Behaviour issues in Leeds

[Trinidad]

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.

That's all very true, but it isn't very relevant for the question whether answering with "yes" or "no" (to a question that could -in principle- be answered by "yes" or "no") is sufficient when it is obvious that the asker tries to understand what a bid means.

 

My post was intended to clarify that -according to the Laws- answering with yes/no may well be insufficient. It was in reply to Bill Bradley's posts that claim that yes/no is sufficient, and that explaining more is inappropriate, since the Orange Book seems to say so.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I would like to extend this thread with a little contest. It is called "guess the auction".

 

I would be interested in seeing what various posters think the actual auction -up to the point of the dreaded conversation- was. Mrdct has indicated that a T-Walsh auction would be possible. I will post my idea below. I am interested in yours. Maybe the OP can later clarify what the auction was and hand out the prize (eternal fame and glory) to the correct guesser.

 

I think that the auction started (possibly with passes before the opening bid):

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1c1hd(0-3%20spades)]133|100[/hv]

What do you think?

 

Rik

[mrdct]

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.

Whether a question about a bid or auction is general, specific or binary it is still caught by Law 40B6a as it is an "opponent's enquiry". The moment the opponents have enquired about the meaning of a bid, full disclosure takes over. As Trinidad has said, Laws trump regulations so I think the guidance in Orange Book 3 B 9 where it says "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" is in conflict with the Laws and is therefore invalid.

 

Whether the query is a yes/no question or a broader "what does that bid mean?" the requirement to "disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience" cannot be varied by regulation. In this case, South should have fully explained what North's bid meant (including all negative inferences from things that it denied and alternative bids that North had available other than matters "generally known to bridge players") in response to East's first question.

[pran]

Whether a question about a bid or auction is general, specific or binary it is still caught by Law 40B6a as it is an "opponent's enquiry". The moment the opponents have enquired about the meaning of a bid, full disclosure takes over. As Trinidad has said, Laws trump regulations so I think the guidance in Orange Book 3 B 9 where it says "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" is in conflict with the Laws and is therefore invalid.

 

Whether the query is a yes/no question or a broader "what does that bid mean?" the requirement to "disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience" cannot be varied by regulation. In this case, South should have fully explained what North's bid meant (including all negative inferences from things that it denied and alternative bids that North had available other than matters "generally known to bridge players") in response to East's first question.

If the auction goes 1♠ - 2♠ (alerted) and opponents ask "Is that Michael's cue bid?" I shall consider "YES" (or for instance "NO - it is game forcing and asks if partner has control in spades for 3NT") as complete answers.

 

I would assume that opponents know Michael's when asking in this manner so that a complete description of this convention to be uncalled for.

[mrdct]

If the auction goes 1♠ - 2♠ (alerted) and opponents ask "Is that Michael's cue bid?" I shall consider "YES" (or for instance "NO - it is game forcing and asks if partner has control in spades for 3NT") as complete answers.

 

I would assume that opponents know Michael's when asking in this manner so that a complete description of this convention to be uncalled for.

I make no such assumption. There are plenty people who play different variants of Michaels; specifically in relation to strength. I'm sure that if we took a poll here there would most definately be a divergence of opinion on which hands are suitable for a Michaels Cue Bid.

 

By not immediately disclosing what strength agreements relate to the bid, the partner of the Michaels bidder is forcing the opponents to ask follow-up questions to ascertain strength which creates potential UI problems for the non-offenders.

[pran]

My post was: If the auction goes 1♠ - 2♠ (alerted) and opponents ask "Is that Michael's cue bid?" I shall consider "YES" (or for instance "NO - it is game forcing and asks if partner has control in spades for 3NT") as complete answers.

 

I would assume that opponents know Michael's when asking in this manner so that a complete description of this convention to be uncalled for.

I make no such assumption. There are plenty people who play different variants of Michaels; specifically in relation to strength. I'm sure that if we took a poll here there would most definately be a divergence of opinion on which hands are suitable for a Michaels Cue Bid.

 

By not immediately disclosing what strength agreements relate to the bid, the partner of the Michaels bidder is forcing the opponents to ask follow-up questions to ascertain strength which creates potential UI problems for the non-offenders.

And you describe very precisely why "yes/no" questions should be avoided unless the asker knows exactly what a "YES" answer implies so that further explanations in that case would only waste time.

 

(Please don't initiate a discussion on what Michael's is, I only happened to use that convention for the purpose of illustration)

[Bbradley62]

... Laws trump regulations so I think the guidance in Orange Book 3 B 9... is in conflict with the Laws and is therefore invalid.

You should inform EBU and WBF of this situation!

[bluejak]

Well, maybe. One person's opinion does not mean that the EBU will immediately believe it has got it wrong.

