[Trinidad]

pran, on 2012-March-21, 02:44, said:

The laws do not allow the player making a call to explain his own call even if both players know the answer and there is no misunderstanding between them.

Once again, you are twisting the discussion. No one is saying that a player should explain his own call. The partner of the 2NT bidder explains the 2NT call.

If the opponents want the answer framed in such a way that this partner is explaining what the responses to 2NT mean then that is fine. After all, that is a much easier way to describe the meaning of 2NT than to list the hand types that bid 2NT. The key, which you keep forgetting (at best), is that it still is an explanation of the 2NT bid.

And yes, all explanations need to be complete. But you have an idé fixe that there is only one way to give a complete explanation. If you only think about the variety of opponents that might be asking (novices, "card sharks", convention builders, Unlucky Experts and Mrs Guggenheims, Abbots and Brother Aelreds) you should realize that there is not one way to give a complete explanation. A good explainer will give an explanation that is tailor made for the person asking.

If the person asking comprehends the meaning of 2NT better by knowing the responses, by all means tell him the responses. It is practical to first make sure that your opponent is such a person. After all, there are also people who would consider it cheating if you would tell the responses. In that case, it would obviously not be wise to explain like that. But if an opponent specifically asks... there is nothing against explaining 2NT by telling what the responses are. That is what tailor made means.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2012-March-21, 12:28, said:

Once again, you are twisting the discussion. No one is saying that a player should explain his own call. The partner of the 2NT bidder explains the 2NT call.

If the opponents want the answer framed in such a way that this partner is explaining what the responses to 2NT mean then that is fine. After all, that is a much easier way to describe the meaning of 2NT than to list the hand types that bid 2NT. The key, which you keep forgetting (at best), is that it still is an explanation of the 2NT bid.

And yes, all explanations need to be complete. But you have an idé fixe that there is only one way to give a complete explanation. If you only think about the variety of opponents that might be asking (novices, "card sharks", convention builders, Unlucky Experts and Mrs Guggenheims, Abbots and Brother Aelreds) you should realize that there is not one way to give a complete explanation. A good explainer will give an explanation that is tailor made for the person asking.

If the person asking comprehends the meaning of 2NT better by knowing the responses, by all means tell him the responses. It is practical to first make sure that your opponent is such a person. After all, there are also people who would consider it cheating if you would tell the responses. In that case, it would obviously not be wise to explain like that. But if an opponent specifically asks... there is nothing against explaining 2NT by telling what the responses are. That is what tailor made means.

Rik

What I understand you and David to be arguing is that the partnership understanding of answer calls is part of the information constituting a "full disclosure" of an asking bid.

My position is that while the disclosure of an asking bid might very well include information on which particluar calls have defined meanings as responses to the answer bid, such meanings themselves constitute disclosure of the respective answer calls only and are not part of the understanding of the preceeding asking bid.

When you state that the player explaining the asking bid shall also disclose the understanding of the possible answer calls, one of which he will make next, then that is neccessarily the same as saying that the player must explain his own call.

You may think this is fine, and in some situations it might even very well be the easiest way to disclose a partnership understanding, but that does not make it legal.

I don't see how I am twisting the discussion, but I am certainly doing my best to keep it on track.

[blackshoe]

mgoetze, on 2012-March-20, 21:07, said:

Wow, I'm so glad I don't play with people like blackshoe and aguahombre. Having to call the director to compel my opponents to disclose their system is not my idea of fun at all, fortunately I've never had to do so. Needless to say, if aguahombre were my opponent and blackshoe the director I would never be coming back to that club again.

Life is full of choices. Neither Aqua nor I has said we would require you to call the director. I did say that I would call the director if I was asked to disclose the meanings of potential future calls — and I would. Do you claim I do not have that right?

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-21, 17:12, said:

Life is full of choices. Neither Aqua nor I has said we would require you to call the director. I did say that I would call the director if I was asked to disclose the meanings of potential future calls — and I would. Do you claim I do not have that right?

Sure, as a player you have the right to call the TD at any time (with the obvious exceptions).

The discussion is whether you, as a TD or the ACBL as an RA, have the right to say that a player doesn't need to disclose information that may be needed to understand the meaning of a bid that was made, particularly when this information defines the meaning of the bid. I would say that you, or the ACBL don't have that right.

