another alert question and an oops

[pran]

Please David:

Why do you carefully and consistently avoid answering the question: Who shall answer a question requesting information describing a call not yet made: The player supposed to make that call or his partner??

 

In my example of Multi 2♦ opening bid:

The 2♦ bid must of course be described by opener's partner, but who shall then at the same time describe the various answer bids possible (according to agreements) to this opening bid - the opener himself or his partner?

[bluejak]

Why have your brought one of my posts from an entirely different thread here and answered it as though it had some connection to this, David?

If I have, I did it by accident. Mind you, I have no idea how.

 

Please David:

Why do you carefully and consistently avoid answering the question: Who shall answer a question requesting information describing a call not yet made: The player supposed to make that call or his partner??

 

In my example of Multi 2♦ opening bid:

The 2♦ bid must of course be described by opener's partner, but who shall then at the same time describe the various answer bids possible (according to agreements) to this opening bid - the opener himself or his partner?

If the questioner needs to know at the time of the 2NT, which will be extremely rare, what the answers to the question are, the player will, of course, answer. Why not?

[pran]

If the questioner needs to know at the time of the 2NT, which will be extremely rare, what the answers to the question are, the player will, of course, answer. Why not?

That the situation is extremely rare is completely irrelevant!

 

I still do not know whether you by "the player" refer to the player who made the 2NT bid or the player who explains the 2NT bid and eventually shall make the corresponding response bid.

 

But I assume that "by the player" you indicate the player who explains the 2NT bid and as part of this explanation also (according to you) must in case at this time explain his own answer bid eventually to be made.

 

Is the 2NT bidder now, after hearing this explanation, allowed to select his further calls according to this information? Of course not. Although the explanation may or may not match the understanding he already has of the answer bid that is going to be made this information is coming from his partner and is therefore UI to him. His argument will of course be that he already possessed the information before the auction started, but so will anybody state whether or not they needed their memory being refreshed. And there is usually no way the Director can establish any discrepancy between the 2NT bidder's understanding of the answer bid before and after he heard his partner's explanation.

 

This is precisely the reason why the laws specifically state that explanations shall be given about calls already made and then by partner to the player who made the call in question. (Unless the Director instructs otherwise.)

 

 

(If instead you indicate the player who made the 2NT bid we have exactly the same problem except that it is now the player who is going to make his response bid who in advance is reminded by his partner on how he is supposed to bid.)

 

This is all not just theory: A common mistake with Multi is forgetting which of the answers show the weaker hand and which show the stronger hand within the "weak two in major" range.

 

How convenient is it then not to legally explain 2NT with the explanation: "2NT asks about opener's hand and the possible responses are 3♣ or ♦ with a weaker in hearts or spades and 3♥ or ♠ with a stronger (but still weak) hand. 3NT shows the NT hand with 20-21 HCP."?

[blackshoe]

It is very rare that you want to know exactly which response means what, but no ethical player would fail to answer if asked. I am totally amazed you would support them if they did.

 

This is very rare, but Ogust is a great example of one convention which people play in very different ways from each other and do not tell opponents. Even perfectly ethical players do not out of ignorance or laziness.

 

I have never known anyone who tries to hide their system from opponents, and am flabbergasted you think it reasonable.

 

To summarise, people play Ogust in all sorts of different ways and opponents are entitled to that information the moment 2NT is bid.

 

And I am flabbergasted that you think I advocate "hiding" something. As for "no ethical player", I'm sorry David, but I don't believe you, unless your definition of ethical is "one who would always answer whatever question is asked".

 

In response to your last sentence there, of course they are, particularly when the differences are as significant as what you described. But it is both possible and completely ethical to describe the set of responses in such a way as not to say "well, 3♣ by me will mean..." and so on.

