Did I get hosed by the director?

[Vampyr]

Maybe not. But, clearly Michael understands players should not be disclosing what they are going to do...merely what their partner's call means. Anyone who thinks that idea is bollocks is not thinking.

 

Here we go again. My convention card is properly filled out, and includes the response structure to, eg, Ogust. I am at a disadvantage to those who have not included such responses if I am not permitted to ask them (once the auction has begun). Sorry, this is not right.

 

Also I do not understand the idea that I am not, during the auction period, entitled to information that would have been freely and fully available before the auction had begun.

 

I will not comment on who I believe is not thinking.

[aguahombre]

Anyone who thinks they are entitled to know what an opponent will do in the future is truly an "entitlement" person. They are entitled to know what is being asked and that the question requires a bid (not a pass). They are not entitled to know what the answers will mean.

 

Simplest of examples: 4NT asks about my key cards for spades. 1/4 or 0/3 is an answer if the next player wants to know what 5C meant, but 1430 is not an answer to "what is 4nt?"

[barmar]

Anyone who thinks they are entitled to know what an opponent will do in the future is truly an "entitlement" person. They are entitled to know what is being asked and that the question requires a bid (not a pass). They are not entitled to know what the answers will mean.

Can we please not have this debate again? We've been through it dozens of times, and never reached a concensus. It's a religious debate, you will never convince each other, and you're just going to repeat all the same arguments.

 

What do they say a definition of insanity is? Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.

[mgoetze]

They are entitled to know what is being asked

Actually, I am entitled to know what is being shown. Unfortunately it is very rare that someone will actually be able to tell me what their 2♣ bid shows.

 

Here is an example of what a 2♣ bid might show. See if you can guess the rest of the NT response structure.

 

(a) A weak hand with short clubs e.g. 4351 OR

(b) a weak hand with both majors OR

© an invitational hand with at least one 4-card major OR

(d) an invitational hand with 5 spades OR

(e) a game-forcing hand with 4-4, 4-5 or 5-4 in the majors OR

(f) a game-forcing hand with a 4-card major and a 5+ card minor.

 

Of course if you put it this way it is pretty obvious that the "Stayman" exemption had better be pretty broad if you don't want this bid to be banned in most regulations. Could be weak, no anchor suit... impossible to defend obviously.

[barmar]

Please, I beg of you, STOP!

 

I just realized that I may be suffering from insanity as well: thinking I can keep people from having this debate just by repeatedly asking them to stop.

[aguahombre]

You have options to keep your sanity.

 

You can chill and let us beat our heads against the wall, or you can convince Vamp that we don't have to predict the future for her.

[Vampyr]

Simplest of examples: 4NT asks about my key cards for spades. 1/4 or 0/3 is an answer if the next player wants to know what 5C meant, but 1430 is not an answer to "what is 4nt?"

 

Yet this answer will be available on a convention card. Unless the opponents have not filled theirs out thoroughly or do not have one. I don't know why you want the latter players to have an advantage.

[paua]

What should we say then? Describe what the 2♣ bid shows. Avoid using the word "asks" or "asking". ;)

 

(a) A weak hand with short clubs e.g. 4351 OR

(b) a weak hand with 5-4 in the majors OR

(c ) an invitational hand with at least one 4-card major OR

(e) a game-forcing hand with at least one 4-card major OR

(f) a weak hand with a 4-card major and a 5+ card minor.

 

:D

[aguahombre]

Yet this answer will be available on a convention card. Unless the opponents have not filled theirs out thoroughly or do not have one. I don't know why you want the latter players to have an advantage.

There is no advantage to us in knowing what the responses will be before they occur. There is only a reassurance or reminder to the 4NT bidder about their agreement.

[Vampyr]

There is no advantage to us in knowing what the responses will be before they occur.

 

This is not always true.

 

There is only a reassurance or reminder to the 4NT bidder about their agreement.

 

They are not permitted or able to look at their own card.

[campboy]

Also I do not understand the idea that I am not, during the auction period, entitled to information that would have been freely and fully available before the auction had begun.