Suppose a pair agreed on clubs as trumps. They use RKCB. At that point, it makes a big difference whether the pair plays 1430 or 0314. The 1430/0314 obviously refers to future calls. However, it clearly defines what hands can bid 4NT and which ones can't, because it defines the hands with which you can afford to bid 4NT. Thus, 4NT is not only asking for keycards, but -in context- also says how many keycards the 4NT bidder holds himself. This is clearly information from a bid that has been made and it is information that should, therefore, be disclosed when asked.

An opponent who wants to know could ask: "How many keycards does 4NT show?". You can predict the reply: "It doesn't show any keycards; it asks for keycards." It may well be that the explainer never realized that the 4NT bid actually shows (or implies) a certain number of keycards. In that case, he will not know the answer to the question, even if his partner will have the appropriate amount of keycards 99% of the time. Suppose now that the asking opponent knows how to count to 5. He can figure out how many keycards the 4NT bidder has, as long as he knows whether the responses are 1430 or 0314. He promises not to bother the opponents with difficult questions any more as soon as they tell him whether they play 1430 or 0314. They refuse, because this is a question about future responses.

Now, of course this is a question about future repsonse and, equally of course, it isn't. It is a question about the 4NT bid that was made. The question is asked because the replying player can't answer the real question. And this inability to answer the real question is not due to a lack of agreements (because they have an agreement about the meaning of 4NT and, of course, his partner won't bid 4NT if he can't afford to). It is due to a lack in general bridge skills or communication skills on the part of the player who is supposed to reply. The asker is accomodating to the lack in skills of the replying player, by asking a second question (how are your responses?) that the replying player is able to answer and which will give the asker the information that he is entitled to.

I suppose you could make it even more extreme: The replier actually understands that 4NT is implying a certain number of keycards. But he reasons that he infers that from the response structure, that the ACBL forbids him to disclose. He could reason that eventhough he knows how many keycards 4NT shows, he is not supposed to answer, because from the answer the asker may infer the response structure and even worse: his partner may infer the response structure!! His partner might get the UI how he understands the future system!!!

And so it boils down to the old question: Does the desire not to give UI to partner trump your duty to disclose your methods? We all know that it doesn't. Full disclosure trumps trying to prevent giving UI. So, if an opponent asks for the response structure, because he needs that information to understand the asking bid that was already made, give it to him. And your partner will get the UI that you know your system. There is worse UI you could give your partner.

Rik

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2012-March-21, 02:44, said:

You have written that explanations about specific responses are only given when they are specifically asked for.

I didn't say that actually, but it does make sense.

Quote

This is nonsense. Either the explanation of responses to an asking bid is part of the complete desription of that asking bid, in which case it shall be included without being explicitly called for. Or it is not, in which case it may definitely not be requested nor given until a response has actually been made.

According to you and David an explanation shall be "complete", and that in the case of an "asking" bid a complete explanation includes descriptions of the (systemic) possible answer calls.

Talk about nonsense LOL. Following this logic you would have to include in an explanation of every bid all the bids that partner did not make. This is also information that the opponents are entitled to, but that is not given until it is specifically asked for.

[Zelandakh]

Trinidad, on 2012-March-21, 18:38, said:

Suppose a pair agreed on clubs as trumps. They use RKCB. At that point, it makes a big difference whether the pair plays 1430 or 0314.

That is a bad example Rik. Knowing whether it is 1430 or 3041 is unlikely to affect your current call and you can ask next time around (or after the auction) and still receive the same information in time to use it. Note also that bidding 4NT with clubs as trumps playing 1430 does not automatically mean that the player would be willing to go to slam opposite zero key cards - it might be that they can rule out zero from either the bidding or the general high card strength in their own hand. Therefore a description such as: "Asking for key cards showing a hand willing to bid slam even opposite no key cards", which is essentially what you are suggesting, is imho incorrect. Perhaps: "Asking for key cards showing a hand willing to bid slam opposite any possible hand" (for 1430) and "Asking for key cards showing a hand willing to bid slam opposite any possible hand with 1 or more key cards" (for 3041); but then the pair might also have a way to get out in 5NT. You would have to include that then - it starts to get a bit messy but I still believe this approach (describing the possible hand types) is far better than describing the responses. That said I would certainly do so if an opponnet asked!

