BBO Discussion Forums: another alert question and an oops - BBO Discussion Forums

gnasher, on 2012-April-01, 12:09, said:

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.

pran, on 2012-April-01, 11:36, said:

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

Vampyr, on 2012-April-01, 17:18, said:

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.

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.

pran, on 2012-April-01, 04:34, said:

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.

blackshoe, on 2012-April-01, 17:52, said:

I've looked carefully through all the recent discussion, and I can't find any post where someone said that they would ask such a question. Can you tell us which post you're referring to?

blackshoe, on 2012-April-01, 10:42, said:

Hurray, a post from blackshoe in this thread that I can agree with, at last. I think this is exactly what full disclosure means in principle. I think the opponents should be able to be in the equivalent position they would be in if they had a full copy of your entire bidding system in front of them.

Quote

I'm sure you are intelligent enough to focus your explanations on only those parts of the system that are likely to help the opponents understand what you and your partner might have in your hands for the auction currently underway, so I think it is very unlikely that several hours will be required. Most of us tend to be fairly concise, because we think this will give the opponents the information they need to help them make the choices they may be faced with, but if they ask follow-up questions requiring further detail then that's fine by me.

WellSpyder, on 2012-April-02, 02:59, said:

Indeed. Another useful guideline is to answer the opponent's question rather than some other question. If the auction starts 1♠-2NT and an opponent asks "What will the rebids mean?", he isn't asking you to describe your entire system, so I don't see why you would even consider doing so.

gnasher, on 2012-April-02, 02:02, said:

The possibility of such a question is implicit in the arguments already presented regarding the meanings of "the next call by the side". I see no reason to require that some post has actually said it.

It has been an accepted principle as long as I've been studying the laws that one is not permitted to ask the meanings of future calls. I'm sticking with that.

One is permitted to ask about style, say "what kinds of hands will bid 2NT?" That's a different question.

So you ask me what our defence to weak 2s are, and I say "if you play disciplined weak 2s, we play takeout and 'natural'; if you play undiscliplined, or potentially 5-card, weak 2s, we play Fishbein."

That's our defence, take it or leave it. If your agreement on bids is "we play disciplined if you play penalty doubles, and undisciplined if you play takeout doubles", we have a paradox, and the only way to resolve it is for one side to decide. For simplicity's sake, most defaults are in bid order: the first to bid makes their decision, and then the defenders play their system against that style of call.

If you decide "we play anything goes", and it turns out that the only weak 2s you make are disciplined, and the rest of the potentials "didn't look right", then I'm sure the authorities (and your opponents) would have a problem as well.

mycroft, on 2012-April-02, 17:09, said:

It might be very difficult to establish a pattern.

mycroft, on 2012-April-02, 17:09, said:

A partnership must first decide and disclose their agreements and may not vary or change these as a consequence of opponents' defense system if this defense system depends on the nature of said agreements.

blackshoe, on 2012-April-02, 12:38, said:

That makes it a possibility, but so what? Nobody would choose to ask this question, and if they did they would receive a penalty for a breach of 74B4, so the scenario you envisage isn't a problem.

Under the current rules, it is possible to ask the meaning of all the opponents' opening bids from 1♣ to 7NT, even though one of them has just opened 3♦. Using your logic, therefore, we shouldn't allow people to ask about calls not actually made, becuase of the risk that someone will bloody-mindedly ask about every call that was not made.

Asking about alternative calls available to be made, but not made, is explicitly allowed in the law. Asking about future calls that might be made is not. AFAICS, that's the pertinent distinction.

How do you think it would actually go? "Please explain 2NT", followed by something that doesn't address the meanings of specific future calls, followed by {a) questions about the meanings of specific future calls or {b} a TD call on the grounds that failure to describe such meanings is MI? IN the latter case, I gather you would agree with the person who called you, but I still don't see a legal basis for it.

pran, on 2012-April-01, 11:07, said:

It isn't. We just don't agree with you, not we don't understand you.

blackshoe, on 2012-April-01, 17:52, said:

That's jolly hard luck, and I am sorry for you. But I play in a jurisdiction where people are usually attempting to be helpful in their answers, so it is of interest what you can find out.



I am not convinced we are going anywhere with this discussion, though feel free to keep trying. But perhaps I could get rid of a few silly ideas.

• No-one is suggesting it would be normal to always explain all future actions
  
• Hardly anyone is suggesting it woud be normal to ask for future actions
  
• So we are discussing a rare case where a player wishes to know what the next player is allowed to do
  
• This thread is about how far Full Disclosure requires
  
• In the extreme case, some people think "asking" is a full disclosure of an asking bid without describing what it asks for or shows
  
• In the extreme case, some people think that, if necessary, Full Disclosure requires one to be allowed to find out all the responses to an ask before proceeding

bluejak, on 2012-April-03, 07:46, said:

Sorry, I have always been under the impression that you among all are very consistent about obeying the laws of bridge, and Law 21F is very specific that questions can be made (quote) 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.

This clearly includes the information that is seeked by a player making an asking bid, but cannot also include specifications on how the response calls shall be decoded to give this information. (That must be part of explaining the answer calls - at the time an answer call has been made.)

If explanations of answer calls were to be included with the explanation of an asking bid, then the opponent asking about a call must also be allowed to request information on the impact on answer calls by any interfering call other than pass from that opponent. I do indeed hope we agree that such requests are clearly beyond the scope of questions permitted in Law 21F?

Then, among other things:

bluejak, on 2012-April-03, 07:46, said:

Sorry, What do you mean by this?

The next player is (like everybody else) allowed to follow the rules and applicable regulations for the game he is playing.

pran, on 2012-April-03, 08:30, said:

He means allowed by the bidding system.

I open a weak two. Partner bids 2NT. An opponent asks for an explanation. I say "Partner is asking whether I have seven losers overall or eight, and whether I have one or two top honors in my suit. He will usually be interested in game, sometimes in slam". Does someone here consider this inadequate or incomplete disclosure? If so, what followup question would you ask?

blackshoe, on 2012-April-03, 09:07, said:

Looks good to me; your answer even implies you always have at least one top honor in your suit, so I hope it isn't misinformation

But, some here would probably consider it incomplete and might ask as a follow-up whether responder could also be messing around with a fitting yarb. The rest of us would know from experience that that could be the case.