Well you are not entitled to consult your own CC once the auction period has begun but you may do so before that, so this idea is hardly new.

 

Anyway, the law is quite clear that you are not permitted to ask about the response structure itself but you are entitled to ask what your opponent can deduce about partner's hand from his knowledge of the response structure. Whether or not this is a good law is probably better debated in Changing Laws.

[Vampyr]

Anyway, the law is quite clear that you are not permitted to ask about the response structure itself

 

It is not clear to me.

[blackshoe]

Law 20F1, first sentence: During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction.

The emphasis on "prior" is mine. If we were entitled to ask questions about possible future calls, that word would not be there.

[Vampyr]

The emphasis on "prior" is mine. If we were entitled to ask questions about possible future calls, that word would not be there.

 

In the case of an asking bid, the answers are an essential part of the convention.

[aguahombre]

In the case of an asking bid, the answers are an essential part of the convention.

So, when the answer has been given, you get to know what it was.

[blackshoe]

In the case of an asking bid, the answers are an essential part of the convention.

So what?

[aguahombre]

In the case of an asking bid, the answers are an essential part of the convention.

So what?

O.K. Vamp maybe this question will, despite your desire to know in advance something which you are not entitled by the laws to know in advance, bring your thinking back to the practical:

 

1D-1S

1N-2C! Alerted as artificial, and asking for further description of my opening bid. We have seven responses ---each alertable in and of themselves, because they carry more than one meaning (11-12 vs 13-14 & pattern). There is an idle bid (3C) in the middle which we don't need because of our original choice to open 1D.

 

Which of the following three things would you prefer:

 

1) Detail all 7 possible responses and their meanings and mention that I won't bid 3C?

2) Just tell you which bid I am going to make and explain it?

3) I make my response, partner alerts it, and your side either asks or doesn't ask what it means?

 

Also ask yourself what possible need you might have to know what any of these responses might mean before they occur.

 

Edit: In case there was any doubt, you are getting #3.

[Vampyr]

Also ask yourself what possible need you might have to know what any of these responses might mean before they occur.

 

OK, let's say the opponents have made an Ace- or Keycard-asking bid. You might like to know, especially if you are yourself holding a keycard, what scheme of responses they are using and what form of DOPI/ROPI etc they are using (or not). You may want this information in order to determine whether you can add uncertainty to the opponents' auction by inserting a bid or a double.

[paua]

OK, let's say the opponents have made an Ace- or Keycard-asking bid. You might like to know, especially if you are yourself holding a keycard, what scheme of responses they are using and what form of DOPI/ROPI etc they are using (or not). You may want this information in order to determine whether you can add uncertainty to the opponents' auction by inserting a bid or a double.

 

I think that's stepping into dangerous UI territory.

Either you double or you don't. No questions.

[Vampyr]

I think that's stepping into dangerous UI territory.

Either you double or you don't. No questions.

 

The opponents' UI is not your problem, but for the sake of argument assume that there are screens.

[aguahombre]

If you can find a reason to want them to predict the future, then you will have to settle for 20f1 which doesn't allow you to have it.

[Vampyr]

If you can find a reason to want them to predict the future, then you will have to settle for 20f1 which doesn't allow you to have it.

 

Even if it said that, I think that this would have been an unintended meaning as it is not consistent with full and free disclosure.

[blackshoe]

Even if it said that, I think that this would have been an unintended meaning as it is not consistent with full and free disclosure.

Actually, it is, unless you define "full and free disclosure" to be of not just bids that have been made, but also bids that might be made in the future. The law does not do that.

[StevenG]

Are you not entitled to know all the opponent's system before the hand starts? If so, you are saying you lose those rights during the auction. If not, bridge is a very different game from what I thought it was.

[paua]

The opponents' UI is not your problem, but for the sake of argument assume that there are screens.

 

I meant UI for your side. You can't ask a question and then pass or double or bid based on the answer to the question. Well, you can, but at the risk of creating UI for partner.

Most bridge is not played with screens.