[blackshoe]

Well, since I don't recognize the convention, I don't know how I'd answer. Hypothetically "no, answers don't show controls, they show shape, and none of them are at the four level". Or 'Yes, answers show controls in steps by number (A=2, K=1), some answers are at the four level". Or "yes, answers show first or second round control of specific suits, (up the line scheme or substitution scheme, as may be). No answers are at the four level".

And this is still not getting us anywhere.

[Vampyr]

If this information is not on your convention card, I guess the solution is to write it in now, and then give the card back to your opponent. Does anyone disagree that you must at least do this?

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-23, 07:27, said:

If this information is not on your convention card, I guess the solution is to write it in now, and then give the card back to your opponent. Does anyone disagree that you must at least do this?

There is an erroneous assumption implicit in this statement. In this part of the world, people don't exchange cards. As for writing it on the card, that depends on the regulations in force.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-23, 07:36, said:

There is an erroneous assumption implicit in this statement. In this part of the world, people don't exchange cards.

A little confused. You are not required, after writing in the relevant information, to give the card to your opponent if she asks for it? What are the convention cards actually for?

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-23, 07:57, said:

What are the convention cards actually for?

Scoring on the other side of.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-23, 07:57, said:

A little confused. You are not required, after writing in the relevant information, to give the card to your opponent if she asks for it? What are the convention cards actually for?

gnasher, on 2012-March-23, 08:42, said:

Scoring on the other side of.

Andy's right. Unfortunately. If an opponent asks for my card, of course I give it to her. After she looks at whatever she wants to look at, she gives it back. The problem is that they don't ask. I had a player once ask questions of my novice partner to the point of badgering her. When I suggested the answer to her question was on our card, she said "I don't look at convention cards. I ask questions." BTW, because of people like that, my former partner no longer plays bridge.

There is, or was when I was there, an English regulation that required players to exchange cards with their opponents at the beginning of the round, with the cards being given back normally only at the end of the round. There is no such regulation in North America. I doubt there ever has been or ever will be. When I first came back to the States, my attempts to exchange cards were met with everything from "no thank you" to "get that thing out of my face".

Alex Groner's Duplicate Bridge Direction, first published in, I think, 1956, is widely used here by directors who care enough to buy a book. In it, he mentions that "you can even write your conventional agreements on the back of your personal score card!"

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-23, 11:59, said:

The problem is that they don't ask.

But we are talking about someone who wants to know about your methods. If you won't tell her, she will (may in NA) try to find it on your convention card. If it is not there you will write it in and then she will ask for the card back.

Telling is quicker, but hey, whatever works for you...

[blackshoe]

How did we get here? I never suggested anything like that. Must have come from whatever you folks are smoking.

[barmar]

As I've mentioned numerous times, ACBL convention cards are just a terse summary of the pair's agreements. They don't actually explain the meanings of bids, they're just a set of checkboxes and written convention names.

For example, nowhere on the ACBL CC does it require you to explain the common (uncontested) auction: 1♠-2♣-2♠; does this show 6+ ♠ or is it just a temporizing bid when you don't have stoppers in the unbid suits needed to bid 2NT? (I've actually been lobbying for a new checkbox for this -- it's something new partners need to discuss.)

ACBL CCs are useful for the following purposes:

1. When starting a partnership, they provide a roadmap for the most important agreements you need to make.

2. Opponents can get an idea of your general approach from them -- do you play 2/1, Standard, or Precision; is 2♦ a weak 2, Flannery, Roman, or something else; what defense do you play to 1NT?

3. They serve as supporting evidence if there's a dispute over whether a pair is playing a particular convention. But often the dispute is over whether the convention applies in a particular situation, and the CC won't help with this.

4. And of course, the reverse is for your private score.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-23, 06:22, said:

Well, since I don't recognize the convention, I don't know how I'd answer. Hypothetically "no, answers don't show controls, they show shape, and none of them are at the four level". Or 'Yes, answers show controls in steps by number (A=2, K=1), some answers are at the four level". Or "yes, answers show first or second round control of specific suits, (up the line scheme or substitution scheme, as may be). No answers are at the four level".

And this is still not getting us anywhere.

