another alert question and an oops

[mgoetze]

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?

 

Of course you can call the director whenever you want. But if you didn't do it, and just refused to disclose your system, then I would call the director.

[blackshoe]

You make it sound like I'm willfully cheating. I'm not.

[Trinidad]

There is no reason to use the C-word. Mgoetze said he will call the TD. He didn't say you were cheating. And it didn't sound like it either. A TD call is not a cheating accusation.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Not talking about the call the director part, talking about the "refused to disclose" part. I don't "refuse to disclose". If I don't think opps are entitled to an answer to the particular question they're asking, I call the TD for guidance. If he tells me to disclose it, I disclose it. If it turns out opps now have an advantage to which they're not entitled, so be it.

 

"Full disclosure" does not mean "answer any question they ask, willy-nilly".

[bluejak]

"Full disclosure" does not mean "answer any question they ask, willy-nilly".

Correct. It merely means answer any question which involves describing relevant bits of your systerm.

[blackshoe]

I am not convinced that the responses to the bid on the table are necessarily crucial for an opponent's decision as to his call (Law 40B6b).

[mgoetze]

I am not convinced that the responses to the bid on the table are necessarily crucial for an opponent's decision as to his call (Law 40B6b).

 

I am convinced that if you know that you are actually supposed to be reading Law 20F1, then referring to Law 40B6b instead shows a certain disdain for Law 72B1.

[bluejak]

I am not convinced that the responses to the bid on the table are necessarily crucial for an opponent's decision as to his call (Law 40B6b).

Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. But it seems wrong for someone else to withhold information re system in a game whcih is meant to be open information where system is concerned because he, the askee, believes the asker shoud be deciding without this informatin.

 

To put it another way, Ed, you tell me your partner's 3♣ asks for diamond length, and I want to know whether any responses show controls, and whether any are at the four level. Do you really think an adequate answer is "You don't really need to know to make your next call."? And would you say the same to Bob Hamman?

[blackshoe]

No, I don't think that's adequate, and I wouldn't say it. To you, or Bob Hamman, or anybody else. I've never claimed I would say that, or anything like it.

 

This is not getting us anywhere.

[Vampyr]

No, I don't think that's adequate, and I wouldn't say it. To you, or Bob Hamman, or anybody else. I've never claimed I would say that, or anything like it.

 

What words would you use then? Or would you sit there and look at them blankly?

[blackshoe]

Well, since I don't recognize the convention, I don't know how I'd answer. Hypothetically "no, answers don't show controls, they show shape, and none of them are at the four level". Or 'Yes, answers show controls in steps by number (A=2, K=1), some answers are at the four level". Or "yes, answers show first or second round control of specific suits, (up the line scheme or substitution scheme, as may be). No answers are at the four level".

 

And this is still not getting us anywhere.

[Vampyr]

If this information is not on your convention card, I guess the solution is to write it in now, and then give the card back to your opponent. Does anyone disagree that you must at least do this?

[blackshoe]

If this information is not on your convention card, I guess the solution is to write it in now, and then give the card back to your opponent. Does anyone disagree that you must at least do this?

 

There is an erroneous assumption implicit in this statement. In this part of the world, people don't exchange cards. As for writing it on the card, that depends on the regulations in force.

[Vampyr]

There is an erroneous assumption implicit in this statement. In this part of the world, people don't exchange cards.

 

A little confused. You are not required, after writing in the relevant information, to give the card to your opponent if she asks for it? What are the convention cards actually for?

[gnasher]

What are the convention cards actually for?

Scoring on the other side of.

[blackshoe]

A little confused. You are not required, after writing in the relevant information, to give the card to your opponent if she asks for it? What are the convention cards actually for?

 

Scoring on the other side of.

 

Andy's right. Unfortunately. If an opponent asks for my card, of course I give it to her. After she looks at whatever she wants to look at, she gives it back. The problem is that they don't ask. I had a player once ask questions of my novice partner to the point of badgering her. When I suggested the answer to her question was on our card, she said "I don't look at convention cards. I ask questions." BTW, because of people like that, my former partner no longer plays bridge.

