Disclosure

[benlessard]

S is acknowledge as trump and you can bid 4H "ask Kd", but you hold it so you can safely (0% risk) bid 4H and hear the automatic 4S “no” and you pass.

 

Would you feel guilt if its a

 

1- Ruse.. to invite opps to lead D instead of something else.

 

2- A way to rightside the contract since spades wasnt grabbed, so 4H..4S and voila partner play the hand.

 

 

Personnally I will only make a delayed alert for case 2 because the inference are near impossible for the opps to catch. They are simply not used to see contract rightsided at the 4 level.

 

However in the ruse case I wont feel guilt because its IMO “just bridge” that any slam methods/bid have a deceptive aspect.

 

What do you think ?

[Jinksy]

I don't see the problem - as long as your partner will be careful to describe the bid as 'asking about the KD'. After that, any inferences the opps draw are their own problem.

 

A very similar ruling has been given in the UK laws & ethics column re bidding Stayman without holding a four-card major, either because it's non-promissory or because P is planning to pass on something like 3352 and a low point count. Stayman was firmly described as only an asking bid. A hand making an asking bid is not required to meet any other requirements than having 13 cards.

[WellSpyder]

I don't see the problem - as long as your partner will be careful to describe the bid as 'asking about the KD'. After that, any inferences the opps draw are their own problem.

While I broadly agree with this, there are problems. Most importantly, how can opps draw the inferences that are available if they don't know what the full range of responses to the asking bid are?

[Jinksy]

They can ask the full range of responses to it at any time they like. What's the problem?

[dake50]

Actually had an asking sequence where if a "slam off" bid occurs,

ask next just to leave opponents wondering if the bad 2nd was slam quits.

eg. ask trumps -> 2 missing(no slam) now ask Aces -> any missing/not -> quit at 4M.

even Q-bid as a lead-inhibit to get another lead into AQ.

[WellSpyder]

They can ask the full range of responses to it at any time they like. What's the problem?

The problem is a practical one rather than a theoretical one. Should players routinely protect themselves by asking about responses when told something is asking a specific question? (Do you do this?) Or should they be able to assume that the person asking the question wants to know the answer?

 

If you think the answer to a question about the meaning of an asking bid should in principle also include the responses, then you will fall foul of all the people who argue that the person answering the question should not be saying what their own bid in response to it will mean....

[Zelandakh]

The first time you do this, assuming you only thought of it at the table, the description of asking about ♦K is sufficient. The second time, or once it has been discussed as a positibility, you can easily amend the description to "A hand that wants to know about the ♦K; or a hand holding the ♦K that wants to play 4♠." This is a similar situation to the one where relayer asks about a 3 card major. The inference is usualy there that partner either had 5 cards in the major, had slam ambition, or is trying to mislead. Most relay players fail to disclose these "GBK" small details and this is imho pretty unfair when playing against opponents who are unlikely to work it out for themselves.

 

In other words, you should not feel guilt in either case providing you give full disclosure rather than merely describing the minimum.

[gszes]

an interesting exercise for lawyers---

 

Do I need to disclose merely what the bid asks for (not how I intend to abuse it)?

 

If I include different possibilities of how to abuse the bid does that in and of itself constitute misdirection?

 

Am I responsible for knowing all the different ways to abuse a bid before trying to use it??

 

IMHO disclosure means to inform the opponents what your bid means and any "systemic" not "logical"

meanings derived from your bid. That means if you disclose the fact that 4h asks specifically for the dia

K that is the end of the story for disclosure. If the opps decide you really had slam aspirations that is their

problem not yours. P opens a weak 2s and you have a hand which is just short of looking for slam at

favorable. If you bid 4s would you then be required to "disclose" that it is possible you have a hand just

short of slam potential??? I think not that should be a "logical" possibility the opps should be able to

figure out for themselves.

 

P at favorable opens 3c rho x and you hold x xxx xxxx Kxxxx the only question would seem to be how high

do you want to sacrifice is it possible p has say Ax xx xx Axxxxxx?? if so then we do not want to be in 7c

when 6c should be sufficient. While I know most partnerships abhor 2 aces for an opening preempt it is

hardly unheard of. If I were to bid 4n over the x (I really have zero intent on actually making a slam I am

merely trying to decide how high to sacrifice do I have to disclose that NO that is a "logical" possibility.

the 4n asks a specific question p is expected to answer that is all I need to explain. the fact that I have

studied a system more than my opponents and know how to manipulate it better than they is a just

reward for my effort. They are not specifically entitled to my knowledge of how the system can be used

only the question itself and any special "systemic" conclusions available to (both partner and myself)

 

 

Lawyers sheesh.

[Zelandakh]

Do I need to disclose merely what the bid asks for (not how I intend to abuse it)?

Of course not and I stated this in the first sentence of my post. However you are expected to disclose your partnership understandings and once this has come up or been discussed it is an understanding. The question of how to explain asking bids is one that comes up regularly in the law forums. What you should do in theory is to explain what your partner might hold for their call, hence "asks for exact shape, usually showing 5 spades or slam interest" or whatever. In practise most just give the first part. Most of the time that is fine but when the lack of full disclosure damages the opponents then you may be opening yourself up to an unfavourable ruling.

 

It is also my opinion, but not within the rules, that those who play unusual systems should go out of their way to explain secondary aspects of that system rather than seeking to obtain an advantage from the unfamiliarity. I further believe that if that were both done and enforced it would go some way to making such systems more acceptable to certain regulators and to players.

[dake50]

It is also my opinion, but not within the rules, that those who play unusual systems should go out of their way to explain secondary aspects of that system rather than seeking to obtain an advantage from the unfamiliarity. I further believe that if that were both done and enforced it would go some way to making such systems more acceptable to certain regulators and to players.

-- Zelandakh

 

*** In my experience "What do you know from bids not chosen?" is met with "Those weren't bid"!!

 

Do I need to disclose merely what the bid asks for (not how I intend to abuse it)? -- gszes

 

*** Then every possible deviation in opening bids, preempts, overcalls by partner's judgment.

And thus every "style" (aggressive, conservative, obstructive) that could be this time.

Let alone I must guess what source opponents have for every treatment so I can warn them: not like "Jerry"

But as "Peter". Even which key-ask agreement as per which writer.

How far before this becomes preposterous?

[steve2005]

This is no different then if you weren't playing asking bid but were cuebidding and cuebid a suit you don't have to lead inhibit.

maybe not sound bridge but perfectly legal.

[benlessard]

Note that we wont bluff vs club-level players, I take it as a non written rule. In Montreal directors clubs managers and players in general allow us to play a lot of things, so we have to be a little be smooth on the club level base.