[bluejak]

Of course there are other ways. But this idea of not allowing opponents to know what the responses are, especially what is shown and at what level, is horrible. Obviously it does not matter whether 3♦ is minimum with a good suit or whether it is maximum with a poor suit. But some people believe that you do not need to tell opponents whether you ask for features or for suit quality. They think that if they describe 4NT as ace-asking that is sufficient. They think that describing 2C as Stayman is sufficient with no reference to whether there are five card suits, and whether you can respond 2NT. Sure, these people are a small minority, but they do the game harm.

[pran]

Of course there are other ways. But this idea of not allowing opponents to know what the responses are, especially what is shown and at what level, is horrible. Obviously it does not matter whether 3♦ is minimum with a good suit or whether it is maximum with a poor suit. But some people believe that you do not need to tell opponents whether you ask for features or for suit quality. They think that if they describe 4NT as ace-asking that is sufficient. They think that describing 2C as Stayman is sufficient with no reference to whether there are five card suits, and whether you can respond 2NT. Sure, these people are a small minority, but they do the game harm.

Is the reason why you avoid answering direct questions that you have no meaningful answer?

 

The description of 2NT bid over a Multi 2♦ opening bid includes that it requests further clarification of the actual hand held by the opener. The expected answer will show if the opener has a 20-21 NT hand or a weak 2 in either major, and in the latter case whether the strength of the hand is within the weaker or stronger range for a traditional weak two.

 

This ought to be obvious for anyone, and I have never disputed it.

 

Even the information: Which answer calls can be expected in response to the 2NT bid could be considered part of this explanation, but when you state that a (further) description of these various answer calls available is part of a complete disclosure on the 2NT bid I must strongly object.

 

Such description is due (only) after a response to the 2NT bid has been made.

 

There is (as I have pointed out) a serious legal problem with descriptions of answer calls before the call is actually made, and an important point here is if such premature explanation should be given by the player eventually making the call or by his partner. Your only answer to this question so far was ambiguous.

[mjj29]

Is the 2NT bidder now, after hearing this explanation, allowed to select his further calls according to this information? Of course not. Although the explanation may or may not match the understanding he already has of the answer bid that is going to be made this information is coming from his partner and is therefore UI to him. His argument will of course be that he already possessed the information before the auction started, but so will anybody state whether or not they needed their memory being refreshed. And there is usually no way the Director can establish any discrepancy between the 2NT bidder's understanding of the answer bid before and after he heard his partner's explanation.

Surely if this were the case whenever my partner alerted, announced or explained correctly my bid I'd be forced to throw the board, because taking the correct action in my system is suggested by the fact my partner has remembered the system. This is stupid. (also, L16 says _unexpected_ alert or lack of alert, although I'll grant that's after the 'reply to a question' part). Fundamentally, if partner gives an accurate description of our system I can't be constrained by that or the entire game would grind to a halt.

[pran]

Surely if this were the case whenever my partner alerted, announced or explained correctly my bid I'd be forced to throw the board, because taking the correct action in my system is suggested by the fact my partner has remembered the system. This is stupid. (also, L16 says _unexpected_ alert or lack of alert, although I'll grant that's after the 'reply to a question' part). Fundamentally, if partner gives an accurate description of our system I can't be constrained by that or the entire game would grind to a halt.

Quite true, and that is the main reason why the laws have very strict conditions for when during the auction, and by whom explanations are to be given, namely after a call has been made, (not before) and by partner to the player who made the call.

 

Any deviation from this requires specific instruction by TD in the particular case.

 

(Specific descriptions of possible responses to a particular call are not part of the description of that call and must be delayed until such response has actually been made.)

[Trinidad]

How convenient is it then not to legally explain 2NT with the explanation: "2NT asks about opener's hand and the possible responses are 3♣ or ♦ with a weaker in hearts or spades and 3♥ or ♠ with a stronger (but still weak) hand. 3NT shows the NT hand with 20-21 HCP."?

David and I have been explaining extensively that explanations about specific responses are only given when they are specifically asked for.

