another alert question and an oops

[barmar]

If this is addressed to me I must express my admiration for a "mindreader" that (apparently) can read more of my mind that it actually contains. Not that such mindreading seems reliable.

I don't think I was reading your mind, I was interpreting your logic. You want the opponents to disclose things so you can form the inferences yourself, even though the Laws already require them to disclose those inferences directly.

 

So just as you can infer what's in someone's hand from the bids, I can infer what's in your mind from his.

[Trinidad]

1) Yes, of course

2) Yes, of course

3) No question asked

4) Yes, but if the opponent asks about the subsequent 3 club bid and also other available bids (in other words, the response structure), the opponent still just might have drawn the inference himself.

If the opponents are damaged by not know the inference, then the can appeal to the director for redress.

Thank you for your answers.

 

Regarding 4: But then the opponent can only draw the inference one round later than he was entitled to (according to your answers to 1 and 2). I realize that this would hardly matter in this particular case, but there may be a case where it would matter.

 

Furthermore, my view on this is that if the responder had fully disclosed the response structure rightaway, it should be part of GBK that the 2NT bidder might have held a club sign-off. After all, at the time, there was no -explicit or implicit- agreement. (Now, of course, there is.) Fully disclosing the response structure (i.e. everything relevant that you know through explicit and implicit agreements around this auction) should not lead to an MI ruling.

I agree with you that withholding the response structure could lead to an MI ruling.

 

Rik

[kevperk]

Thank you for your answers.

 

Regarding 4: But then the opponent can only draw the inference one round later than he was entitled to (according to your answers to 1 and 2). I realize that this would hardly matter in this particular case, but there may be a case where it would matter.

 

Furthermore, my view on this is that if the responder had fully disclosed the response structure rightaway, it should be part of GBK that the 2NT bidder might have held a club sign-off. After all, at the time, there was no -explicit or implicit- agreement. (Now, of course, there is.) Fully disclosing the response structure (i.e. everything relevant that you know through explicit and implicit agreements around this auction) should not lead to an MI ruling.

I agree with you that withholding the response structure could lead to an MI ruling.

 

Rik

As the opponent, I would much rather the response structure not be disclosed BEFORE the response is made. In my experience in these situations, the potential UI problems are far more of a real problem than the MI problems.

[Trinidad]

As the opponent, I would much rather the response structure not be disclosed BEFORE the response is made. In my experience in these situations, the potential UI problems are far more of a real problem than the MI problems.

That is fine. Nobody forces you (as an opponent) to ask for it.

 

But in the rare case that the opponents would ask for the response structure (before the response has been made) -because they feel it helps them to understand the asking bid- should you then give this information?

 

Rik

[kevperk]

That is fine. Nobody forces you (as an opponent) to ask for it.

 

But in the rare case that the opponents would ask for the response structure (before the response has been made) -because they feel it helps them to understand the asking bid- should you then give this information?

 

Rik

Yes, if it is specifically requested. If I just ask for an explanation of the bid itself, I don't want them to volunteer the response structure.

 

Kevin

[blackshoe]

Nineteen pages of discussion, and we still haven't reached any agreement. Perhaps I should move this thread out of "simple rulings". :blink:

[pran]

Yes, if it is specifically requested. If I just ask for an explanation of the bid itself, I don't want them to volunteer the response structure.

 

Kevin

Precisely.

But much of the discussion in this thread has been about what constitutes "full description", and the argument (which recently was definitely shown to be in error) has been that "full description" includes description of the response structure.

 

If that had been the case then they would have been required to explain the response structure as part of their explanation of the bid itself, Most of us have always understood that this is untenable.

[Vampyr]

If that had been the case then they would have been required to explain the response structure as part of their explanation of the bid itself, Most of us have always understood that this is untenable.

 

Right, so the responses are described only in a reply to a further question. So what is all the fuss about? There seems to be no disagreement.

[Trinidad]

Yes, if it is specifically requested. If I just ask for an explanation of the bid itself, I don't want them to volunteer the response structure.

 

Kevin

Then we agree 100%.

 

Rik

[pran]

Nineteen pages of discussion, and we still haven't reached any agreement. Perhaps I should move this thread out of "simple rulings". :blink:

Have we not been given (documented) evidence that descriptions of "answer" calls are not part of descriptions of their corresponding "asking" bids (See posts #366 and #367)?

 

Consequently when asking for an explanation of a bid requesting information from partner you are not entitled to information about the various calls that eventually will give this information.

 

Example: The explanation of RKCB 4NT may include the information (if relevant) that the bidder knows about second control in all suits (or he would not risk asking for aces) and that he is not void in any suit (or he would have used exclusion Blackwood instead). But this explanation does not include information on whether for instance a 5♣ response will show 0 or 1 Aces etc., that is part of the explanation of response calls (to be given after a response call has been made).

 

I thought this question was settled once and for all by reference to WBFLC minutes etc.?

[blackshoe]

<shrug> I'm not arguing, Sven. :ph34r:

[aguahombre]

Example: The explanation of RKCB 4NT may include the information (if relevant) that the bidder knows about second control in all suits (or he would not risk asking for aces) and that he is not void in any suit (or he would have used exclusion Blackwood instead). But this explanation does not include information on whether for instance a 5♣ response will show 0 or 1 Aces etc., that is part of the explanation of response calls (to be given after a response call has been made).

That example is a frequent situation around these parts. The majority of opponents know three possible explanations of 4NT:

 

--Regular Wood

--1430

--Quantitative (they don't use this one, but they know it exists)

 

So, when partner bids 4NT, the next player asks, "1430?". They are conditioned to think RKCB and 1430 are the same thing, yet we happen to be 0314 people. Regardless of the poor form of the question, I answer: "It asks for Key Cards in support of...". (Or, "No, it isn't asking for Keys at all; it is....")

