another alert question and an oops

[aguahombre]

As a matter of fact, when we sit down to a team match where it is more common to exchange style information at the outset over and above required pre-alerts, we make it a point to disclose that not as many of our doubles are takeout, and not has many of our NT bids are natural, as one might expect.

 

My point in this thread reffered to the doubtful practice of fishing (for protection against disaster) about potential interference on specific auctions.

[mjj29]

There's a difference between pre-alerting and alerting in the course of an auction. In the former case, you should fully disclose your methods, including follow-ups if they ask, so they can decide on an appropriate defense before any hands are played. Once you're in an auction, though, the meaning of future calls does not require disclosure until they are actually made.

I'm sure you should be able to ask "what are the responses to that?", it's just the answer might have to be given by the other player. Prior to the auction either player can answer.

[blackshoe]

Of course you can ask. The question is whether the other side is required to answer. I think not.

[RMB1]

Of course you can ask. The question is whether the other side is required to answer. I think not.

 

I think details of the information from the responses allows the opponents to make "relevant inferences" from the choice of call and so is information to which opponents are entitled according to Law 20F:

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.

 

So questions about responses should be answered.

[gerry]

Amusingly an opponent recently opened 2♦ against me and found pard with

[hv=pc=n&w=sakq7532hdkcajt98]133|100[/hv]

 

...he didn't imagine spades opposite and we duly scored up the double slam swing

[blackshoe]

I think details of the information from the responses allows the opponents to make "relevant inferences" from the choice of call and so is information to which opponents are entitled according to Law 20F:

 

 

So questions about responses should be answered.

 

And I think "relevant inferences" is about the differences between the call chosen and other calls he might have chosen, and that opponents are not thereby entitled to information about future calls at this time. It seems we disagree. B-)

[Vampyr]

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.

 

This is an interesting angle, wanting your opponents to give inadequate disclosure so that they don't exchange UI. Most people on the partial-disclosure-side are not approaching the problem from this angle, but rather are discussing what information the asking side is "entitled" to, as if they are not entitled to everything.

 

I find this thread shocking.

[aguahombre]

I find it shocking that after being presented with 20F1, there are still people who think its reference to calls which have been made (and calls which might have been made) clearly talking about a point after a call has been made and not about calls which will be made ---is just a bunch of words which they can disregard and continue their rant about the ethics and full disclosure of others who can read.

[Lanor Fow]

And I think "relevant inferences" is about the differences between the call chosen and other calls he might have chosen, and that opponents are not thereby entitled to information about future calls at this time. It seems we disagree. B-)

 

In the case of asking bid such as 2nt over 2M opening, the reason for making such a call is because one is interested in one or more of the responses. The relevant inferences about this call (2nt) over others must therefore be heavily based on the possible responses.

 

Yes it may be possible in many cases to explain what hands could bid this without referenceing the responses, but I would imagine that for the vast majority, to get all the inferences the explination would be very long, and have a lot of potential for missing some of the inferences that one is required to disclose.

[blackshoe]

In the case of asking bid such as 2nt over 2M opening, the reason for making such a call is because one is interested in one or more of the responses. The relevant inferences about this call (2nt) over others must therefore be heavily based on the possible responses.

 

Yes it may be possible in many cases to explain what hands could bid this without referenceing the responses, but I would imagine that for the vast majority, to get all the inferences the explination would be very long, and have a lot of potential for missing some of the inferences that one is required to disclose.

 

So? You seem to want to disagree with me (which is fine) but this post doesn't say anything we haven't already heard about why I should be considered wrong.

[Lanor Fow]

I didn't read this thread all in one go, so was perhaps not completly aware of all the arguments to and fro. I didn't think that what I posted had been brought up in that fashon whilst discussing 20f1, but if it had then my apologies for adding nothing of substance. I did post as I was interested to hear a rebuttal of the argument by one of the parties who disagree (as I currently cannot think of one) rather than to just indicate disagreement. I will re-read the thread and look for my answer there.

[barmar]

Yes it may be possible in many cases to explain what hands could bid this without referenceing the responses, but I would imagine that for the vast majority, to get all the inferences the explination would be very long, and have a lot of potential for missing some of the inferences that one is required to disclose.

I think it's often possible to explain without referencing the responses.

 

For instance, I'd describe Ogust as "Asking partner to describe the strength of his hand and the quality of his suit." I don't see the need to specify whether 3♦ or 3♥ will be the "weak hand, good suit" response. Of course, once partner makes a response, I'll explain what it shows if asked. And if they ask "What would 3♣ have meant?" I'll answer, although it seems like a silly question -- whatever it means, they already know he doesn't have that type of hand.

[kevperk]

This is an interesting angle, wanting your opponents to give inadequate disclosure so that they don't exchange UI. Most people on the partial-disclosure-side are not approaching the problem from this angle, but rather are discussing what information the asking side is "entitled" to, as if they are not entitled to everything.

 

I find this thread shocking.

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.

[mycroft]

It's only a silly question, Barry, if you know Ogust, and know the basic structure of the system.

 

1♥-2NT!-3♦! - when I found out that 3♦ showed a non-minimum, I wanted to know what 3♣ would have meant to see what options the person had. I know what a bid means, but without the negative inferences, I may not be able to work out what partner knows he "doesn't have" when they bail in game, for instance.