 

There is, or was when I was there, an English regulation that required players to exchange cards with their opponents at the beginning of the round, with the cards being given back normally only at the end of the round. There is no such regulation in North America. I doubt there ever has been or ever will be. When I first came back to the States, my attempts to exchange cards were met with everything from "no thank you" to "get that thing out of my face". :(

 

Alex Groner's Duplicate Bridge Direction, first published in, I think, 1956, is widely used here by directors who care enough to buy a book. In it, he mentions that "you can even write your conventional agreements on the back of your personal score card!" :lol: :o

[Vampyr]

The problem is that they don't ask.

 

But we are talking about someone who wants to know about your methods. If you won't tell her, she will (may in NA) try to find it on your convention card. If it is not there you will write it in and then she will ask for the card back.

 

Telling is quicker, but hey, whatever works for you...

[blackshoe]

How did we get here? I never suggested anything like that. Must have come from whatever you folks are smoking.

[barmar]

As I've mentioned numerous times, ACBL convention cards are just a terse summary of the pair's agreements. They don't actually explain the meanings of bids, they're just a set of checkboxes and written convention names.

 

For example, nowhere on the ACBL CC does it require you to explain the common (uncontested) auction: 1♠-2♣-2♠; does this show 6+ ♠ or is it just a temporizing bid when you don't have stoppers in the unbid suits needed to bid 2NT? (I've actually been lobbying for a new checkbox for this -- it's something new partners need to discuss.)

 

ACBL CCs are useful for the following purposes:

 

1. When starting a partnership, they provide a roadmap for the most important agreements you need to make.

 

2. Opponents can get an idea of your general approach from them -- do you play 2/1, Standard, or Precision; is 2♦ a weak 2, Flannery, Roman, or something else; what defense do you play to 1NT?

 

3. They serve as supporting evidence if there's a dispute over whether a pair is playing a particular convention. But often the dispute is over whether the convention applies in a particular situation, and the CC won't help with this.

 

4. And of course, the reverse is for your private score.

[bluejak]

Well, since I don't recognize the convention, I don't know how I'd answer. Hypothetically "no, answers don't show controls, they show shape, and none of them are at the four level". Or 'Yes, answers show controls in steps by number (A=2, K=1), some answers are at the four level". Or "yes, answers show first or second round control of specific suits, (up the line scheme or substitution scheme, as may be). No answers are at the four level".

 

And this is still not getting us anywhere.

Yes, it is. We have now reached the point where you believe that if the question is asked it should be answered. But that is not a unanimous view. There is a feeling amongst some people that we have seen here, and we have certainly seen on RGB, that opponents have no right to know what you are asking for and in what way. They claim it is to avoid giving UI to partner [yeah, right :)] but in reality they would prefer opponents not to know what you are playing.

 

We may be somewhat affected here by the basic approach. In England, if an opponent wants to know what you are doing he asks, and you tell him. In the ACBL there seem to be two rather different approaches: a lot of players seem to assume that everyone else plays things their way, so they do not need to ask. And if they do ask, there seems to be a lack of conviction that they have the right to know. I think the two things are in fact linked, and the former - which is commoner - leads to the latter.

[pran]

[...]

but in reality they would prefer opponents not to know what you are playing.

[...]

You have stated this so many times now although you should be fully aware that the allegation is a direct lie.

 

I (for one) have no intention of hiding from opponents any information to which they are entitled, but I don't want to infringe Law 20F and get into problems on whether I or my partner shall explain a call not yet made.

 

To the extent that a bid (e.g. "Multi 2♦") requests an answer call I shall as part of the explanation of that bid gladly disclose the principles of the request clarifying what information is requested by the bid, but until after such an answer call has been made I shall carefully avoid giving declarations or specifications that essentially are explanations of the various alternative answer calls to the request.

 

Once a call has been made that call and possible alternatives will of course be fully explained to opponents (by partner to the player who made the call).

[blackshoe]

Yes, it is. We have now reached the point where you believe that if the question is asked it should be answered. But that is not a unanimous view. There is a feeling amongst some people that we have seen here, and we have certainly seen on RGB, that opponents have no right to know what you are asking for and in what way. They claim it is to avoid giving UI to partner [yeah, right :)] but in reality they would prefer opponents not to know what you are playing.

