another alert question and an oops

[blackshoe]

Some people aren't aware of much of anything. B-)

 

There is always a set of possible hands with which you would make your asking bid, and a set with which you would not. So I think, when asked for an explanation of an asking bid, you owe opponents a description of the set of hands which would ask, unless such description is clearly "general bridge knowledge". So "asking for further description" is not adequate disclosure.

 

On the other question, about disclosing the meanings of calls not yet made, I believe strongly that neither the laws nor the principle of full disclosure require this, so I would not do it unless specifically so instructed by the TD — and then I would believe his ruling is in error.

[barmar]

There is always a set of possible hands with which you would make your asking bid, and a set with which you would not. So I think, when asked for an explanation of an asking bid, you owe opponents a description of the set of hands which would ask, unless such description is clearly "general bridge knowledge". So "asking for further description" is not adequate disclosure.

Or you should specify the kind of further description being requested, from which the opponents can logically infer from GBK the kind of hands that would ask the question. Although things like non-promissory Stayman make this less clear -- while he's ostensibly asking about a 4-card major, it's sometimes just a temporizing bid forced by the rest of the system, so you should presumably mention this exception in the explanation (except that hardly anyone ever asks about Stayman).

 

There are some situations where this really may not be possible. For instance, in a relay system, where relays are practically automatic once you establish a game force, the asker just keeps asking until he thinks he has enough information about partner's hand to place the contract. These systems are often specifically designed to avoid divulging information about asker's hand, to make the defense more difficult.

[Finch]

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

 

 

LOL

 

Why is that a LOL? Do you think Grattan was simply lying when he directly asked for suggestions for changes to be considered by the WBFLC?

[Finch]

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 understand what you can possibly find shocking. The Law is very clear and very specific: you are not entitled to ask about calls not yet made; therefore you are not entitled to everything

What's more, the logic behind this law makes very good sense to me for the reasons that Trinidad (and others) are arguing. I don't want to play in a world where there are conversations along the lines of:

 

North: 4NT

East: What's that mean?

South: It asks me for keycards with 1430 responses, except that if I've got a void I jump to 5NT with an even number of keycards or bid 6 of the void with an odd number of keycards. Oh, and if you double we play DOPI/ROPI

 

 

or

 

North 2H

East Pass

South 2NT

West: what's that mean?

North: It asks me to bid a singleton with a maximum, 3NT with a solid suit, or 3H with a minimum

[Zelandakh]

Or you should specify the kind of further description being requested, from which the opponents can logically infer from GBK the kind of hands that would ask the question. Although things like non-promissory Stayman make this less clear -- while he's ostensibly asking about a 4-card major, it's sometimes just a temporizing bid forced by the rest of the system, so you should presumably mention this exception in the explanation (except that hardly anyone ever asks about Stayman).

This is essentially what I was saying in my answers on this subject. I think it is necessary to describe the hand types that the bidder can hold rather than (specifically) what is being asked for. In this case something like "a hand with a 4 card major, or a balanced invite, or a game-forcing hand with a 5+ card minor" would probably do the trick.

 

 

There are some situations where this really may not be possible. For instance, in a relay system, where relays are practically automatic once you establish a game force, the asker just keeps asking until he thinks he has enough information about partner's hand to place the contract. These systems are often specifically designed to avoid divulging information about asker's hand, to make the defense more difficult.

As I wrote earlier, relay systems have relay breaks. It is not automatic to just keep relaying. In these cases it is usually easier to list the hand types not held rather than those held. It is quite common for relayers to hide behind "it's just a relay" as an answer without giving the negative connotations they have from partner not having chosen an alternative route. As an example, we had a thread where people were saying how, during an auction review, they would like descriptions of the individual bids to know which questions were being asked as opposed to just finding out what the bids showed. But this should not be necessary if the relaying side described what the relayer had shown, or at least implied, by their choice of sequence. If the relayer asks about a 3 card major and then signs off in 3NT then there is a reasonable expectation that they hold 5 cards in a major. Even if this is not promised the description should include "will very often be a hand with a 5 card major" or something along these lines.

[Finch]

p.s. playing with screens there is more of an incentive to allow for questions about continuations

[Finch]

This is essentially what I was saying in my answers on this subject. I think it is necessary to describe the hand types that the bidder can hold rather than (specifically) what is being asked for. In this case something like "a hand with a 4 card major, or a balanced invite, or a game-forcing hand with a 5+ card minor" would probably do the trick.

 

Yes. We don't play normal Stayman, we alert partner's 2C bid and describe it as "at least invitational values, initially asking about opener's major suits"

 

I think that's enough for most cases as the full explanation would take so long it wouldn't be helpful... if we said every time "either invitational with a 5-card major, inv or FG with one or two 4-card majors, or 5-5 majors FG, or invitational with 5-4/4-5/5-5 majors, or a balanced/semi-balanced slam try" no-one would take it in..