 

I expect I ask about "calls not made" more often than almost everybody; and it's still once every 20 sessions or so. But I would not want that ability taken away (as one TD did to me, long ago - wanting to know what a different bid would have meant was "intimidating the opponents" Don't they know their system? Well, in this case, it's arguable that they didn't :-)

[barmar]

It's only a silly question, Barry, if you know Ogust, and know the basic structure of the system.

I suppose. I was thinking of:

 

2NT

Please explain.

Asks for hand strength and suit quality.

3♦

Please explain.

Bad hand, good suit.

 

Whatever 3♣ shows, it seems obvious to me that it's a different combination of suit and hand qualities.

[Trinidad]

I think it's often possible to explain without referencing the responses.

 

For instance, I'd describe Ogust as "Asking partner to describe the strength of his hand and the quality of his suit." I don't see the need to specify whether 3♦ or 3♥ will be the "weak hand, good suit" response. Of course, once partner makes a response, I'll explain what it shows if asked. And if they ask "What would 3♣ have meant?" I'll answer, although it seems like a silly question -- whatever it means, they already know he doesn't have that type of hand.

+1

IMO, you are supposed to tell:

- what 2NT asks for

- what kind of information you will be able to get

- how high the responses might get you (this shows, among other things, whether 2NT is GF opposite a max)

 

but not how you will get that information (which bid means what).

 

Rik

[pran]

I suppose. I was thinking of:

 

2NT

Please explain.

Asks for hand strength and suit quality.

3♦

Please explain.

Bad hand, good suit.

 

Whatever 3♣ shows, it seems obvious to me that it's a different combination of suit and hand qualities.

At the time 3♦ has been bid it is perfectly legal to request "what would 3♣ have shown in this position?" or even "which other (alternative) responses to the 2NT bid were possible?", but it is not legal at the time of the 2NT bid to ask (for instance): "What will 3♣ or 3♦ show in response to this 2NT bid?"

 

The difference is that in the first case one asks about an alternative call not made instead of the call actually made, in the second case one asks about future calls not yet made.

[gnasher]

At the time 3♦ has been bid it is perfectly legal to request "what would 3♣ have shown in this position?" or even "which other (alternative) responses to the 2NT bid were possible?", but it is not legal at the time of the 2NT bid to ask (for instance): "What will 3♣ or 3♦ show in response to this 2NT bid?"

 

The difference is that in the first case one asks about an alternative call not made instead of the call actually made, in the second case one asks about future calls not yet made.

I'm sure this is correct, but I can imagine a situation where it unfairly disadvantages the asking side. Suppose that you have a hand where you might overcall 3♦, or you might choose to wait and hope to be able to double an artificial 3♦ bid. In order to make this decision, you need to know how likely it is that the bidding will continue 3♣-3♦, so you need to know what opener's actions will mean and what responder's options are after a 3♣ rebid.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me any such situations will be very rare.

[mycroft]

I am finding what I expected out of my 2♣ Keri response to 1NT. The explanation I've gone with is:

 

"either a hand that wants to play 2♦, or one of various invitational or better hands."

 

Invariably, the next question is "so you have to bid 2♦?" Oddly enough, they *never* care about the INV+ hands :-).

 

I feel that if you *ask* the question, I'm entitled/expected to answer it; but I shouldn't give it in the explanation unasked. I would rule against anyone who explained "she wants me to bid 2♦." or "transfer to diamonds" alone - that's clearly not FD; if it was just part of a complete answer, I'd probably just suggest a better way.

[gnasher]

It seems to me any such situations will be very rare.

Yes, of course, but that just means that one would very rarely choose to ask about bids that haven't yet been made. I don't understand why the rules apparently prevent one asking such questions on the rare occasions that one does want to know. The laws should simply say that you can ask about any aspect of the opponents' methods that you consider relevant.

[blackshoe]

I don't understand why the rules apparently prevent one asking such questions on the rare occasions that one does want to know. The laws should simply say that you can ask about any aspect of the opponents' methods that you consider relevant.

 

Perhaps they should, but they don't. I suppose you can make your concerns known to Grattan, and hope something gets changed.

[Vampyr]

I suppose you can make your concerns known to Grattan, and hope something gets changed.

 

LOL

[pran]

Yes, of course, but that just means that one would very rarely choose to ask about bids that haven't yet been made. I don't understand why the rules apparently prevent one asking such questions on the rare occasions that one does want to know. The laws should simply say that you can ask about any aspect of the opponents' methods that you consider relevant.

So if your RHO opens say 2♦ which is alerted and explained (on request) you find it quite OK to ask:

"What will each of the following answers mean: 2♥, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, ....... "?

 

And which of the opponents should answer such (additional) questions? (Just consider the consequences!)

[CSGibson]

There's been a lot of back and forth about disclosure. For the record, I am a big proponent of full disclosure, especially by those that play unusual methods. That being said, I have full sympathy for Kevin's position, and none for David's.

 

When asked about my 2N response to a weak 2 opener, I think "asking for further discription" is an accurate and complete explanation. I am not showing anything by bidding 2N, other than a desire to have more information. If, at that point, opponents want to ask about our response structure, I will be happy to explain our complete method, but to explain our responses unasked and before partner has a chance to give them is, in my opinion, cheating. In fact, I am very careful not to mention specific responses partner may make without that information being specifically requested by my opponent.

 

Once explanation of our possible responses are requested, I think I am obliged to give a comprehensive response, but opponents are aware of the downside - that they may be reminding partner of our system.