Yes, it is. We have now reached the point where you believe that if the question is asked it should be answered. But that is not a unanimous view. There is a feeling amongst some people that we have seen here, and we have certainly seen on RGB, that opponents have no right to know what you are asking for and in what way. They claim it is to avoid giving UI to partner [yeah, right ] but in reality they would prefer opponents not to know what you are playing.

We may be somewhat affected here by the basic approach. In England, if an opponent wants to know what you are doing he asks, and you tell him. In the ACBL there seem to be two rather different approaches: a lot of players seem to assume that everyone else plays things their way, so they do not need to ask. And if they do ask, there seems to be a lack of conviction that they have the right to know. I think the two things are in fact linked, and the former - which is commoner - leads to the latter.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2012-March-24, 15:17, said:

[...]
but in reality they would prefer opponents not to know what you are playing.
[...]

You have stated this so many times now although you should be fully aware that the allegation is a direct lie.

I (for one) have no intention of hiding from opponents any information to which they are entitled, but I don't want to infringe Law 20F and get into problems on whether I or my partner shall explain a call not yet made.

To the extent that a bid (e.g. "Multi 2♦") requests an answer call I shall as part of the explanation of that bid gladly disclose the principles of the request clarifying what information is requested by the bid, but until after such an answer call has been made I shall carefully avoid giving declarations or specifications that essentially are explanations of the various alternative answer calls to the request.

Once a call has been made that call and possible alternatives will of course be fully explained to opponents (by partner to the player who made the call).

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2012-March-24, 15:17, said:

Yes, it is. We have now reached the point where you believe that if the question is asked it should be answered. But that is not a unanimous view. There is a feeling amongst some people that we have seen here, and we have certainly seen on RGB, that opponents have no right to know what you are asking for and in what way. They claim it is to avoid giving UI to partner [yeah, right ] but in reality they would prefer opponents not to know what you are playing.

We may be somewhat affected here by the basic approach. In England, if an opponent wants to know what you are doing he asks, and you tell him. In the ACBL there seem to be two rather different approaches: a lot of players seem to assume that everyone else plays things their way, so they do not need to ask. And if they do ask, there seems to be a lack of conviction that they have the right to know. I think the two things are in fact linked, and the former - which is commoner - leads to the latter.

It has been asserted that in some cases you cannot fully explain your partner's call without explaining in detail the meanings of specific future calls by you. That's what I'm not buying. Note: I'm not saying that my explanation will or should preclude an opponent figuring out that "3C will mean such-and-such" if he wants to make that effort. I'm saying I'm not required to tell him that "3C will mean such-and-such".

I'm not concerned about giving UI to partner. That will happen. When it does, it's her problem.

Once when I requested an explanation of the entire auction, my opps called the director (they, both very experienced players, one a director herself, claimed not to understand the request). The director arrived, asked me "which bid do you want to know about?"(!) I replied "all of them". At which point my LHO, also a director, said "I don't have to tell him what 3H means". To which the response was "you do if it's a matter of partnership agreement". So yes, there are those in North America who resist giving full disclosure. I'm not one of them.

[mgoetze]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-26, 13:18, said:

It has been asserted that in some cases you cannot fully explain your partner's call without explaining in detail the meanings of specific future calls by you. That's what I'm not buying. Note: I'm not saying that my explanation will or should preclude an opponent figuring out that "3C will mean such-and-such" if he wants to make that effort. I'm saying I'm not required to tell him that "3C will mean such-and-such".

You may not have figured out all the implications of your response structure. Your partner may just have come up with a clever way to abuse it. Your opponents have a right to try and figure it out for themselves. Also, your opponent may have a choice between coming in now and coming in later. Whether coming in later is feasible may depend on your followup structure.

In my view, even just thinking about whether you can get away with not telling your opponent something they ask for is unethical.

I won't comment on your anecdotes of absurd non-bridge situations.

[pran]

mgoetze, on 2012-March-27, 01:35, said:

You may not have figured out all the implications of your response structure. Your partner may just have come up with a clever way to abuse it. Your opponents have a right to try and figure it out for themselves. Also, your opponent may have a choice between coming in now and coming in later. Whether coming in later is feasible may depend on your followup structure.

In my view, even just thinking about whether you can get away with not telling your opponent something they ask for is unethical.

I won't comment on your anecdotes of absurd non-bridge situations.

