another alert question and an oops

[gnasher]

If you play Ogust in response to a weak two, saying it is an asking bid is merely trying to avoid giving full information. 2NT in response to 1M is not an ask, so it is not comparable.

I can't see any qualitative difference between:

(1) 2♠-2NT = Invitational or stronger. In reply, opener shows a side-suit feature if non-minimum, or 3♠ if minimum.

(2) 2♠-3NT = Game-forcing. In reply, opener shows a shortage (or the lack therof) if non-minimum, or 3♣ if minimum.

 

Can you explain why you think that these require different explanations?

 

But if you play an asking bid your opponents have a right to know what sort of asking bid and refusing to tell them is unethical.

Who said anything about "refusing to tell them"? If they ask what opener does in reply to 2♠-2NT, of course you tell them. We are discussing what to tell them when all they have done is to ask the meaning of 2NT.

[gnasher]

It seems to me the correct explanation of 2NT, playing Ogust, is something like "asks me to further describe the strength of my hand and suit". I do not think it is correct to say anything about what future bids (e.g., 3 of a suit by me) will mean. Do you disagree?

For most partnerships that would be a rather inadequate explanation. If 2NT implies interest in game, the opponents are entitled to know that. One thing you really must do is answer the question that was actually asked.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me the correct explanation of 2NT, playing Ogust, is something like "asks me to further describe the strength of my hand and suit". I do not think it is correct to say anything about what future bids (e.g., 3 of a suit by me) will mean. Do you disagree?

For most partnerships that would be a rather inadequate explanation. If 2NT implies interest in game, the opponents are entitled to know that. One thing you really must do is answer the question that was actually asked.

 

Fair enough, but beside the point, which was whether David thinks including the meanings of all the answers to an asking bid is required for full disclosure of the meaning of the asking bid.

[pran]

Fair enough, but beside the point, which was whether David thinks including the meanings of all the answers to an asking bid is required for full disclosure of the meaning of the asking bid.

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 [...]

IMHO this means that explanations can only be requested of calls already made at the time of the request. Consequently no explanation of future possible calls may be requested even when such calls will be responses to a call already made.

 

However, at the time of a response call a player may request explanation of all possible response calls that could have been made in addition to the call actually made.

 

Example: At the time a player bids 4NT his call must be explained as RKCB if that is the agreement. But opponents are not at that time entitled to information on the meaning of for instance a 5♣ response before a response call is actually made. (And of course the meaning of the response call(s) must be made by the player making the quering call, not the player explaining the query call.)

 

I see no other way of understanding Law 20F1.

[kevperk]

If you play Ogust in response to a weak two, saying it is an asking bid is merely trying to avoid giving full information. 2NT in response to 1M is not an ask, so it is not comparable. But if you play an asking bid your opponents have a right to know what sort of asking bid and refusing to tell them is unethical.

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.

[barmar]

Where can the full regulations be found?

There's a link to Alert Procedures at the top of the Alert Chart web page. The chart is a terse summary of the procedures, but many details are omitted for brevity.

[bluejak]

Who said anything about "refusing to tell them"? If they ask what opener does in reply to 2♠-2NT, of course you tell them. We are discussing what to tell them when all they have done is to ask the meaning of 2NT.

When this has been discussed before, people state unambiguously that you must not tell the opponents what the responses show.

 

For example, many of the people who argue this way think that when asked about a 3♣ response to 2NT they believe they should not say that it asks for five-card majors because that tells people the replies, and will refuse to answer if asked whether is is Puppet Stayman or Stayman, or in similar situations if it is Ogust or a feature ask, or if it is Blackwood or RKCB.

 

Fair enough, but beside the point, which was whether David thinks including the meanings of all the answers to an asking bid is required for full disclosure of the meaning of the asking bid.

No, not the answers, what the bid asks for.

 

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?

Of course. If your partner opens a weak two, and you want to choose between 3NT and five of a minor, a feature ask might tell you what is stopped, while Ogust would be useless.