 

No one is suggesting that the 2NT should be explained as:

"It asks about my hand. If I rebid 3♣ I have a minimum weak two in hearts. If I rebid 3♦ I have a minimum weak two in spades. If I rebid 3♥ I have a maximum weak two in spades. If I bid 3♠ I have ♠K54♥KQJ943♦T2♣75 and 3NT is reserved for the remaining hands."

 

The debate is about the question whether the opponents are entitled to know about the responses to asking bids if they want to. Both David and I think that the opponents are entitled to it, because it is in the spirit of full disclosure, and that it should be given when asked for (already for the simple reason that the person answering the question cannot anticipate that the asker is interested in knowing the exact responses).

 

Also your question about who should explain has been answered. Feel free to browse back to my post #210.

 

Rik

[pran]

David and I have been explaining extensively that explanations about specific responses are only given when they are specifically asked for.

 

No one is suggesting that the 2NT should be explained as:

"It asks about my hand. If I rebid 3♣ I have a minimum weak two in hearts. If I rebid 3♦ I have a minimum weak two in spades. If I rebid 3♥ I have a maximum weak two in spades. If I bid 3♠ I have ♠K54♥KQJ943♦T2♣75 and 3NT is reserved for the remaining hands."

 

The debate is about the question whether the opponents are entitled to know about the responses to asking bids if they want to. Both David and I think that the opponents are entitled to it, because it is in the spirit of full disclosure, and that it should be given when asked for (already for the simple reason that the person answering the question cannot anticipate that the asker is interested in knowing the exact responses).

 

Also your question about who should explain has been answered. Feel free to browse back to my post #210.

 

Rik

OK,

So what you say is that when I am asked about my partner's 2NT bid and I respond as I have stated earlier in this thread my RHO may also ask me a question like:

 

And what will your possible responses of respectively 3♣, 3♦, 3♥, 3♠ and 3NT show?

 

My answer to this question shall then be something like:

 

I shall bid 3♣ with a weaker weak 2♥ opening hand, 3♦ with a weaker weak 2♠ opening hand, 3♥ with a stronger weak 2♥ opening hand, 2♠ with a stronger weak 2♠ opening hand and 2NT with a 20-21 HCP NT shaped hand.

 

What a wonderful opportunity to rehearse my system agreements with my partner during the auction before I make my call!

 

Since this information is considered part of "full disclosure" of the 2NT bid I suppose I am permitted (read "obliged") to give it even without being asked specifically for it?

[Vampyr]

 

My answer to this question shall then be something like:

 

I shall bid 3♣ with a weaker weak 2♥ opening hand, 3♦ with a weaker weak 2♠ opening hand, 3♥ with a stronger weak 2♥ opening hand, 2♠ with a stronger weak 2♠ opening hand and 2NT with a 20-21 HCP NT shaped hand.

 

What a wonderful opportunity to rehearse my system agreements with my partner during the auction before I make my call!

 

You cannot rely on this method, because the opportunity will come very rarely, when the opponents specifically ask.

 

In any case you will not have a problem if partner has remembered your systemic agreements -- do you find this to be a fairly rare occurance?

[mgoetze]

Wow, I'm so glad I don't play with people like blackshoe and aguahombre. Having to call the director to compel my opponents to disclose their system is not my idea of fun at all, fortunately I've never had to do so. Needless to say, if aguahombre were my opponent and blackshoe the director I would never be coming back to that club again.

[aguahombre]

Wow, I'm so glad I don't play with people like blackshoe and aguahombre. Having to call the director to compel my opponents to disclose their system is not my idea of fun at all, fortunately I've never had to do so. Needless to say, if aguahombre were my opponent and blackshoe the director I would never be coming back to that club again.

If I were you, I wouldn't want to play against people who can read, either. Not even curious here why you chose us two out of those who have said the same thing as we have and the ones who wrote the applicable section(s).

