What does that call mean?" rather than any more pointed question tends to avoid a suggestion of unauthorised information.

and later:

A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences. If a player shows unusual interest in one or more calls of the auction, then this is unauthorised information to partner. Partner must carefully avoid taking advantage, which may constrain the actions partner is permitted to take during the remainder of the auction or when on lead during the play. (Law 16B, 73C). Asking about a call of 3NT or below which has not been alerted may cause more problems than asking about an alerted call, as may asking repeated or leading questions.

In the scenario given by OP (nod to Agua), East has created any problem that exists, unless South has given an incorrect answer, which we have no reason to believe he has.

[Bbradley62]

Excuse me!?!

 

As soon as it is clear that East doesn't understand the NS agreements South is supposed to clarify the NS agreement in such a way that East understands it. That was at the point where East asked his second question.

 

But South' priorities were not with full disclosure. He tried to be as funny as possible in the eyes of his partner. If East's second question would have been: "What does it promise?" smart ass South would without any doubt have replied: "Less than 4 spades." (Chuckle chuckle).

 

Rik

Excuse you!

 

South is under no such obligation. And assigning a smart-ass answer by South to an unasked question is assuming facts not in evidence, to say the very least.

[Trinidad]

Excuse you!

 

South is under no such obligation. And assigning a smart-ass answer by South to an unasked question is assuming facts not in evidence, to say the very least.

Let me conclude that there is a clear disagreement between you and me about the meaning of full disclosure. To me in practice it roughly means that initially you will answer the question asked. When it appears that the asker wants to know more you should:

- try to understand the asker's problem.

- explain your agreement in full. This means also volunteering answers to the relevant questions that were not asked (already just for the fact that the asker may not know what questions he should ask).

 

A small example involving something that I play: In certain auctions, when we have agreed that a major will be trump, we play that 3NT is an "inconvenient cue". It means that it shows a control (we play mixed cues) in the "most expensive suit". Thus, when we have bid to 3♠, 3NT shows a first or second round control in hearts.

 

Suppose that the auction goes: ... 3♠-4♣ and an opponent asks: "Does that show a first or second round control?" a smart ass would answer "yes", many would answer: "it can be either/or" and the correct answer is "it can be either/or, and it denies a control in hearts (since with a heart control we would have bid 3NT)".

 

The opponent didn't ask anything about the heart control. But you can see that he will assume that 4♣ didn't say anything about the heart control, since few pairs play inconvenient cues. He couldn't know to ask about hearts, therefore you have to volunteer that information.

 

You seem to think that full disclosure is limited to answering questions that were asked. (This makes me wonder why it would be called full disclosure and not partial or limited disclosure.)

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

Rik: I think in your scenario full disclosure as you state would apply only if failure to bid 3NT denied a heart control. I would guess though, that many who use the 3NT inconvenient cue would more likely do so without a club control to allow partner that cue, and bidding 4C may or may not control hearts.

 

If that is the case, 4C (if asked) should just be answered re: the club bid without mentioning anything about hearts. Only if our favorite East further enquires would we then go into full disclosure mode.

[blackshoe]

Rik is correct regarding disclosure of his agreement. Aqua changes the agreement, and then talks about disclosure of that different agreement. Apples and orangutans.

[Vampyr]

You seem to think that full disclosure is limited to answering questions that were asked.

 

This is what was indicated in the Orange Book quote Bill provided.

[Bbradley62]

I agree that the proper answer to the question about the cuebid is "it can be either/or, and it denies a control in hearts (since with a heart control we would have bid 3NT)".

 

Similarly, in a different situation, if I were asked "can your partner have four spades?", I would say "yes, but only if he also has five hearts" if that were the case, not simply "yes". If the follow-up question was "can he have four spades and five diamonds?", I would be likely to give a smart-ass response. However, if the original question was "does that show 5 spades?" I wouldn't say "yes, and at least 8 points" unless that was an unusual treatment.

 

In the story as presented by OP, if the correct answers to the first two questions are "yes" (not "no"), then we have been given no reason to think that South failed to fully disclose anything.

[aguahombre]

Rik is correct regarding disclosure of his agreement. Aqua changes the agreement, and then talks about disclosure of that different agreement. Apples and orangutans.

Is that o.k. with you if I expand on his post to include a slightly different scenario which might require a different amount of disclosure?

[blackshoe]

Well, I don't mind you expanding on it, but it did take me a couple of reads to realize you were talking about a different situation and not disagreeing with Rik's description of his situation. It might be better if folks who want to change the scenario explicitly say that's what they're doing (yes, I recognize that sometimes it's obvious — but sometimes it isn't, and the person doing the changing may not always recognize that it's not).

[aguahombre]

I am such a poor misunderstood soul :rolleyes:

[Trinidad]

This is what was indicated in the Orange Book quote Bill provided.

If the quote that Bill provided really would be the full story on disclosure of agreements in the EBU then the conclusion would be that within the EBU full disclosure is not required.

 

Fortunately there is still Law 40B6a that reads (emphasis mine):

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

and Law 20F1:

During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding.

And Laws trump regulations, even the Orange Book, so within the EBU full disclosure is still required.

 

Rik

[pran]

If the quote that Bill provided really would be the full story on disclosure of agreements in the EBU then the conclusion would be that within the EBU full disclosure is not required.

 

Fortunately there is still Law 40B6a that reads (emphasis mine):

 

and Law 20F1:

 

And Laws trump regulations, even the Orange Book, so within the EBU full disclosure is still required.

 

Rik

Asking a leading question, or asking a question that can be answered with "yes" or "no" is not requesting an explanation of opponents' auction, it is requesting information about a specific feature of opponents' aution. Acceptable answers to such questions may normally be limited to the information that was specifically requested without being in conflict with Law 20F.

 

Besides, such "limited questions" can easily been suspected of conveying messages to partner by drawing attention to the specific feature concerned and should therefore always be avoided.

 

"What are we entitled to know from your auction" or "please explain your auction" are perfect requests for information.

[blackshoe]

Yes they. OTOH, my experience of the latter, in particular, is that I get answers like "well, he bid... and then I bid ....". After which I thank them and tell them that's not what I asked for, I asked for an explanation of the meaning of their bidding. Then they call the director, who asks me in which particular call am I interested. :rolleyes:

[Vampyr]

"What are we entitled to know from your auction" or "please explain your auction" are perfect requests for information.

 

Well, for all we know the conversation started this way, and the exchange of which we have been given a correct or incorrect or incomplete account was the result of followup questions.

 

Yes they. OTOH, my experience of the latter, in particular, is that I get answers like "well, he bid... and then I bid ....". After which I thank them and tell them that's not what I asked for, I asked for an explanation of the meaning of their bidding. Then they call the director, who asks me in which particular call am I interested. :rolleyes:

 

Or, who knows, maybe it was more like this.