is further explanation of bid required

[steve2005]

[hv=d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2cp2dp2h]133|100[/hv]

2♣=strong, 2♦=waiting, 2♥ described as one of 3 hand types and forcing 2♠.

Now opps ended up in an unstoppable contract and realistically there wasn't anything we could do about it but that isn't the point. It could have changed our bidding or defense.

 

Opp wouldn't explain 2♥ said would show hand type with next bid. but wouldn't disclose further. Didnt even say weather guarantees any number of hearts.

Director backed this up and would not make opps reveal anything further. director said "he can't tell you something before his partner knows" Obviously director doesn't understand I don't want to know what hand type he has I want to know the 3 types he could have.

 

Responder then went out of system and we never did find out possible hand types.

 

Now I am assuming two of hand types were hearts or balanced. Opener had a Flannery type hand so 3rd type is probably both majors. Would that be so difficult to disclose.

 

Playing Polish club 1♣ can be one of 4 or 5 possible hand types and is disclosed if asked. I see no difference in this situation.

[pran]

[hv=d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2cp2dp2h]133|100[/hv]

2♣=strong, 2♦=waiting, 2♥ described as one of 3 hand types and forcing 2♠.

Now opps ended up in an unstoppable contract and realistically there wasn't anything we could do about it but that isn't the point. It could have changed our bidding or defense.

 

Opp wouldn't explain 2♥ said would show hand type with next bid. but wouldn't disclose further. Didnt even say weather guarantees any number of hearts.

Director backed this up and would not make opps reveal anything further.

 

Responder then went out of system and we never did find out possible hand types.

 

Now I am assuming two of hand types were hearts or balanced. Opener had a Flannery type hand so 3rd type is probably both majors. Would that be so devastating to disclose.

 

Playing Polish club 1♣ can be one of 4 or 5 possible hand types and is disclosed if asked. I see no difference in this situation.

 

During the auction and before the final pass any player may request{7}, at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about inferences from

 

the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding.

[...]

{7} Unless that player is required by law to pass.

 

At any time during an auction an opponent may request a full explanation of the auction so far. When 2♥ (as here) is explained to indicate one out of 3 hand types the explanation shall include information on how the actual hand type will eventually be disclosed (usually depending on the choice of future calls).

 

It seems to me that TD here made an incorrect ruling when backing up the refusal to give further explanation.

[barmar]

I agree with Pran. While it's common to give an initial explanation like they did for simplicity, if you're asked for more details there's no reason not to describe the possibilities. An opponent might be able to make guesses about which types are likely based on their own hand, and they're entitled to do this. But they need to know what the types are first.

[ahydra]

You are absolutely entitled to the detail of possible hand types for 2H. It's called "full" disclosure for a reason. I just had an experience like this on the weekend (where a full explanation wasn't forthcoming even after three rounds of questions) and, in retrospect, I really should have called the TD, despite there not being any damage.

 

ahydra

[blackshoe]

I agree that the asker is entitled to know about the three hand types. I do not agree that he's entitled to know what future calls will mean before those calls are made.

[pran]

I agree that the asker is entitled to know about the three hand types. I do not agree that he's entitled to know what future calls will mean before those calls are made.

Interesting view. I assume that the structure of future calls is used to clarify the precise meaning of the 2♥ bid and as such is part of the agreement on this bid.

 

No to (more or less) similar situations:

1: A player bids 4NT which is alerted and explained as (say) Roman Key Card.

Is next player (now in turn to call) entitled to explanation of the different response bids (structure) or will that have to wait until after the response to 4NT has been made?

 

2: In the Auction 1NT - 2♣ the 2♣ bid is alerted and explained as requesting opener to bid 2♦

Are opponents already now entitled to information on what kind of auction this will lead up to depending on how opener's partner will continue his auction thereafter?

Such information is certainly part of partnership agreements related to the 2♣ bid in this situation.

 

I have no answer, but I feel that in some cases such information is part of the "full declaration" of the call in question?

[LBengtsson]

I use a modify kokish with one partner. four types. no problem telling ops. they should disclosure possible hands. 2♥ is a specified bid. kokish is a convention. conventional bids need explanations. director was wrong i think.

[barmar]

Interesting view. I assume that the structure of future calls is used to clarify the precise meaning of the 2♥ bid and as such is part of the agreement on this bid.

The law says oppnents are entitled to the meaning of calls that have been made, and alternate calls that could have been made. Nothing about future calls that might be made.

No to (more or less) similar situations:

1: A player bids 4NT which is alerted and explained as (say) Roman Key Card.

Is next player (now in turn to call) entitled to explanation of the different response bids (structure) or will that have to wait until after the response to 4NT has been made?

No, and even explaining as "Roman Key Card" could be seen as going beyond requirements. Some people have said that the only required explanation for any kind of asking bid is something like "Asks for a further description of my hand" -- you only have to explain the meaning of responses after they're made. On the other hand, there are checkboxes on the standard ACBL CC for RKC and 1430.