 

If you ask "Is it raining?" then I consider that Full Disclosure is covered by the answer "Yes" even if a more correct answer might be "Yes, here, but not in Peru".

 

In general if a person seeks a certain amount of information then Full Disclosure means you give him that information fully, but it does not necessarily mean you should give other information unasked.

[blackshoe]

If the auction goes 1♠ - 2♠ (alerted) and opponents ask "Is that Michael's cue bid?" I shall consider "YES" (or for instance "NO - it is game forcing and asks if partner has control in spades for 3NT") as complete answers.

 

I would assume that opponents know Michael's when asking in this manner so that a complete description of this convention to be uncalled for.

 

A complete description of the meaning of partner's call is called for regardless of the opponents' — incorrect, as it is written — use of the name of a convention.

 

The proper answer to the question is "no", unless partner's name is Michael.

[Zelandakh]

Are you allowed to answer a question with a question, ie "Can you clarify what you mean by 'Michaels'?"...

[blackshoe]

"Allowed to" maybe, but doing so would be counterproductive. Just describe the meaning of the bid.

[gnasher]

The proper answer to the question is "no", unless partner's name is Michael.

It's a rare pleasure to encounter someone who can enunciate an apostrophe.

[aguahombre]

It's a rare pleasure to encounter someone who can enunciate an apostrophe.

They do it by failing to use an article before the enunciation.

[Trinidad]

A complete description of the meaning of partner's call is called for regardless of the opponents' — incorrect, as it is written — use of the name of a convention.

 

The proper answer to the question is "no", unless partner's name is Michael.

That might be a funny joke if your Norwegian would be better than Pran's English. Your punishment is to type "Ekrén" a hundred times. (And I typed it with a US keyboard, so you can too.)

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Well, maybe. One person's opinion does not mean that the EBU will immediately believe it has got it wrong.

 

If you ask "Is it raining?" then I consider that Full Disclosure is covered by the answer "Yes" even if a more correct answer might be "Yes, here, but not in Peru".

 

In general if a person seeks a certain amount of information then Full Disclosure means you give him that information fully, but it does not necessarily mean you should give other information unasked.

I don't have a problem with that, but that is not what was going on here. In my opinion, the answer to the first question was perfectly fine.

 

But when East asked another question, it became clear that East was looking for more information. And if it wouldn't have been clear then, it should have been clear when the third question came (that -on top of everything- was already answered in the second question). If South doesn't see at this point that East doesn't understand his methods and wants to understand them he has a serious deficiency in his communication skills. I don't believe that South is such a poor communicator so he should give East the full explanation. Even if East should have asked "Can you explain xxx, please?".

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

That might be a funny joke if your Norwegian would be better than Pran's English. Your punishment is to type "Ekrén" a hundred times. (And I typed it with a US keyboard, so you can too.)

 

Not going to happen.

 

I wasn't trying to be funny, I was reacting to a pet peeve - and one which, IMO, Sven's English (which is better than that of some native speakers I know) should be perfectly capable of catching.

[mrdct]

In general if a person seeks a certain amount of information then Full Disclosure means you give him that information fully, but it does not necessarily mean you should give other information unasked.

That seems to be the approach espoused in the EBU Orange Book, but Law 40B6a says (paraphasing) that if an opponent makes an enquiry about a bid you are required (as a "shall" requirement) to disclose all special information conveyed through partnership agreement or experience. The Laws don't make any distinction about the form of enquiry, and nor do they say that you only need to give up this "special information" if the opponents ask the right questions, so Law 40B6a comes into play even if the enquiry was binary. It's important to note, however, that Law 40B6a only applies to "special partnership understandings" which are limited to those sorts of things which wouldn't be generally understood or anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament.

 

I'm still dying to see the hand and auction so we can actually have a look at whether or not East's line of questioning was reasonable and whether not South's answers were adequate under the Laws.

[blackshoe]

This is, it seems, another area in which different Regulating Authorities take different approaches. The ACBL says

A major tenet of active ethics is the principle of full disclosure. This means that all information available to your partnership must be made available to your opponents.

 

Let's take a look at weak two bids from the point of view of full disclosure. When an established partnership opens a weak two bid, they have a great deal of information of which their opponents are not aware. The convention card discloses the point range, but little else. However, the partners are aware of the range of hands on which the bid can be made (discipline?, suit quality requirements?, five-or-seven card suits allowed?, side four-card major ok?, void ok?, positional variations?, etc). Full disclosure requires that all these inferences, restrictions and tendencies be made known to any opponent who inquires about their style.

 

If you are interested in knowing these things about your opponent's bid, merely say to the bidder's partner, "Would you tell me more about your style?" You may use the style inquiry' to ask about any call your opponent makes.

 

The ACBL also says, in the alert regulation:

• 
   
  
• Bridge is not a game of secret messages; the auction belongs to everyone at the table.
  