 

We may be somewhat affected here by the basic approach. In England, if an opponent wants to know what you are doing he asks, and you tell him. In the ACBL there seem to be two rather different approaches: a lot of players seem to assume that everyone else plays things their way, so they do not need to ask. And if they do ask, there seems to be a lack of conviction that they have the right to know. I think the two things are in fact linked, and the former - which is commoner - leads to the latter.

 

It has been asserted that in some cases you cannot fully explain your partner's call without explaining in detail the meanings of specific future calls by you. That's what I'm not buying. Note: I'm not saying that my explanation will or should preclude an opponent figuring out that "3C will mean such-and-such" if he wants to make that effort. I'm saying I'm not required to tell him that "3C will mean such-and-such".

 

I'm not concerned about giving UI to partner. That will happen. When it does, it's her problem.

 

Once when I requested an explanation of the entire auction, my opps called the director (they, both very experienced players, one a director herself, claimed not to understand the request). The director arrived, asked me "which bid do you want to know about?"(!) I replied "all of them". At which point my LHO, also a director, said "I don't have to tell him what 3H means". To which the response was "you do if it's a matter of partnership agreement". So yes, there are those in North America who resist giving full disclosure. I'm not one of them.

[mgoetze]

It has been asserted that in some cases you cannot fully explain your partner's call without explaining in detail the meanings of specific future calls by you. That's what I'm not buying. Note: I'm not saying that my explanation will or should preclude an opponent figuring out that "3C will mean such-and-such" if he wants to make that effort. I'm saying I'm not required to tell him that "3C will mean such-and-such".

You may not have figured out all the implications of your response structure. Your partner may just have come up with a clever way to abuse it. Your opponents have a right to try and figure it out for themselves. Also, your opponent may have a choice between coming in now and coming in later. Whether coming in later is feasible may depend on your followup structure.

 

In my view, even just thinking about whether you can get away with not telling your opponent something they ask for is unethical.

 

I won't comment on your anecdotes of absurd non-bridge situations.

[pran]

You may not have figured out all the implications of your response structure. Your partner may just have come up with a clever way to abuse it. Your opponents have a right to try and figure it out for themselves. Also, your opponent may have a choice between coming in now and coming in later. Whether coming in later is feasible may depend on your followup structure.

 

In my view, even just thinking about whether you can get away with not telling your opponent something they ask for is unethical.

 

I won't comment on your anecdotes of absurd non-bridge situations.

Our opponents are fully entitled to try figuring out themselves the implications of our (full) disclosure on calls made so far, (including the agreements as described on our system declaration), but they are not (yet) entitled to specific descriptions of agreements related to calls not yet made nor possible alternatives to such future calls. This is explicitly stated in Law 20F.

 

Personally I am seriously doubting the ethics (and honesty) of players (and directors) who insist that "no agreement", "not discussed" or words to similar effect shall be accepted as "full disclosure" when they may have a real expectation on the actual understanding of the calls they refuse to explain otherwise.

[...]the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.[...]

and I think it is correct to correspondingly rule "Mistaken Explanation" when the only "evidence to the contrary" is a self-serving assertion of "no agreements".

 

Ed's anecdote is certainly not non-bridge. I agree that it is absurd (or at least ought to be) but I do know of similar situations and such situations shall probably occur again with incompetent directors.

[Trinidad]

So, Sven, you would have ruled MI in the case that happened between my partner and me (See http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/51300-another-alert-question-and-an-oops/page__view__findpost__p__620795)?

 

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2s(weak%2C%205%20spades%20+%204%5B+%5D%20m)p2n(Asking%20for%20m%20and%20Ogust)p(Asking%20about%202NT)3c(Diamonds)ppp(Asking%20more)]133|100[/hv]

(2NT asks for the minor as well as the quality of the suits and the overall strength of the hand. Responses: 3♣= diamonds, 3♦-3NT: clubs: MIN/Bad, MIN/Good, MAX/Bad, MAX/Good)

 

You don't need to talk about evidence. You can assume that the facts are correct: We have a system book that shows detailed agreements about the 2NT convention (and even says explicitly that the auction is GF when opener shows a MAX) and you can take my word for it that this situation had not come up before (i.e. there was no implicit agreement). (And if you don't believe that it was the first time, just act as if it was the first time, since in that case there must have been a first time at some point.)

 

Rik