Our opponents are fully entitled to try figuring out themselves the implications of our (full) disclosure on calls made so far, (including the agreements as described on our system declaration), but they are not (yet) entitled to specific descriptions of agreements related to calls not yet made nor possible alternatives to such future calls. This is explicitly stated in Law 20F.

Personally I am seriously doubting the ethics (and honesty) of players (and directors) who insist that "no agreement", "not discussed" or words to similar effect shall be accepted as "full disclosure" when they may have a real expectation on the actual understanding of the calls they refuse to explain otherwise.

Law 75C said:

[...]the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.[...]

and I think it is correct to correspondingly rule "Mistaken Explanation" when the only "evidence to the contrary" is a self-serving assertion of "no agreements".

Ed's anecdote is certainly not non-bridge. I agree that it is absurd (or at least ought to be) but I do know of similar situations and such situations shall probably occur again with incompetent directors.

[Trinidad]

So, Sven, you would have ruled MI in the case that happened between my partner and me (See http://www.bridgebas...post__p__620795)?

---

(2NT asks for the minor as well as the quality of the suits and the overall strength of the hand. Responses: 3♣= diamonds, 3♦-3NT: clubs: MIN/Bad, MIN/Good, MAX/Bad, MAX/Good)

You don't need to talk about evidence. You can assume that the facts are correct: We have a system book that shows detailed agreements about the 2NT convention (and even says explicitly that the auction is GF when opener shows a MAX) and you can take my word for it that this situation had not come up before (i.e. there was no implicit agreement). (And if you don't believe that it was the first time, just act as if it was the first time, since in that case there must have been a first time at some point.)

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2012-March-28, 06:41, said:

So, Sven, you would have ruled MI in the case that happened between my partner and me (See http://www.bridgebas...post__p__620795)?

---

(2NT asks for the minor as well as the quality of the suits and the overall strength of the hand. Responses: 3♣= diamonds, 3♦-3NT: clubs: MIN/Bad, MIN/Good, MAX/Bad, MAX/Good)

You don't need to talk about evidence. You can assume that the facts are correct: We have a system book that shows detailed agreements about the 2NT convention (and even says explicitly that the auction is GF when opener shows a MAX) and you can take my word for it that this situation had not come up before (i.e. there was no implicit agreement). (And if you don't believe that it was the first time, just act as if it was the first time, since in that case there must have been a first time at some point.)

Rik

Why?
If I understand the situation correct then opponents received the correct information (and you were at least as surprised as your opponents)?

Another example along a similar line (It is trivial these days, but was very ingenious when first used):
1NT - pass - 2♣ (Stayman) - pass -
2♦ (No major suit with 4 cards) - pass - pass(!?!?!) - pass

It turns out that opener's partner held xxxx - xxxx - xxxx - x

MI? No.

[blackshoe]

mgoetze, on 2012-March-27, 01:35, said:

You may not have figured out all the implications of your response structure. Your partner may just have come up with a clever way to abuse it. Your opponents have a right to try and figure it out for themselves. Also, your opponent may have a choice between coming in now and coming in later. Whether coming in later is feasible may depend on your followup structure.

Uh, huh. This is nonsense.

mgoetze, on 2012-March-27, 01:35, said:

In my view, even just thinking about whether you can get away with not telling your opponent something they ask for is unethical.

This, on the other hand, is pure horse crap.

mgoetze, on 2012-March-27, 01:35, said:

I won't comment on your anecdotes of absurd non-bridge situations.

Okay then I won't comment on your absurd assertion that a bridge situation isn't one.

[mycroft]

Well, I got my second "I know how my system works, but I don't see why I have to explain it to you" line in two successive games against player X:

A week ago:
1♣ "could be short". "could it be anything other than 4=4=3=2?" (Yes, I'm in the ACBL. No I don't have an artificial defence to the appropriate hands with this partner - yet. But why should I advertise that with some I do?) "I don't know".

But when 1♣-1♥; 1NT gets Alerted, the explanation is automatic - "17-18 balanced". After a few more questions, I find that 1♦ is "11-13 balanced or natural" to go with 1♣ "17-18 BAL or NAT". He knew that, why didn't he say it?

