another alert question and an oops

[pran]

These are not different things. Just as in the weak/strong 2♠ example, your opponents are permitted to change their defence to a weak 3♠ based on your style of pre-empting, so you can't necessarily vary your style of pre-empting based on their defence.

If I understand him correct he states that he is entitled to know opponents' defence against his (for instance) weak 2♠ or weak 3♠ opening bid before committing himself to such an opening bid, but that he is bound by the style he has declared (before opponents declare their defence) and that he may not change this declaration depending on the defence subsequently declared by his opponents.

 

I agree with this understanding.

[gnasher]

I keep seeing assertions that someone "may" need to explain the meanings of future calls in order to meet the requirements of full disclosure, but I have seen no convincing example of same.

 

It goes 1♥-pass-2NT, showing a game-forcing raise. I have a hand where I might bid 3♠ to get in their way, but I judge that it would be risky to do so. In order to evaluate the rewards, I need to know what their methods are both if I pass and if I bid. For example, if they play that uncontested

3

♥

shows non-minimum balanced

3

♠

shows spade shortage

4

♥

shows minimum balanced

and over a 3♠ overcall they play

pass shows non-minimum balanced

double shows spade shortage

4

♥

shows minimum balanced

There's not much point in overcalling.

 

If, on the other hand, they play a complex scheme involving multi-way 3♣ and 3♦ bids, there's much more benefit to overcalling.

[pran]

It goes 1♥-pass-2NT, showing a game-forcing raise. I have a hand where I might bid 3♠ to get in their way, but I judge that it would be risky to do so. In order to evaluate the rewards, I need to know what their methods are both if I pass and if I bid. For example, if they play that uncontested

3

♥

shows non-minimum balanced

3

♠

shows spade shortage

4

♥

shows minimum balanced

and over a 3♠ overcall they play

pass shows non-minimum balanced

double shows spade shortage

4

♥

shows minimum balanced

There's not much point in overcalling.

 

If, on the other hand, they play a complex scheme involving multi-way 3♣ and 3♦ bids, there's much more benefit to overcalling.

I don't see why knowing the details about opponents' possible future calls at this time shall make much difference for you.

 

The important information you have is that your opponents most likely are in for either 420 or 620 (depending on vul) and your own assessment on how much you will pay out in 3♠X with a blank partner.

 

Further assessment is of course if you suspect that opponents have a slam and you can prevent them from reaching that with an intervention. Again the important question is how much are you willing to pay out in 3♠X ?

[gnasher]

I don't see why knowing the details about opponents' possible future calls at this time shall make much difference for you.

 

The important information you have is that your opponents most likely are in for either 420 or 620 (depending on vul) and your own assessment on how much you will pay out in 3♠X with a blank partner.

 

Further assessment is of course if you suspect that opponents have a slam and you can prevent them from reaching that with an intervention. Again the important question is how much are you willing to pay out in 3♠X ?

 

Sven, I want to sell you something. I'm not going to tell you what it is that you're buying, or how useful it will be to you. How much are you prepared to pay for it?

[pran]

Sven, I want to sell you something. I'm not going to tell you what it is that you're buying, or how useful it will be to you. How much are you prepared to pay for it?

If my LHO has made a normal opening bid, my Partner has passed and my RHO has forced to game I know pretty much already.

And I certainly know enough to assess whether my hand is worth the danger of being doubled in an interfering bid.

 

Bridge is not an exact science, we have to make assessments, judge probabilities and sometimes take chances based on the existing legal information.

[gnasher]

If my LHO has made a normal opening bid, my Partner has passed and my RHO has forced to game I know pretty much already.

And I certainly know enough to assess whether my hand is worth the danger of being doubled in an interfering bid.

You seem to be having trouble understanding my point. I expect my explanation was unclear, so I'll try again.

 

In the scenario I'm describing:

- I can estimate the probabilities of different results if I play in 3♠x.

- I can estimate the probability that they can make slam.

- If I were to bid 3♠, my main objective would be to make the opponents' slam-bidding methods less effective.

- If I don't know what their methods are, I can't judge how effective my intervention will be.

 

That is, I can estimate the cost of bidding 3♠, but I can't estimate the benefits.

 

Bridge is not an exact science, we have to make assessments, judge probabilities and sometimes take chances based on the existing legal information.

My post was a response to Blackshoe's comment that he had seen no convincing example of a situation where someone might need to know the meanings of future calls. I wasn't addressing the separate question of whether one is legally entitled to that information.

[pran]

[...]

My post was a response to Blackshoe's comment that he had seen no convincing example of a situation where someone might need to know the meanings of future calls. I wasn't addressing the separate question of whether one is legally entitled to that information.