 

Then, since they asked about 4NT earlier and did not receive an answer about what the responses will be, partner explains the response after the auction is over (or when they further inquire after the response has been made).

[jmuncie]

That's MI. Keeping secrets from opponents deliberately is cheating. This is a Full disclosure game. If you play RKCB, for example, and are asked what you play, answering "Blackwood" is deliberate misinformation, and answering "asking for aces" is prevarication with intent to deceive.

 

If you are asked what 2NT is in response to a weak two you should say whether it is Ogust or a feature ask or whatever.

If both partners have that they play RKCB on their BBO profiles and convention cards, is a 4NT bid asking for key cards alertable? I was told by the TD that all artificial bids were alertable! ACBL documents do not support this ruling.

[barmar]

If both partners have that they play RKCB on their BBO profiles and convention cards, is a 4NT bid asking for key cards alertable? I was told by the TD that all artificial bids were alertable! ACBL documents do not support this ruling.

They were wrong. While most artificial bids are alertable, many common conventions are not, and Blackwood is one of them. The ACBL Alert Procedures specifically says:

4NT Blackwood (any variety over suits) and 4♣ Gerber (any variety over notrump) and expected responses thereto do not require an Alert of any kind. All other ace-asking bids and responses require an Alert, but some of these Alerts must be "delayed."

 

However, whether a bid is alertable does not change your requirement to explain it properly if asked about it. If you play RKCB, you must not explain the the 4NT bid as just Blackwood.

[Vampyr]

Full disclosure is a funny thing. Some people think that you should give as little information as you can get away with, while others would prefer to err on the side of giving too much. Very different approaches to the game.

[blackshoe]

some of us fall in between those extremes.

[pran]

Full disclosure is a funny thing. Some people think that you should give as little information as you can get away with, while others would prefer to err on the side of giving too much. Very different approaches to the game.

There is a very simple rule that should be easy to apply:

 

The explanation of a call should include everything that is relevant about that call as such, but nothing that can aid as a reminder on which response call to select.

 

In the case of Blackwood/RKCB or whatever 4NT is supposed to be this excludes everything that will remind responder whether to bid 5♣, 5♦, 5♥, 5♠ or any other call.

[Trinidad]

Two quick comments.

1) There is no such rule. You may wish there was, but there isn't.

 

2 Your rule is hardly simple, since it is contradicting itself. The responses can be "relevant about the asking bid as such". Actually if your rule would really exist, you would not be able to explain that Stayman asks for a four card major, since that "can already aid as a reminder on which response call to select". (Someone might have bid 2♣ thinking that it asks for aces.)

 

Conclusion: It is good that your rule doesn't exist.

 

Rik

[pran]

Two quick comments.

1) There is no such rule. You may wish there was, but there isn't.

 

2 Your rule is hardly simple, since it is contradicting itself. The responses can be "relevant about the asking bid as such". Actually if your rule would really exist, you would not be able to explain that Stayman asks for a four card major, since that "can already aid as a reminder on which response call to select". (Someone might have bid 2♣ thinking that it asks for aces.)

 

Conclusion: It is good that your rule doesn't exist.

 

Rik

The rule definitely exists:

[...]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.[...]

Information on calls not yet made is not included in the list and is therefore explicitly excluded until after such (or alternative) call has been made. This understanding of the law has been confirmed in one of the WBFLC minutes (quoted earlier in this thread).

 

So in your case of Stayman: It is indeed part of the explanation that Stayman asks about possible four card major suit(s), but it is not part of this explanation for instance whether an answer bid in 2 ♥ can show spades in addition to hearts or shows hearts only, or whether an answer bid of 2NT shows both majors or a maximum strength NT opening bid without any of the majors.

[mgoetze]

So in your case of Stayman: It is indeed part of the explanation that Stayman asks about possible four card major suit(s),

It is? Aren't you supposed to explain what hand types are included in the Stayman bid without reference to what opener may or may not show later?

[pran]

So in your case of Stayman: It is indeed part of the explanation that Stayman asks about possible four card major suit(s),

It is? Aren't you supposed to explain what hand types are included in the Stayman bid without reference to what opener may or may not show later?

Sure it is.

 

At the time opener's partner makes a Stayman bid he is (supposedly) not giving any information about his own hand, but his apparent interest in whether opener has a 4-card major suit is relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding.

 

How the opener is going to respond to this interest is (in case) to be explained after the response call has been made.

[mgoetze]

At the time opener's partner makes a Stayman bid he is (supposedly) not giving any information about his own hand,

Nonsense, of course he is giving information about his own hand.

[barmar]

How many times are we going to go around this issue before we just give up and admit that we're never going to reach a concensus? For every convention someone brings up, the same arguments are being made by both sides, and no progress is being made.

[pran]

How many times are we going to go around this issue before we just give up and admit that we're never going to reach a concensus? For every convention someone brings up, the same arguments are being made by both sides, and no progress is being made.

Just so long as people choose to ignore:

In the minutes of the WBFLC in Beijing, it says "20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents’ >prior< auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation >only< of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing." Why did they choose to use the words "prior" and "only"? It just seems that if they wanted the laws to be interpreted the way you suggest, they certainly wouldn't have worded it this way.

[pran]

Nonsense, of course he is giving information about his own hand.

What information?

(Excluding the negative information that he is not particularly interested in being dummy in a 1NT contract)