[gnasher]

I don't want to play in a world where there are conversations along the lines of:

 

North: 4NT

East: What's that mean?

South: It asks me for keycards with 1430 responses, except that if I've got a void I jump to 5NT with an even number of keycards or bid 6 of the void with an odd number of keycards. Oh, and if you double we play DOPI/ROPI

 

 

or

 

North 2H

East Pass

South 2NT

West: what's that mean?

North: It asks me to bid a singleton with a maximum, 3NT with a solid suit, or 3H with a minimum

Wouldn't you like to live in a world where it usually goes:

 

North 2H

East Pass

South 2NT

West: what's that mean?

North: Asking about range and shape, not necessarily strong

 

But once in a blue moon it continues:

 

East: How are you expected to reply?

North: I bid a singleton with a maximum, 3NT with a solid suit, or 3H with a minimum

[gnasher]

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!)

I've considered the consequences, and they seem fine to me. I don't much care which one of them answers. I ask them a question about their methods, and one of them tells me. Or if they don't have an agreement, they tell me that they don't have an agremeent.

[pran]

I've considered the consequences, and they seem fine to me. I don't much care which one of them answers. I ask them a question about their methods, and one of them tells me. Or if they don't have an agreement, they tell me that they don't have an agremeent.

So you will appreciate the answer: "2♦ is multi and I intend to answer 2♠ which is invitation to game in hearts if partner has a weak hand with hearts and suggests pass if he has a weak hand with spades"?

 

Never try that with me as Director in charge!

[Finch]

Wouldn't you like to live in a world where it usually goes:

 

North 2H

East Pass

South 2NT

West: what's that mean?

North: Asking about range and shape, not necessarily strong

 

But once in a blue moon it continues:

 

East: How are you expected to reply?

North: I bid a singleton with a maximum, 3NT with a solid suit, or 3H with a minimum

 

Since you ask, no. I can't see how that it is possible going to affect East's choice of call. The only things that might affect East's choice of call are (i) whether 2NT guarantees invitational values (which you've already answered) and (ii) whether N/S know what their agreements are if I intervene.

 

Now that is the sort of thing I'd like to ask: i.e. do you know what you play if I act here? Will you play pass as forcing? Is opener obliged to pass whatever his hand? Those sort of questions do seem relevant (and I agree I currently can't ask them).

[gnasher]

So you will appreciate the answer: "2♦ is multi and I intend to answer 2♠ which is invitation to game in hearts if partner has a weak hand with hearts and suggests pass if he has a weak hand with spades"?

I haven't sugested that this would happen. The conversation would usually go:

"What's 2♦?"

"A weak two in a major."

and would usually end there.

 

Occasionally it might continue:

"What are the two-level responses?"

"2♥ is pass-or-correct, 2♠ is pass-or-correct, but invitational opposite hearts, 2NT is ..."

 

Alternatively, the answer to the second question might be "We haven't discussed them."

 

Never try that with me as Director in charge!

I'm not sure what your point is. If I were playing in an event with you directing, I would play by whatever rules were in force at the time, and you would, I assume, enforce the same rules.

[gnasher]

Since you ask, no. I can't see how that it is possible going to affect East's choice of call.

Regardless of the specifics of the two examples you gave, a world where you're allowed to ask about bids that haven't yet been made isn't the same as a world where such information is volunteered. So your dislike of the latter isn't sufficient to justify the existing law.

[barmar]

As I wrote earlier, relay systems have relay breaks. It is not automatic to just keep relaying. In these cases it is usually easier to list the hand types not held rather than those held. It is quite common for relayers to hide behind "it's just a relay" as an answer without giving the negative connotations they have from partner not having chosen an alternative route. As an example, we had a thread where people were saying how, during an auction review, they would like descriptions of the individual bids to know which questions were being asked as opposed to just finding out what the bids showed. But this should not be necessary if the relaying side described what the relayer had shown, or at least implied, by their choice of sequence. If the relayer asks about a 3 card major and then signs off in 3NT then there is a reasonable expectation that they hold 5 cards in a major. Even if this is not promised the description should include "will very often be a hand with a 5 card major" or something along these lines.

I've never played a relay system, so maybe I'm confused. I didn't think the relayer could ask specific questions -- he just bids the next step, and partner further describes his hand. Eventually the relayer breaks the relay and then he can start showing things, use other conventions, or set the contract -- after the relay break, normal disclosure applies.