Oh, I know of numerous situations where I might need to know the meanings of possible future calls in order to more safely decide my own action.

 

But the game we are playing is called bridge (or more specifically "duplicate bridge") as defined by the appliccable laws and regulations. According to these we have to choose our actions based on what has happened so far (properly explained) combined with our estimates on what might be expected to happen in the future. This does not include knowledge of the meanings of possible future calls beyond that available from the general declaration of the system in use.

[blackshoe]

You seem to be having trouble understanding my point. I expect my explanation was unclear, so I'll try again.

 

In the scenario I'm describing:

- I can estimate the probabilities of different results if I play in 3♠x.

- I can estimate the probability that they can make slam.

- If I were to bid 3♠, my main objective would be to make the opponents' slam-bidding methods less effective.

- If I don't know what their methods are, I can't judge how effective my intervention will be.

 

That is, I can estimate the cost of bidding 3♠, but I can't estimate the benefits.

 

 

My post was a response to Blackshoe's comment that he had seen no convincing example of a situation where someone might need to know the meanings of future calls. I wasn't addressing the separate question of whether one is legally entitled to that information.

 

You need to know their methods generally, not the meaning of specific future calls.

[campboy]

Sven, I want to sell you something. I'm not going to tell you what it is that you're buying, or how useful it will be to you. How much are you prepared to pay for it?

 

I'd buy that for a dollar!

[gnasher]

You need to know their methods generally, not the meaning of specific future calls.

The benefit of bidding 3♠ is that it stops them bidding 3♣, 3♦ or 3♥. In order to know how much I would gain by bidding 3♠, I need to know what they use those three bids for.

[aguahombre]

You need to know their methods generally, not the meaning of specific future calls.

The benefit of bidding 3♠ is that it stops them bidding 3♣, 3♦ or 3♥. In order to know how much I would gain by bidding 3♠, I need to know what they use those three bids for.

Yes, and as Pran pointed out most recently, Blackshoe's post might have been:

 

You get to know their methods generally, not the meaning of specific future calls.

[blackshoe]

Precisely.

 

Nothing in the laws, nothing in the principle of full disclosure, entitles anyone to be told the meanings of particular potential future calls in the middle of a live auction.

[phil_20686]

From the laws

 

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.

 

Suppose the auction startsn 1S-2N by the oppos. According to the wording I can ask about the auction 1S-4c-4d-4h-4n-5c-6H, since the fact that they didnt start this sequence clearly puts in "relevant inferences from the choice of action". But I am not allowed to ask about 1S-2N-3C?

 

Seriously?

 

It seems to me that knowing the continuations after 1S-2N is always a "relevant inferences from choice of action" since if I want to understand what hands would choose 2N rather than any of the other ways of raising a major I have to understand all the sequences that distinguish the 2N hands from all the other ways of raising a major.

[blackshoe]

Full and complete disclosure, if it extends to what you say you "need", means a complete exposition of the entire bidding system. I hope you have several hours to listen to this explanation.

[pran]

Suppose the auction startsn 1S-2N by the oppos. According to the wording I can ask about the auction 1S-4c-4d-4h-4n-5c-6H, since the fact that they didnt start this sequence clearly puts in "relevant inferences from the choice of action".

Sure, all the bids (4♣ through 6♥) specified above are alternatives to the 2NT bid actually made.

but I am not allowed to ask about 1S-2N-3C?

 

Seriously?

Absolutely. 3♣ is not an alternative to the 2NT bid actually made, it is one of the possible future calls that can be made in response to the 2NT bid. You are fre to ask about that - after the response call to 2NT has been made.

It seems to me that knowing the continuations after 1S-2N is always a "relevant inferences from choice of action" since if I want to understand what hands would choose 2N rather than any of the other ways of raising a major I have to understand all the sequences that distinguish the 2N hands from all the other ways of raising a major.

Precisely, and that is exactly why you can request explanation of alternative calls to a call that has been made. But you have no legal reason to ask for the auction beyond that point before a future call has been made.

 

Why is this so difficult for some of you to understand?

[phil_20686]

Why is this so difficult for some of you to understand?

 

Because the continuations are integral to understanding why 2N was chosen. Suppose after 2N their continuations could not distinguish a singleton, then there is a strong reason to splinter when you have a singleton rather than bidding 2N.

 

Such considerations are key to understanding an auction. Knowing the other alternative calls is not enough. Further, knowledge about the detail of agreements following 2N appears certainly a "relevant inference" about what hands will bid 2N.

 

[pran]

The benefit of bidding 3♠ is that it stops them bidding 3♣, 3♦ or 3♥. In order to know how much I would gain by bidding 3♠, I need to know what they use those three bids for.