[pran]

You cannot rely on this method, because the opportunity will come very rarely, when the opponents specifically ask.

 

In any case you will not have a problem if partner has remembered your systemic agreements -- do you find this to be a fairly rare occurance?

Sure I can rely on that method!

 

You have written that explanations about specific responses are only given when they are specifically asked for.

 

This is nonsense. Either the explanation of responses to an asking bid is part of the complete desription of that asking bid, in which case it shall be included without being explicitly called for. Or it is not, in which case it may definitely not be requested nor given until a response has actually been made.

 

According to you and David an explanation shall be "complete", and that in the case of an "asking" bid a complete explanation includes descriptions of the (systemic) possible answer calls.

 

Consequently I am not only allowed, but required to perform my little rehearsal of our agreements whenever opponents ask about the 2NT bid (or even when they ask a general question about any auction that has included the 2NT bid)! They need not include specific questions about our answering agreements for 2NT.

 

The fact that I trust my partner to remember our system, or whether it is a rare occurance is completely irrelevant: The laws do not allow the player making a call to explain his own call even if both players know the answer and there is no misunderstanding between them.

[barmar]

So if I write "Ogust" on my CC, but don't list all the responses, I'm "not completely filling out my CC"?

I should have thought so; a convention name is never a sufficient explanation. Also see the post immediately above, which I forgot to check Multiquote for.

But the convention card is not an explanation.

 

The Responses/Rebids area of the 2-level bids section of the ACBL card barely has room to list the names of all the conventions I play (Ogust, McCabe, meaning of redouble), there's no room for the details of these conventions.

 

No one expects the convention card to be detailed system notes, they're just a concise summary. Maybe that's just an ACBL thing, because our card is so brief.

[Trinidad]

The laws do not allow the player making a call to explain his own call even if both players know the answer and there is no misunderstanding between them.

Once again, you are twisting the discussion. No one is saying that a player should explain his own call. The partner of the 2NT bidder explains the 2NT call.

 

If the opponents want the answer framed in such a way that this partner is explaining what the responses to 2NT mean then that is fine. After all, that is a much easier way to describe the meaning of 2NT than to list the hand types that bid 2NT. The key, which you keep forgetting (at best), is that it still is an explanation of the 2NT bid.

 

And yes, all explanations need to be complete. But you have an idé fixe that there is only one way to give a complete explanation. If you only think about the variety of opponents that might be asking (novices, "card sharks", convention builders, Unlucky Experts and Mrs Guggenheims, Abbots and Brother Aelreds) you should realize that there is not one way to give a complete explanation. A good explainer will give an explanation that is tailor made for the person asking.

 

If the person asking comprehends the meaning of 2NT better by knowing the responses, by all means tell him the responses. It is practical to first make sure that your opponent is such a person. After all, there are also people who would consider it cheating if you would tell the responses. In that case, it would obviously not be wise to explain like that. But if an opponent specifically asks... there is nothing against explaining 2NT by telling what the responses are. That is what tailor made means.

 

Rik

[pran]

Once again, you are twisting the discussion. No one is saying that a player should explain his own call. The partner of the 2NT bidder explains the 2NT call.

 

If the opponents want the answer framed in such a way that this partner is explaining what the responses to 2NT mean then that is fine. After all, that is a much easier way to describe the meaning of 2NT than to list the hand types that bid 2NT. The key, which you keep forgetting (at best), is that it still is an explanation of the 2NT bid.

 

And yes, all explanations need to be complete. But you have an idé fixe that there is only one way to give a complete explanation. If you only think about the variety of opponents that might be asking (novices, "card sharks", convention builders, Unlucky Experts and Mrs Guggenheims, Abbots and Brother Aelreds) you should realize that there is not one way to give a complete explanation. A good explainer will give an explanation that is tailor made for the person asking.