Last night:
(1♠)-1NT-(X)-p! "please explain" "if you pass, I have to redouble." (Thanks, but that tells me EXACTLY NOTHING about what your partner has - or has denied. AND it's useless information - for one thing, is either overcaller's (forced) or advancer's (alternative) redouble passable?) Luckily I know something about runout methods, so when I ask "so besides a hand that wants to play 1NTxx, what else could he have?" and get (you guessed it) "I don't know", I could ask the correct questions to actually find out.

You know, I don't need to know what *your responses* are going to be, I just need to know what your partner could have. Why is this so hard? (well, besides the fact that the only thing my opponents seem to care about after 1NT-2♣! "either diamonds, or several INV or better hands" is "so, do you have to bid 2♦?")

[pran]

mycroft, on 2012-March-28, 14:49, said:

Well, I got my second "I know how my system works, but I don't see why I have to explain it to you" line in two successive games against player X:

A week ago:
1♣ "could be short". "could it be anything other than 4=4=3=2?" (Yes, I'm in the ACBL. No I don't have an artificial defence to the appropriate hands with this partner - yet. But why should I advertise that with some I do?) "I don't know".

If I understand correctly what you are asking, the answer is that you are supposed to inform opponents about your agreements within this partnership, your agreements with other players are definitely irrelevant.

mycroft, on 2012-March-28, 14:49, said:

But when 1♣-1♥; 1NT gets Alerted, the explanation is automatic - "17-18 balanced". After a few more questions, I find that 1♦ is "11-13 balanced or natural" to go with 1♣ "17-18 BAL or NAT". He knew that, why didn't he say it?

Probably for the same reason why he did not bother you with explanations on opening bids 1♥, 1♠, 1NT or other "alternative calls" in this position? You are of course still free to ask about any alternative call that he could have used instead of his 1♣ opening bid.

mycroft, on 2012-March-28, 14:49, said:

Last night:
(1♠)-1NT-(X)-p! "please explain" "if you pass, I have to redouble." (Thanks, but that tells me EXACTLY NOTHING about what your partner has - or has denied. AND it's useless information - for one thing, is either overcaller's (forced) or advancer's (alternative) redouble passable?) Luckily I know something about runout methods, so when I ask "so besides a hand that wants to play 1NTxx, what else could he have?" and get (you guessed it) "I don't know", I could ask the correct questions to actually find out.

You know, I don't need to know what *your responses* are going to be, I just need to know what your partner could have. Why is this so hard? (well, besides the fact that the only thing my opponents seem to care about after 1NT-2♣! "either diamonds, or several INV or better hands" is "so, do you have to bid 2♦?")

Sounds as if the pass here is some kind of a relay call. I would have expected (and preferred) a bit more information, for instance something like "in which case his next call (following my redouble) will be for play - whatever that call will be". ("He may have a hand that wants to play 1NTXX if given the opportunity, a hand that wants to double whatever contract you end up in or a hand that he wants to play in some getaway contract".)

That wouldn't help you much because all you (and your LHO) know will be that you could be heading for disaster whatever you do?

[Trinidad]

mycroft, on 2012-March-28, 14:49, said:

After a few more questions, I find that 1♦ is "11-13 balanced or natural" to go with 1♣ "17-18 BAL or NAT". He knew that, why didn't he say it?

Because he mistakenly thinks that the information is only in his rebid. And "he shouldn't explain future bids".

Of course, this information is already included in the opening bid, and he should explain that when you ask for an explanation of the opening bid.

Having a different system for different flavors of 2+ 1♣ openings would be only one reason for asking. Another relevant reason is that you may want to estimate the likelyhood that the 1♣ opening is based on a genuine suit. This might influence your bidding decision even if there is no systemic difference. It might decide whether you enter the auction to begin with.

In this case, a 1♣ opening is considerably more likely to be based on a genuine suit than the 1♦ opening (since an 11-13 NT hand occurs more frequently than an 18-19 NT hand). That would certainly influence my decision on whether to overcall, make a takeout double or pass.

The responder explains that the 1♣ opening only says that the hand is worth an opening bid and that it has at least 2 clubs. But in reality it says much more.

Both the East and West hands below fit the description and neither is a 1♣ opening in this system, each for a different reason.

---

The responder knows immediately after the 1♣ opening that the opener cannot have these hands and yet he explains the 1♣ opening as "2+ clubs". Seems like MI to me.

Rik