 

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.

Only unethical opponents help each other by saying "Puppet Stayman" or "Ogust". But Full Disclosure often means you are required to give UI to partner, and he can take advantage if he is a cheat or an ignoramus.

[aguahombre]

Only unethical opponents help each other by saying "Puppet Stayman" or "Ogust". But Full Disclosure often means you are required to give UI to partner, and he can take advantage if he is a cheat or an ignoramus.

Without using such volatile and judgemental terms, what do you think of someone who believes there is a real difference between naming a convention which announces what you are going to do and announcing what you are going to do?

[kevperk]

When this has been discussed before, people state unambiguously that you must not tell the opponents what the responses show.

 

For example, many of the people who argue this way think that when asked about a 3♣ response to 2NT they believe they should not say that it asks for five-card majors because that tells people the replies, and will refuse to answer if asked whether is is Puppet Stayman or Stayman, or in similar situations if it is Ogust or a feature ask, or if it is Blackwood or RKCB.

 

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?

[aguahombre]

Don't assume there is something wrong with your offering, just because a particular person disagrees.

[kevperk]

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.

[kevperk]

Don't assume there is something wrong with your offering, just because a particular person disagrees.

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

[aguahombre]

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

I understand. And his take on the laws in general is the best around. For some reason, he has a hangup on this situation. Your thought process is not flawed.

[blackshoe]

At this point, I'll just say that in the ACBL "Ogust" or "Puppet Stayman" or any other provision of nothing more than the name of a convention is by regulation inadequate disclosure. You must say more than that.

[gnasher]

When this has been discussed before, people state unambiguously that you must not tell the opponents what the responses show.

Are we to understand that the words "refusing to tell them is unethical" referred to some other comments made by some other people in some other thread? If so, does anything else that you've said in this thread that fall into the same category, or can we assume that the rest of your comments were part of the current conversation?

 

PS: How are you getting on with explaining why 1♥-2NT and 2♥-2NT require different types of explanation?

[WellSpyder]

Only unethical opponents help each other by saying "Puppet Stayman" or "Ogust". But Full Disclosure often means you are required to give UI to partner, and he can take advantage if he is a cheat or an ignoramus.

Without using such volatile and judgemental terms, what do you think of someone who believes there is a real difference between naming a convention which announces what you are going to do and announcing what you are going to do?

I don't think this is the distinction Bluejak is trying to make. What is unethical is using an explanation to give information to partner. What is required is to give full information to opponents. The fact that the latter inevitably gives info to partner (unless playing with screens) is unfortunate but unavoidable. In principle the information provided to partner makes his life more difficult not easier, because of how he is required to handle UI (though there is clearly a risk in practice that this can't be enforced adequately).

[gnasher]

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?

Of course. If your partner opens a weak two, and you want to choose between 3NT and five of a minor, a feature ask might tell you what is stopped, while Ogust would be useless.

Continuing with my analogy, suppose that partner opens 1♥ and I have a game-forcing raise with a side-suit of ♣KJxxx. My decision about whether to respond 2NT or 2♣ may depend on how effectively our methods after 2NT would allow me to show or evaluate the side suit. By your argument, the initial explanation of 1♥-2NT should detail all the hand-types that can subsequently be shown by opener or responder.

[bluejak]

According to a certain group of people, when you make a call asking a question, it is acceptable not to let the opponents know what you are asking. That is what I object strongly to. For example, 2NT - 3♣: they will not tell you it is Puppet Stayman and they call this Full Disclosure. 4NT: they will not tell you for what they are asking [actually, some of them admit to asking for aces, but not which aces] and so on.

 

Ok, you may think I am overboard when I consider this unethical, but do you really think hiding this information is legal?