 

If the person asking comprehends the meaning of 2NT better by knowing the responses, by all means tell him the responses. It is practical to first make sure that your opponent is such a person. After all, there are also people who would consider it cheating if you would tell the responses. In that case, it would obviously not be wise to explain like that. But if an opponent specifically asks... there is nothing against explaining 2NT by telling what the responses are. That is what tailor made means.

 

Rik

What I understand you and David to be arguing is that the partnership understanding of answer calls is part of the information constituting a "full disclosure" of an asking bid.

 

My position is that while the disclosure of an asking bid might very well include information on which particluar calls have defined meanings as responses to the answer bid, such meanings themselves constitute disclosure of the respective answer calls only and are not part of the understanding of the preceeding asking bid.

 

When you state that the player explaining the asking bid shall also disclose the understanding of the possible answer calls, one of which he will make next, then that is neccessarily the same as saying that the player must explain his own call.

 

You may think this is fine, and in some situations it might even very well be the easiest way to disclose a partnership understanding, but that does not make it legal.

 

I don't see how I am twisting the discussion, but I am certainly doing my best to keep it on track.

[blackshoe]

Wow, I'm so glad I don't play with people like blackshoe and aguahombre. Having to call the director to compel my opponents to disclose their system is not my idea of fun at all, fortunately I've never had to do so. Needless to say, if aguahombre were my opponent and blackshoe the director I would never be coming back to that club again.

 

Life is full of choices. Neither Aqua nor I has said we would require you to call the director. I did say that I would call the director if I was asked to disclose the meanings of potential future calls — and I would. Do you claim I do not have that right?

[Trinidad]

Life is full of choices. Neither Aqua nor I has said we would require you to call the director. I did say that I would call the director if I was asked to disclose the meanings of potential future calls — and I would. Do you claim I do not have that right?

Sure, as a player you have the right to call the TD at any time (with the obvious exceptions).

 

The discussion is whether you, as a TD or the ACBL as an RA, have the right to say that a player doesn't need to disclose information that may be needed to understand the meaning of a bid that was made, particularly when this information defines the meaning of the bid. I would say that you, or the ACBL don't have that right.

 

Suppose a pair agreed on clubs as trumps. They use RKCB. At that point, it makes a big difference whether the pair plays 1430 or 0314. The 1430/0314 obviously refers to future calls. However, it clearly defines what hands can bid 4NT and which ones can't, because it defines the hands with which you can afford to bid 4NT. Thus, 4NT is not only asking for keycards, but -in context- also says how many keycards the 4NT bidder holds himself. This is clearly information from a bid that has been made and it is information that should, therefore, be disclosed when asked.

 

An opponent who wants to know could ask: "How many keycards does 4NT show?". You can predict the reply: "It doesn't show any keycards; it asks for keycards." It may well be that the explainer never realized that the 4NT bid actually shows (or implies) a certain number of keycards. In that case, he will not know the answer to the question, even if his partner will have the appropriate amount of keycards 99% of the time. Suppose now that the asking opponent knows how to count to 5. He can figure out how many keycards the 4NT bidder has, as long as he knows whether the responses are 1430 or 0314. He promises not to bother the opponents with difficult questions any more as soon as they tell him whether they play 1430 or 0314. They refuse, because this is a question about future responses.

 

Now, of course this is a question about future repsonse and, equally of course, it isn't. It is a question about the 4NT bid that was made. The question is asked because the replying player can't answer the real question. And this inability to answer the real question is not due to a lack of agreements (because they have an agreement about the meaning of 4NT and, of course, his partner won't bid 4NT if he can't afford to). It is due to a lack in general bridge skills or communication skills on the part of the player who is supposed to reply. The asker is accomodating to the lack in skills of the replying player, by asking a second question (how are your responses?) that the replying player is able to answer and which will give the asker the information that he is entitled to.

