[aguahombre]

Started this new one, to prevent derailing of the other.

1C (2H) 2H

Alphatango has bid 2H, and explains to the director away from the table that he thought righty had bid 1H. He intended 2H to show a force with 5+ spades. But he is a bit screwed because he has no call which has the same or more precise meaning (2S NFB), and he holds great support for clubs.

So, he chooses to accept that pard will be barred, and places the contract somewhere.

Question: before the opening lead, is the opponent entitled to know what Alpha intended? If not, can he ask:
"If I had passed, what would 2H mean?"
"If I had bid 1H, what would 2H mean?"

Of course he can ask, but can he get an answer?

[campboy]

I can't see any reason why he is entitled to know what IBer thought the auction was when he bid 2♥. Otoh I think he can ask questions about the opponents' system in a hypothetical auction, and draw his own conclusions.

[blackshoe]

Quote

From 20F1: 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.

IBer's RHO did not pass, so his partnership is not entitled to know what 2♥ would have meant in that case. They are entitled to know what he meant by 1 2♥ (the IB, a call actually made), because they are entitled to know that IBer thought that's what his RHO had bid, and about inferences from both that call and the substitute call, where those inferences are matters of partnership understanding. Inferences which are derived solely from the constraints on him due to Law 27 are not included.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2011-June-18, 11:43
Reason for edit: Oops. :-)

[BunnyGo]

"about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding."

Does this not include the action of bidding 2♥ in other circumstances? Since they do not know for certain what he thought RHO bid, it seems that this is a relevant inference from the choice of action.

[aguahombre]

That confused me, Blackshoe. 1H was not a call actually made; IB'r apparently thought his 2H call was sufficient at the time. So, he must have thought his RHO had either passed or bid 1H or 2D (the last two being more likely a priori).

[blackshoe]

Yeah, I mucked that up. What I meant to say was that the IB was a call actually made. I'll change the post.

[blackshoe]

BunnyGo, on 2011-June-18, 11:32, said:

"about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding."

Does this not include the action of bidding 2♥ in other circumstances? Since they do not know for certain what he thought RHO bid, it seems that this is a relevant inference from the choice of action.

How far do you want to go? Only presumed calls by RHO after which 2♥ would have been sufficient? That would include (at this level) 1♦, 1♥, 1♠, 1NT, 2♣, 2♦, pass, and double. But suppose the jump had been to 3♥, or 4? I think your interpretation opens up a pretty big can of worms.

IBer knows what he thought was going on; that affected his choice of the IB, so relevant inferences from that choice in that circumstance should be disclosed. It seems to me full disclosure would then have to include the fact that his RHO bid 1♥.

[BunnyGo]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-18, 11:50, said:

How far do you want to go? Only presumed calls by RHO after which 2♥ would have been sufficient? That would include (at this level) 1♦, 1♥, 1♠, 1NT, 2♣, 2♦, pass, and double. But suppose the jump had been to 3♥, or 4? I think your interpretation opens up a pretty big can of worms.

IBer knows what he thought was going on; that affected his choice of the IB, so relevant inferences from that choice in that circumstance should be disclosed. It seems to me full disclosure would then have to include the fact that his RHO bid 1♥.

That's fair, but what about this quote from "Proprieties 4":

Quote

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in
reply to an opponent’s inquiry, a player should disclose all special
information conveyed to him through partnership agreement
or partnership experience...

Since this 2♥ bid displays different meaning through partnership agreement in these different sequences, I do not see it as too much that an opponents questions about those possibilities be answered. I think that I draw the line at answering directed questions about the possible meaning of a 2♥ bid.

[blackshoe]

BunnyGo, on 2011-June-18, 12:04, said:

Since this 2♥ bid displays different meaning through partnership agreement in these different sequences, I do not see it as too much that an opponents questions about those possibilities be answered. I think that I draw the line at answering directed questions about the possible meaning of a 2♥ bid.

I don't understand this; it seems to be self-contradictory. Can you elaborate?

[BunnyGo]

Ok. I'll try (and should have noted ahead of time that I have absolutely zero experience with bridge laws, and haven't studied any type of law in 10 years--when I was still in highschool). "A player should disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement
or partnership experience." To me this says that when asked by an opponent to answer, "What is your partnership agreement for 2♥ if I had bid 1♥? What about if I had passed?" the player must disclose all information conveyed to him.

In particular, since this information is conveyed to a partner in this situation (he can easily consider the possible meanings that his partner intended, including thinking the opponent passed, bid 1 heart, or perhaps partner intended to bid 3♥), and it is clearly conveyed to him by the partnership agreements and experience, then it falls under the guidelines of what should be divulged.

I agree that voluntarily offering every possible meaning for all possibilities of the meaning of 2♥ is too much to expect, but I think that answering directed questions that seek this information falls under the purview of of Proprieties 4.

[blackshoe]

Well, maybe. I think you're opening a can of worms, though, that might lead to "well I didn't think of that" "well you should have" and so on. But right now I have a splitting headache, so I'm going to come back to this later.

[bluejak]

In Max Bavin's stated view, the opponent can ask as many questions as he likes about the meaning of any potentially relevant call and get answers thereto.

[blackshoe]

What does he include in "potentially relevant calls"?

[bluejak]

Anything that might be relevant. In other words, they can basically ask anything they like so long as it does not amount to harassment.

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-19, 10:46, said:

What does he include in "potentially relevant calls"?

Legal calls.

[BunnyGo]

RMB1, on 2011-June-19, 11:46, said:

Legal calls.

Do you mean "any legal sequence that is related to the sequence occurring" or "legal calls which might have been made"? The latter is closer to what blackshoe was advocating and the former closer to what I was arguing.

[pran]

BunnyGo, on 2011-June-19, 12:12, said:

Do you mean "any legal sequence that is related to the sequence occurring" or "legal calls which might have been made"? The latter is closer to what blackshoe was advocating and the former closer to what I was arguing.

If it "might have been made" then it is (obviously) relevant.

If in a particular situation I have the choice between two different line of calls and select one of them the other line of calls is certainly relevant.

There is (often) more information in the calls not selected althought they could have been selected than in the calls that actually were selected.

[mycroft]

• I am sure I am allowed to use the AI (to me) that the auction went 1C-(2H)-2H.
  
• I am sure I am entitled to as complete an understanding of the relevant parts of their system as they have.
  
• I am pretty sure that I am allowed to ask about calls made and not made, provided it is not harassing, in order to work out the inferences of what actually happened (I was sure in the last Laws, and don't think it has changed).
  
• It seems pretty clear to me that in order to make appropriate guesses as to what 2H bidder has, I need to know about 1C-p-2H, 1C-X-2H, and 1C-1H-2H - and it seems analogous to "what other superaccepts do you have" after 1NT-2D-3H.

Any guesses I make after I get that information, of course, I make at my own risk.

[gordontd]

mycroft, on 2011-June-23, 10:11, said:

• It seems pretty clear to me that in order to make appropriate guesses as to what 2H bidder has, I need to know about 1C-p-2H, 1C-X-2H, and 1C-1H-2H - and it seems analogous to "what other superaccepts do you have" after 1NT-2D-3H.

Any guesses I make after I get that information, of course, I make at my own risk.

You may well also need to know about 1C-1S/2D-2H, 1C-2H-3H, 1C-2S-3H & 1C-2NT-3H