 

However, there are certainly implications based on the type of information partner is able to show after each relay, but it's difficult to tell how much this can be expressed explicitly. E.g. an earlier response may have shown "singleton somewhere", and the response to the next relay might show the suit. How much can we tell about relayer's hand based on the fact that he's still interested in knowing where the singleton is?

[pran]

[...]

I'm not sure what your point is. If I were playing in an event with you directing, I would play by whatever rules were in force at the time, and you would, I assume, enforce the same rules.

I would enforce the laws that restrict disclosure during the auction to prior auction, i.e. calls already made, and possible alternatives to such calls.

 

I would not allow any request for disclosure on possible future calls, for instance answers to asking bids, whether such request question is directed to the player making the asking bid (who will be the correct player to explain the answer call when it is eventually made) or it is directed to the player who explains the asking bid and eventually will be the player making the answer bid.

[StevenG]

I would not allow any request for disclosure on possible future calls, for instance answers to asking bids, whether such request question is directed to the player making the asking bid (who will be the correct player to explain the answer call when it is eventually made) or it is directed to the player who explains the asking bid and eventually will be the player making the answer bid.

 

If one cannot ask, cannot one just look at their CC instead? Or is that a stupid question?

[aguahombre]

If one cannot ask, cannot one just look at their CC instead? Or is that a stupid question?

Not a stupid question, but it might be based on confusion. The answer is yes one can. However, Pran was not saying someone cannot ask. "Allowing the request" means requiring the opponent(s) to answer.

[Vampyr]

If one cannot ask, cannot one just look at their CC instead? Or is that a stupid question?

 

Naturally it depends on whether the auction is on the CC. Early-round actions certainly should be included, and hopefully most artificial agreements later in the auction.

 

The ACBL is probably an exception, as the CC is less than one side of A4, and is filled with text and check boxes. There is virtually no room to write about your methods.

[blackshoe]

I have recently seen an unofficial (afaik) ACBL SC from Florida. It has even more checkboxes than the official card, and even less room for describing methods. :(

[Zelandakh]

I've never played a relay system, so maybe I'm confused. I didn't think the relayer could ask specific questions -- he just bids the next step, and partner further describes his hand. Eventually the relayer breaks the relay and then he can start showing things, use other conventions, or set the contract -- after the relay break, normal disclosure applies.

 

However, there are certainly implications based on the type of information partner is able to show after each relay, but it's difficult to tell how much this can be expressed explicitly. E.g. an earlier response may have shown "singleton somewhere", and the response to the next relay might show the suit. How much can we tell about relayer's hand based on the fact that he's still interested in knowing where the singleton is?

 

Let me give you an example to illustrate what I mean. Opener starts with a big club and Responder shows a game force with exactly 5 hearts and 4 diamonds by bidding 2NT (with maybe some additional bids in-between). Now Opener might have options to ask for the fragment lengths with 3♣, or set hearts as trumps with 3♥, ask for stoppers in the short suits with 3♦ or 3♠, set the contract by bidding game, or starting a RKCB sequence with 4m. Opener will generally only relay if interested in one of the short suits or looking for slam. Suppose Opener relays and Responder shows precisely 1543; now Opener bids 3NT. There are really only 3 possibilities now: either Opener was interested in a spade fit or they wanted to play a suit contract (or slam) opposite club shortage and 3NT otherwise or they are bluffing to try and obfuscate their real holdings (try and induce a minor suit lead).

 

The first of these is by far the most likely and the opponents are entitled to know this. Describing the 3♣ bid as "relay" and the subsequent 3NT as "wants to play 3NT" is true but hardly full disclosure! I do agree that some relays barely reduce the hand possibilities at all, and some pairs do not think very much about relay breaks or use them so rarely that the inferences are sometimes negligible. And many others just do not really understand these negative inferences. However, my view is that if you play a complicated artificial system that you have a strong obligation to make sure that the opponents are not unfairly disadvantaged. That means explaining all of the available inferences to them and not expecting them to work it out from "GBK".

[mycroft]

I would think that (from the interested amateur position of "never played a relay system, read more than a few"):

 

1) As Zel says, the decision whether to trigger the first relay (treating 1♣ as "not a relay") or bid differently probably involves more "relay breaks" than continuation relays (and that negative inferences from "choosing to relay" need to be disclosed, or at least pointed out. "relay, asks me to further describe my shape. We frequently decide to 'show' rather than 'ask' at this point in the auction."

 

2) as far as I have seen, people playing heavily artificial systems are very good at disclosure; partly because they know that this is a problem (and that what they know about partner's decisions is in no way *G*BK), and partly because they actually have thought about "what does this mean" in ways that standard players don't have to (and therefore, frequently don't).