 

I suppose you could make it even more extreme: The replier actually understands that 4NT is implying a certain number of keycards. But he reasons that he infers that from the response structure, that the ACBL forbids him to disclose. He could reason that eventhough he knows how many keycards 4NT shows, he is not supposed to answer, because from the answer the asker may infer the response structure and even worse: his partner may infer the response structure!! His partner might get the UI how he understands the future system!!!

 

And so it boils down to the old question: Does the desire not to give UI to partner trump your duty to disclose your methods? We all know that it doesn't. Full disclosure trumps trying to prevent giving UI. So, if an opponent asks for the response structure, because he needs that information to understand the asking bid that was already made, give it to him. And your partner will get the UI that you know your system. There is worse UI you could give your partner.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

You have written that explanations about specific responses are only given when they are specifically asked for.

 

I didn't say that actually, but it does make sense.

 

This is nonsense. Either the explanation of responses to an asking bid is part of the complete desription of that asking bid, in which case it shall be included without being explicitly called for. Or it is not, in which case it may definitely not be requested nor given until a response has actually been made.

 

According to you and David an explanation shall be "complete", and that in the case of an "asking" bid a complete explanation includes descriptions of the (systemic) possible answer calls.

 

Talk about nonsense LOL. Following this logic you would have to include in an explanation of every bid all the bids that partner did not make. This is also information that the opponents are entitled to, but that is not given until it is specifically asked for.

[Zelandakh]

Suppose a pair agreed on clubs as trumps. They use RKCB. At that point, it makes a big difference whether the pair plays 1430 or 0314.

That is a bad example Rik. Knowing whether it is 1430 or 3041 is unlikely to affect your current call and you can ask next time around (or after the auction) and still receive the same information in time to use it. Note also that bidding 4NT with clubs as trumps playing 1430 does not automatically mean that the player would be willing to go to slam opposite zero key cards - it might be that they can rule out zero from either the bidding or the general high card strength in their own hand. Therefore a description such as: "Asking for key cards showing a hand willing to bid slam even opposite no key cards", which is essentially what you are suggesting, is imho incorrect. Perhaps: "Asking for key cards showing a hand willing to bid slam opposite any possible hand" (for 1430) and "Asking for key cards showing a hand willing to bid slam opposite any possible hand with 1 or more key cards" (for 3041); but then the pair might also have a way to get out in 5NT. You would have to include that then - it starts to get a bit messy but I still believe this approach (describing the possible hand types) is far better than describing the responses. That said I would certainly do so if an opponnet asked!

[WellSpyder]

What I understand you and David to be arguing is that the partnership understanding of answer calls is part of the information constituting a "full disclosure" of an asking bid.

I'm not sure whether or not you think you are arguing against a minority view just held by trinidad and bluejak, but just in case that is the case let me assure you that I agree 100% with them. And vampyr has also made it clear that is her view, too. I haven't contributed to this thread before because others have made the arguments very clear, and also, frankly, because I thought the answer was obvious. Of course I don't expect anyone to start explaining a bid by setting out what their responses would mean, but like some others I am appalled at the idea that you think players should be allowed to withhold such information if an opponent thinks they need it to help understand the bid that has already been made.

[blackshoe]

I give up. I am defeated by Rik's wall of text.

[Trinidad]

I give up. I am defeated by Rik's wall of text.

You could ignore the wall and reply to the first three or last three lines. The wall was yet another example to show how an asking bid also shows something and that what it shows depends on the response structure.

 

The other 2 x 3 lines were:

Does the TD or RA have the right to obstruct full disclosure? My answer: No.

Does FD trump not giving UI to partner? My answer: Yes.

 

Concise enough?

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

The other 2 x 3 lines were:

Does the TD or RA have the right to obstruct full disclosure? My answer: No.

Does FD trump not giving UI to partner? My answer: Yes.

 

Obstruct, no. Is that what he/they are doing?

 

Yes it does. But that's the wrong question. The question is whether "full disclosure" requires you to tell you opponents about future bids your partnership might make. Law 20 says no.