• Remember that the opponents are entitled to know the agreed meaning of all calls.
  
• The bidding side has an obligation to disclose its agreements according to the procedures established by ACBL.
  
• When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient.
  
• The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question.
  
• Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically.
  
• The proper way to ask for information is "please explain."
  

 

The bottom line is that, in contrast to the EBU, the ACBL says you should "give him other information unasked", if it's germane to the auction, particularly when it pertains to an alerted call.

[pran]

This is, it seems, another area in which different Regulating Authorities take different approaches. The ACBL says

[...]

 

The ACBL also says, in the alert regulation:

[...]

 

The bottom line is that, in contrast to the EBU, the ACBL says you should "give him other information unasked", if it's germane to the auction, particularly when it pertains to an alerted call.

Sounds reasonable when someone asks for an explanation of the call, but do you give him the lot when he asks just: "Is it a weak two?" ???

 

There was a Norwegian pop-song with the theme: "I asked for a crumb, not a whole bread!"

[blackshoe]

My answer to that question is usually something like "5-11 points, normally a six card suited headed by two of the top four honors, voids or more than one A or K outside rare, would you like to know more?" Sometimes I get the opponent trying to shut me up halfway through it. The reason I don't just say "yes" is that the ACBL explicitly says that "explaining" by naming a convention (which IMO is what "yes" does in this scenario) is wrong.

[mrdct]

The ABF has similar approach to the ACBL. Some selected extracts from the ABF Alerting Regulations:

 

"It is an essential principle of the game of bridge that you may not have secret agreements with partner, either in bidding or in card play. Your agreements must be fully available and fully disclosed to your opponents."

 

"You should follow the principle of full disclosure (as required by the Laws) in following these Regulations and in explanations of calls. Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you can."

 

"If an enquiry is made, a full explanation of the call must be given. This includes any conventional or partnership agreement, whether the agreement is explicit or based on partnership experience."

 

"Merely to name a convention (e.g. Michaels, Lebensohl, etc.) is not an acceptable explanation. There are many variations of most conventions, and a more specific explanation is normally required. Similarly, the use of "Standard" or "Natural" to describe calls, signals or leads is rarely sufficient - nor are the terms "Weak", "Strong" or "Intermediate" - without appropriate qualification."

[Finch]

I'm not sure how we got into a 'let's quote regulations' thread, but the EBU also says much the same:

 

"All agreements, including implicit understandings and practices of the partnership, must be fully disclosed to opponents."

 

"Implicit understandings in bidding and play arise from partnership experience, which may include external experience by the partners not available to opponents (such as if both partners have partnership experience with the same third player, which is likely to affect their interpretation of undiscussed sequences). Opponents are entitled to know about implicit understandings."

 

"Unless the questioner really only wants to know something specific he should merely ask “What does that call mean?”.... Furthermore, asking “What does that call mean?” rather than any more pointed question tends to avoid a suggestion of unauthorised information. Alternatively the questioner can ask for an explanation of the entire auction rather than individual calls, and opponents should then give all (relevant) information, inferences etc."

 

"When a player does wish to ask a question, it is recommended to phrase this neutrally and ask simply for an explanation of the auction, or of a particular call. For example when asking about a 3♣ response to 2NT it is recommended to say “What does 3♣ mean?”, rather than “Is that Stayman?” This helps to avoid confusion or misleading opponents. Only if further clarification is needed should specific questions be asked."

 

I'm not sure where the idea comes that EBU advice is illegal. The sentence quoted is one particularly warning about asking very specific questions. Most people, when asked a clear yes/no question assume that the questioner wants a yes/no answer.

[blackshoe]

Most people, when asked a clear yes/no question assume that the questioner wants a yes/no answer.

 

I suspect it's more accurate to say that most people, asked a yes/no question, don't think about anything other than answering yes or no. In particular, I doubt most people think much at all about what the questioner wants.

[Cascade]

I suspect it's more accurate to say that most people, asked a yes/no question, don't think about anything other than answering yes or no. In particular, I doubt most people think much at all about what the questioner wants.

 

Indeed far too frequently the simplest questions receive incredibly obtuse answers.

[mrdct]

I'm not sure where the idea comes that EBU advice is illegal. The sentence quoted is one particularly warning about asking very specific questions. Most people, when asked a clear yes/no question assume that the questioner wants a yes/no answer.

The extract from OB 3 B 9 that I find worrying is "...if a 3♣ overcall is Ghestem, showing a hand with two specified suits, and 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 apparent justification for not requiring a full explanation when a binary question is asked about a bid is the fear of an adverse comment from the questioner not any basis in Law or principles of full disclosure. As far as I'm aware, the EBU is unique in waiving full disclosure obligations when a binary question is asked.