 

It's not obvious to me how the difference in timing could affect the opponents. How would it change your competitive bidding to know whether they're using 3014 or 1430 before the response is made?

2: In the Auction 1NT - 2♣ the 2♣ bid is alerted and explained as requesting opener to bid 2♦

Are opponents already now entitled to information on what kind of auction this will lead up to depending on how opener's partner will continue his auction thereafter?

Such information is certainly part of partnership agreements related to the 2♣ bid in this situation.

 

I have no answer, but I feel that in some cases such information is part of the "full declaration" of the call in question?

Sometimes the possibilities are very wide open, as in relay bids. There's not much you can disclose there.

 

Sometimes the bidder usually has one type of hand, but occasionally it can be many other types. E.g. something Lebensohlish, where the player will pass or correct the forced bid, but if he does something else he was showing one of the exceptions.

[Vampyr]

Sometimes the possibilities are very wide open, as in relay bids. There's not much you can disclose there.

 

You must disclose whatever you know. At the very least, you can tell which types of hands are excluded.

[pran]

You must disclose whatever you know. At the very least, you can tell which types of hands are excluded.

Precisely !

[pescetom]

This is an interesting discussion, and I too am curious about where to draw the line.

One has no obligation to describe possible future bids, but there is an obligation to disclose all agreements, and sometimes an honest explanation of the initial bid of a convention just fuels the concern of opponents.

 

To give an example, we play a somewhat eccentric Stayman where the ♦ reply by NT opener merely denies a 5-card major. It's virtually impossible to get wary opponents to accept that simple statement without clarifying that it neither denies nor affirms a 4-card major, and then they then often want to know about how we find a 4-card major fit which requires explanation of the next two rounds of bidding, not without the risk of conveying UI or being so accused.

If they exaggerate then I just hand them the System Notes and pretend that they read ahead or at least wait until we actually make another bid before asking more. It would be nice to know if I am in the right.

[pran]

This is an interesting discussion, and I too am curious about where to draw the line.

One has no obligation to describe possible future bids, but there is an obligation to disclose all agreements, and sometimes an honest explanation of the initial bid of a convention just fuels the concern of opponents.

 

To give an example, we play a somewhat eccentric Stayman where the ♦ reply by NT opener merely denies a 5-card major. It's virtually impossible to get wary opponents to accept that simple statement without clarifying that it neither denies nor affirms a 4-card major, and then they then often want to know about how we find a 4-card major fit which requires explanation of the next two rounds of bidding, not without the risk of conveying UI or being so accused.

If they exaggerate then I just hand them the System Notes and pretend that they read ahead or at least wait until we actually make another bid before asking more. It would be nice to know if I am in the right.

The main "problem" here is that an opponent may need to know your systemic agreements in order to decide whether or not to intervene in your auction with a call other than pass. He may for instance consider a preemptive bid or a lead-directing call.

[blackshoe]

You must disclose whatever you know.

Sure. You got a couple days to listen to it all?

 

You must disclose what's pertinent. If the lawmakers felt that the meanings of potential future calls were pertinent, they would have said so in the laws. As Barry points out upthread, they didn't do that.

 

In pescetom's 2♦ case, the explanation of 2♦ should probably be something like "denies a five card major, does not deny one or two four card majors". If the opponents start asking about future calls, I think the response should be "we'll explain that as and when it comes up."

[pran]

If the lawmakers felt that the meanings of potential future calls were pertinent, they would have said so in the laws. As Barry points out upthread, they didn't do that.

Based on my experience with the laws since 1980 I am not at all convinced that the lawmakers were aware of such possibility.

[weejonnie]

I don't think that opponents are entitled to know HOW you will find out what the hand-types are. They are entitled to know what you do know. (Including potentially surprising negative inferences - which come under 'relevant calls not made')

 

Example: Over a major, I alert a 1NT response. Correct and sufficient response to a question is:

 

Forcing, shows a weak hand in a lower suit or a hand of any strength with at least 3-card trump support.

 

Since that is all I know about the hand.

 

What I do NOT say is "forces a 2 club response unless partner is very distributional" - since that is going to potentially convey UI to my partner (if he has forgotton the system). Although many bridge players have a laudable inclination to go over and beyond what is required, they do so at their own risk.

[barmar]

If they exaggerate then I just hand them the System Notes and pretend that they read ahead or at least wait until we actually make another bid before asking more. It would be nice to know if I am in the right.

If you're willing to hand them the system notes, which explain the meaning of the followup bids, why aren't you willing to explain to them directly? Either you think they're entitled to that information or you don't, the method of providing it should be immaterial.

[barmar]

IWhat I do NOT say is "forces a 2 club response unless partner is very distributional" - since that is going to potentially convey UI to my partner (if he has forgotton the system). Although many bridge players have a laudable inclination to go over and beyond what is required, they do so at their own risk.