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2012-March-21, 14:07, said:

What I understand you and David to be arguing is that the partnership understanding of answer calls is part of the information constituting a "full disclosure" of an asking bid.

I'm not sure whether or not you think you are arguing against a minority view just held by trinidad and bluejak, but just in case that is the case let me assure you that I agree 100% with them. And vampyr has also made it clear that is her view, too. I haven't contributed to this thread before because others have made the arguments very clear, and also, frankly, because I thought the answer was obvious. Of course I don't expect anyone to start explaining a bid by setting out what their responses would mean, but like some others I am appalled at the idea that you think players should be allowed to withhold such information if an opponent thinks they need it to help understand the bid that has already been made.

[blackshoe]

I give up. I am defeated by Rik's wall of text.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-22, 07:33, said:

I give up. I am defeated by Rik's wall of text.

You could ignore the wall and reply to the first three or last three lines. The wall was yet another example to show how an asking bid also shows something and that what it shows depends on the response structure.

The other 2 x 3 lines were:
Does the TD or RA have the right to obstruct full disclosure? My answer: No.
Does FD trump not giving UI to partner? My answer: Yes.

Concise enough?

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2012-March-22, 10:24, said:

The other 2 x 3 lines were:
Does the TD or RA have the right to obstruct full disclosure? My answer: No.
Does FD trump not giving UI to partner? My answer: Yes.

Obstruct, no. Is that what he/they are doing?

Yes it does. But that's the wrong question. The question is whether "full disclosure" requires you to tell you opponents about future bids your partnership might make. Law 20 says no.

[mgoetze]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-21, 17:12, said:

Life is full of choices. Neither Aqua nor I has said we would require you to call the director. I did say that I would call the director if I was asked to disclose the meanings of potential future calls — and I would. Do you claim I do not have that right?

Of course you can call the director whenever you want. But if you didn't do it, and just refused to disclose your system, then I would call the director.

[blackshoe]

You make it sound like I'm willfully cheating. I'm not.

[Trinidad]

There is no reason to use the C-word. Mgoetze said he will call the TD. He didn't say you were cheating. And it didn't sound like it either. A TD call is not a cheating accusation.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Not talking about the call the director part, talking about the "refused to disclose" part. I don't "refuse to disclose". If I don't think opps are entitled to an answer to the particular question they're asking, I call the TD for guidance. If he tells me to disclose it, I disclose it. If it turns out opps now have an advantage to which they're not entitled, so be it.

"Full disclosure" does not mean "answer any question they ask, willy-nilly".

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-22, 18:36, said:

"Full disclosure" does not mean "answer any question they ask, willy-nilly".

Correct. It merely means answer any question which involves describing relevant bits of your systerm.

[blackshoe]

I am not convinced that the responses to the bid on the table are necessarily crucial for an opponent's decision as to his call (Law 40B6b).

[mgoetze]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-22, 19:08, said:

I am not convinced that the responses to the bid on the table are necessarily crucial for an opponent's decision as to his call (Law 40B6b).

I am convinced that if you know that you are actually supposed to be reading Law 20F1, then referring to Law 40B6b instead shows a certain disdain for Law 72B1.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-22, 19:08, said:

I am not convinced that the responses to the bid on the table are necessarily crucial for an opponent's decision as to his call (Law 40B6b).

Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. But it seems wrong for someone else to withhold information re system in a game whcih is meant to be open information where system is concerned because he, the askee, believes the asker shoud be deciding without this informatin.

To put it another way, Ed, you tell me your partner's 3♣ asks for diamond length, and I want to know whether any responses show controls, and whether any are at the four level. Do you really think an adequate answer is "You don't really need to know to make your next call."? And would you say the same to Bob Hamman?

[blackshoe]

No, I don't think that's adequate, and I wouldn't say it. To you, or Bob Hamman, or anybody else. I've never claimed I would say that, or anything like it.

This is not getting us anywhere.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-22, 19:55, said:

No, I don't think that's adequate, and I wouldn't say it. To you, or Bob Hamman, or anybody else. I've never claimed I would say that, or anything like it.

What words would you use then? Or would you sit there and look at them blankly?