 

Now some people try to muddy the waters by bringing in sequences where you do not ask a question, such as 1M - 2NT [and soon they will try 1M - 3M :)], but those are not the same. When a call asks a specific question, Full Disclosure requires you to tell your opponents what the question is, and this method of trying to hide it and them claim to be doing something legal is anathema to me.

[aguahombre]

For example, 2NT - 3♣: they will not tell you it is Puppet Stayman and they call this Full Disclosure.

In ACBL, they call this following the rules; and according to the rules, they fully disclose the continuations.

[barmar]

I don't think bluejak was referring to using the name "Puppet Stayman", but to describing the bid differently from normal Stayman.

 

I'm not sure what most people do about 4NT. I've never asked someone what 4NT was -- I've always waited until after the auction and then asked what the response showed, and the answer has always been appropriate to the flavor of Blackwood they used. I have a hard time coming up with a situation where I'd need to know before the response.

[gnasher]

According to a certain group of people, when you make a call asking a question, it is acceptable not to let the opponents know what you are asking. That is what I object strongly to. For example, 2NT - 3♣: they will not tell you it is Puppet Stayman and they call this Full Disclosure. 4NT: they will not tell you for what they are asking [actually, some of them admit to asking for aces, but not which aces] and so on.

 

Ok, you may think I am overboard when I consider this unethical, but do you really think hiding this information is legal?

 

Now some people try to muddy the waters by bringing in sequences where you do not ask a question, such as 1M - 2NT [and soon they will try 1M - 3M :)], but those are not the same. When a call asks a specific question, Full Disclosure requires you to tell your opponents what the question is, and this method of trying to hide it and them claim to be doing something legal is anathema to me.

Does some of the above refer to me or Kevperk? Or is this yet another rebuttal of some unknown person's argument from some earlier thread?

[blackshoe]

In ACBL, they call this following the rules; and according to the rules, they fully disclose the continuations.

 

Who discloses these continuations, and when? If you're suggesting that the partner of a player who bid 3♣, by agreement Puppet Stayman, should say, when asked about three♣, what the continuations are, I disagree. There is no requirement in law or regulation to explain the meaning of calls which have not yet been made. In fact, I think a regulation like that would be in conflict with the laws.

[aguahombre]

Who discloses these continuations, and when? If you're suggesting that the partner of a player who bid 3♣, by agreement Puppet Stayman, should say, when asked about three♣, what the continuations are, I disagree. There is no requirement in law or regulation to explain the meaning of calls which have not yet been made. In fact, I think a regulation like that would be in conflict with the laws.

You know the rules and what "disclosing the continuations means". For those who might not, the rules are that the responses to 3C are alerted and explained (if asked) and the partner of the person would made the response alerts. The alert is after the alertable bid has been made.

 

What I said was clear.

[blackshoe]

What I said was clear.

 

Apparently not, or I would not have questioned it.

[bluejak]

We must not be confused by red herrings. Sure, it is difficult to think of someone being misled by not knowing which sort of ace-asking convention 4NT is. But there are two problems with this whole approach.

 

First, there are other situations where knowledge of what the asking bid asks for can affect the opponents' bidding. Knowing whether an ask is Ogust or a feature ask can affect whether a player thinks it is safe or necessary to overcall. This idea that a player need not disclose what 2NT is is merely an attempt to gain an unfair advantage by lack of Full Disclosure.

 

Second, some people think answering with a name is good enough. If someone tells their opponent that 3♣ is Stayman or 4NT is Balckwood then it is reasonable for them to assume that a 3♦ response is Stayman and a 5♦ response shows one ace out of four without further enquiry.

 

:ph34r:

 

For example, 2NT - 3♣: they will not tell you it is Puppet Stayman and they call this Full Disclosure.

In ACBL, they call this following the rules; and according to the rules, they fully disclose the continuations.

I know of no authority for this lack of Full Disclosure. Ok, some players will do this, but it is not following the rules in my view and I know of no statements by the ACBL that this follows the rules. I believe the main reason a player does this is to gain an unfair advantage.