You can't use avoiding UI to partner as an excuse not to provide full disclosure to opponents. Full disclosure is a MUST, avoiding UI is a SHOULD. If partner has forgotten the system, it's their responsibility to keep forgetting after hearing the explanation, not yours.

 

The information that partner is forced to bid 2♣ is pertinent to the opponents, as they then know that interference will get in the way of this.

[weejonnie]

You can't use avoiding UI to partner as an excuse not to provide full disclosure to opponents. Full disclosure is a MUST, avoiding UI is a SHOULD. If partner has forgotten the system, it's their responsibility to keep forgetting after hearing the explanation, not yours.

 

The information that partner is forced to bid 2♣ is pertinent to the opponents, as they then know that interference will get in the way of this.

Well they know that once I tell them that 1NT is forcing. And I am not using UI as an excuse to not tell them everything they are entitled to know, I am pointing out that if you start telling them information that they are not entitled to know then you could give UI to your partner.

[pescetom]

If you're willing to hand them the system notes, which explain the meaning of the followup bids, why aren't you willing to explain to them directly? Either you think they're entitled to that information or you don't, the method of providing it should be immaterial.

 

Of course they are entitled to it. I prefer that they read it themselves for two reasons:

1. I just don't have time to explain a page of developments, as blackshoe pointed out, or at least I'm unwilling to lose all that time knowing that hurried card play it will work to the advantage of opponents

2. I might risk supplying UI to my partner, either by emphasising some part of developments or simply by reminding him of something he might forget.

[pescetom]

I don't think that opponents are entitled to know HOW you will find out what the hand-types are. They are entitled to know what you do know. (Including potentially surprising negative inferences - which come under 'relevant calls not made')

 

Yes that makes sense, although even that threatens both UI and a rather long list: for instance when I open 1NT and partner responds 2♣ I know some potentially surprising things like that if he has a 5-card major he must have at least 3-card in the other major too... but that's a lot of detail and whether it really makes a difference right now is a moot point.

OTOH if he bids a Jacoby transfer I certainly will explain that he denies 3 or more cards in the other major.

[Bad_Wolf]

How does Law 40A1(b) fit in to this.

 

"Each partnership has a duty to make its partnership understandings available to its

opponents. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this is done."

 

This doesn't specify that one has to wait for them to come up...

[blackshoe]

How does Law 40A1(b) fit in to this.

It doesn't.

[barmar]

Of course they are entitled to it. I prefer that they read it themselves for two reasons:

1. I just don't have time to explain a page of developments, as blackshoe pointed out, or at least I'm unwilling to lose all that time knowing that hurried card play it will work to the advantage of opponents

Is it really faster for them to read a page of notes than for you to summarize them?

2. I might risk supplying UI to my partner, either by emphasising some part of developments or simply by reminding him of something he might forget.

As I said before, that's not a valid reason not to explain fully. You have to risk giving partner UI, and trust him not to use it.

 

And if partner forgets your agreements so much that you're constantly worried about this when explaining, maybe you need to simplify your system. Remember, it's not UI if he hasn't forgotten.

[Tramticket]

You can't use avoiding UI to partner as an excuse not to provide full disclosure to opponents. Full disclosure is a MUST, avoiding UI is a SHOULD. If partner has forgotten the system, it's their responsibility to keep forgetting after hearing the explanation, not yours.

 

The information that partner is forced to bid 2♣ is pertinent to the opponents, as they then know that interference will get in the way of this.

 

This response seems to be conflating different requirements. If a player asks for an explanation of the auction they are exercising their right under Law 20F1:

 

LAW 20 - REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS

F. Explanation of Calls

1. During the auction and before the final pass any player may request7, at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding…

 

In responding to this request, a proper explanation of a 4NT bid would not be:

- "Roman Key-card Blackwood" - This is a name of a convention not an explanation of the call

It would also not be:

- "1430 Roman Key-card Blackwood" - This is wrong on two counts, since it simply gives the convention name and it transmits unauthorised information to partner concerning how you intent to respond to the bid.

A better response would be:

- "4NT asks for the number of key-cards" (playing against novices you might need to explain further what a key-card is!)

 

Opponents are also entitled to ask about a specific call and you would give a similar response:

LAW 20 - REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS

F. Explanation of Calls

3. Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply.

 

You are not required under either of these Laws to provide an explanation of future calls, either by you or your partner. However, there is a more general requirement to inform your opponents of your system generally, which will allow them to find out about your response structure. This is covered by:

 

LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS

A. Players’ Systemic Agreements

(b) Each partnership has a duty to make its partnership understandings available to its opponents. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this is done.

 

I would expect that, for most Regulating Authorities, the standard way to make your partnership understanding available to opponent's is through a convention Card. This is reasonable, since it avoids transmitting Unauthorised Information. If the opponents wanted me to orally explain future calls I would call the director and seek his guidance.

[barmar]

You are not required under either of these Laws to provide an explanation of future calls, either by you or your partner.

I didn't think I was suggesting this. I thought we were talking about a call that encompasses multiple hand types, so you're required to explain what they could be.