 

Again, I reference Keri. Because of the completeness (and difference from "normal", and a goal of "tell, rather than ask") of the system, I understand the negative inferences behind, say, 1NT-3NT a lot better than in my standard partnerships. And it's actually useful for both sides.

 

Note that some people playing heavily artificial systems are very *bad* at disclosure; sometimes worse than the bad disclosers playing standard (I once tried to find out what 1♠-2NT!; 3♣ *denied*, and totally failed, as they just couldn't explain it). Unfortunately, many of those actively avoid learning how to do it properly. In my games, at least, they get an education, and if I find out they make a habit of this, their education involves DPs.

[barmar]

Note that some people playing heavily artificial systems are very *bad* at disclosure; sometimes worse than the bad disclosers playing standard (I once tried to find out what 1♠-2NT!; 3♣ *denied*, and totally failed, as they just couldn't explain it).

Luckily, if they can't (as opposed to won't) explain it, they probably can't figure out the negative inferences themselves, so their own bidding probably won't be any more accurate than your defense.

[bluejak]

What is wrong with the answer: 2♠ - invitation if opener has a weak hand in hearts and for play if opener has a weak hand in spades?

(The hand given by Trinidad is IMHO typical for a 2♠ response to Multi 2♦.)

Playing a Green Point Swiss Teams over the weekend we lost 11-9 to the team who eventually came second to us. If they had beaten us by more I expect they would have won. Our opponents were very good players, though I was not clear how much of a partnership they were.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sq76hat74daj943c5&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=2dp3sp4hppdppp]133|200[/hv]

 

It turned out that our opponents had had a misunderstanding over the meaning of double, also what double of 3♠ would have been, and I think our +1190 added to team-mates +420 went a long way to winning the event.

 

I do not think our opponents would have had the same problems over a 2-level response.

[bluejak]

So if I ask before the auction you must disclose your agreements about playing penalty ir takeout after NT interference but not during it?

 

That is weird, does that mean you should launch an interrogation about method when a pair sits down?

You must realise that not everyone agrees with the answers you were given.

 

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.

Well, Steffie, you and I had to agree sometime! So do I, and I am pleased that I normally play in a jurisdiction where people try to be helpful over telling you their methods rather than finding technical reasons to hide them.

 

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.

In both cases it affects the meaning of 2NT and the hands it is likely to have, which is disclosable.

 

Or you should specify the kind of further description being requested, from which the opponents can logically infer from GBK the kind of hands that would ask the question. Although things like non-promissory Stayman make this less clear -- while he's ostensibly asking about a 4-card major, it's sometimes just a temporizing bid forced by the rest of the system, so you should presumably mention this exception in the explanation (except that hardly anyone ever asks about Stayman).

GBK? Take Ogust. You can find hands which some players will use Ogust, some will not. How do you know what is going on in this person's mind and his approach if GBK does not help and you cannot find out?

 

I am often amazed by opponents' choice of bids, and GBK will often not tell me the choice they are likely to make with a particular hand. But knowing their methods might.

 

I don't understand what you can possibly find shocking. The Law is very clear and very specific: you are not entitled to ask about calls not yet made; therefore you are not entitled to everything

What's more, the logic behind this law makes very good sense to me for the reasons that Trinidad (and others) are arguing. I don't want to play in a world where there are conversations along the lines of:

 

North: 4NT

East: What's that mean?

South: It asks me for keycards with 1430 responses, except that if I've got a void I jump to 5NT with an even number of keycards or bid 6 of the void with an odd number of keycards. Oh, and if you double we play DOPI/ROPI

 

 

or

 

North 2H

East Pass

South 2NT

West: what's that mean?

North: It asks me to bid a singleton with a maximum, 3NT with a solid suit, or 3H with a minimum

So you want to play in a world where you cannot find out what hands a player is likely to have because you are to going to find out what 2NT means? If it asks, why are you not allowed to find out exactly what it asks for and at what level.

 

Consider

[hv=pc=n&n=sak8732hq54d93ct4&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2sp2n4h]133|200[/hv]

 

What do you bid? Well, it depends on your agreements over 2NT. Me, I double. The typical American professional passes because partner might not have game try values.

 

Ogust is legal played both ways - but it should be disclosed, and we all know that it isn't. At least finding out whether responses at the 4-level are permitted would help.

[barmar]

GBK? Take Ogust. You can find hands which some players will use Ogust, some will not. How do you know what is going on in this person's mind and his approach if GBK does not help and you cannot find out?

 

I am often amazed by opponents' choice of bids, and GBK will often not tell me the choice they are likely to make with a particular hand. But knowing their methods might.

Isn't this mostly a matter of judgement, not methods? Or are you saying that it's dependent on the flavor of Ogust responses they use? Knowing which types of hands opener can show might help you infer the types of hands responder could have.