So what?

 

The benefit of a skip bid to (say) 5♣ is that it stops them from bidding at the 4-level (Ace asking, Splinter, simple game, whatever) Do you need a full disclosure of all their possible bids at the 4-level in order to decide whether or not you should bid 5♣?

[pran]

Because the continuations are integral to understanding why 2N was chosen. Suppose after 2N their continuations could not distinguish a singleton, then there is a strong reason to splinter when you have a singleton rather than bidding 2N.

 

Such considerations are key to understanding an auction. Knowing the other alternative calls is not enough. Further, knowledge about the detail of agreements following 2N appears certainly a "relevant inference" about what hands will bid 2N.

Now you are mixing disclosure of the 2NT bid with disclosure of the responses to 2NT.

 

This thread has at least till now been about whether disclosure of responses to the 2NT bid can be considered part of disclosure of the 2NT bid itself, and my position is that this is not generally the case.

 

A question like: Under what circumstances will the player bidding 2NT have bid (for instance) Splinter instead of 2NT is clearly a question about an alternative call (to 2NT) not made and as such absolutely permitted in Law 20F.

 

But this has nothing to do with the possible responses to 2NT.

[gnasher]

Yes, and as Pran pointed out most recently, Blackshoe's post might have been:

 

You get to know their methods generally, not the meaning of specific future calls.

If he'd said that, I wouldn't have disagreed.

 

Nothing in the laws, nothing in the principle of full disclosure, entitles anyone to be told the meanings of particular potential future calls in the middle of a live auction.

I expect you're right about the laws. This seems a prime candidate for change, though.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "the principle of full disclosure". That's not something defined in the laws is it?

[gnasher]

The benefit of a skip bid to (say) 5♣ is that it stops them from bidding at the 4-level (Ace asking, Splinter, simple game, whatever) Do you need a full disclosure of all their possible bids at the 4-level in order to decide whether or not you should bid 5♣?

Yes, I might well need to know that. I'd be less inclined to preempt against a pair that played standard Jacoby rebids than against a pair who played sensible methods.

 

And before you tell me the same thing again, I am not saying that I am legally entitled to this information. I am merely answering your question about whether I need it.

[blackshoe]

If he'd said that, I wouldn't have disagreed.

 

 

I expect you're right about the laws. This seems a prime candidate for change, though.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "the principle of full disclosure". That's not something defined in the laws is it?

 

No, it's not, but several people in this thread and others have alluded to it. For example, see the ACBL's take on it.

[Vampyr]

The benefit of a skip bid to (say) 5♣ is that it stops them from bidding at the 4-level (Ace asking, Splinter, simple game, whatever) Do you need a full disclosure of all their possible bids at the 4-level in order to decide whether or not you should bid 5♣?

 

LOL looks like a rhetorical question. Have you switched sides, Sven?

[pran]

So what?

 

The benefit of a skip bid to (say) 5♣ is that it stops them from bidding at the 4-level (Ace asking, Splinter, simple game, whatever) Do you need a full disclosure of all their possible bids at the 4-level in order to decide whether or not you should bid 5♣?

 

LOL looks like a rhetorical question. Have you switched sides, Sven?

Yes, it was a rhetorical question.

 

No, I haven't switched side

 

I had a teacher in physics who told us that if we wanted to try a principle (e.g. a theory) we should apply it on extreme situations and see if the principle or theory was still sound.

 

My hope was that everybody would realize the insanity in an alleged need for requesting the disclosure of opponents' possible bids up to the 4-level when considering a direct preemptive 5♣ bid over an opening 1♠ bid.

 

If it shall be OK to request explanations of possible bids at the 3-level on the ground that such explanations are needed when considering a 3♠ bid over 2NT then the same logic justifies explanations of every bid between 1NT and 4NT on the ground that such explanations are needed when considering a 5♣ bid over a 1♠ opening bid.

[blackshoe]

I have enough trouble getting straight answers (or indeed any answers, sometimes) to "please explain your auction". I find the idea of trying to get (or give) answers to "please explain your entire bidding system" pretty intimidating. B-)

[barmar]

Oh, I know of numerous situations where I might need to know the meanings of possible future calls in order to more safely decide my own action.

 

But the game we are playing is called bridge (or more specifically "duplicate bridge") as defined by the appliccable laws and regulations. According to these we have to choose our actions based on what has happened so far (properly explained) combined with our estimates on what might be expected to happen in the future. This does not include knowledge of the meanings of possible future calls beyond that available from the general declaration of the system in use.

I think this is the best answer so far. Just because some information could be useful does not mean that you're entitled to it. The Laws on disclosure are a compromise between perfect information and practicality.