[kevperk]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-21, 13:49, said:

That's MI. Keeping secrets from opponents deliberately is cheating. This is a Full disclosure game. If you play RKCB, for example, and are asked what you play, answering "Blackwood" is deliberate misinformation, and answering "asking for aces" is prevarication with intent to deceive.

If you are asked what 2NT is in response to a weak two you should say whether it is Ogust or a feature ask or whatever.

If one were to reply "keycard asking", that would not be MI.

If you play Ogust responses, and reply "asks for clarification", how is that MI?
If you play feature responses, and reply "asks for clarification", how is that MI?
If you are not sure what responses, and reply "asks for clarification", doesn't that avoid problems?
If your partner is not sure what responses, and you reply "Ogust", hasn't that helped your side?
If your partner is not sure what responses, and you reply "feature", hasn't that helped your side?

Avoiding giving UI to partner is a good thing, as long as it doesn't interfere with full disclosure or not giving opps MI.
I fail to see how it can be helpful to the opponents what the responses are to these bids, but even if it could, it seems better for them to only ask follow ups when needed. As an opponent in this situation, I would much rather it be this way.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2012-February-21, 13:42, said:

Where can the full regulations be found?

Alert Procedure. At the top of that page are three links, one to the Chart, one to "Alert Definitions", and one "view as pdf", which allows you to download the definitions and procedure sections as one pdf file.

[bluejak]

 kevperk, on 2012-February-21, 14:21, said:

If one were to reply "keycard asking", that would not be MI.

If you play Ogust responses, and reply "asks for clarification", how is that MI?
If you play feature responses, and reply "asks for clarification", how is that MI?
If you are not sure what responses, and reply "asks for clarification", doesn't that avoid problems?
If your partner is not sure what responses, and you reply "Ogust", hasn't that helped your side?
If your partner is not sure what responses, and you reply "feature", hasn't that helped your side?

Avoiding giving UI to partner is a good thing, as long as it doesn't interfere with full disclosure or not giving opps MI.
I fail to see how it can be helpful to the opponents what the responses are to these bids, but even if it could, it seems better for them to only ask follow ups when needed. As an opponent in this situation, I would much rather it be this way.

Whether it is MI or not, attempts to hide what you are playing are seriously unethical, and the excuse of giving UI is awful. As the ACBL points out, it does not matter how the question is phrased, a full and complete answer is required, and your method of not answering in full is against the Laws and ethics of the game.

[mycroft]

Well, as seems to be common, barmar, let me introduce you to someone who Alerts Feature Responses. Or Ogust Responses. Or 3♣ showing a 5-card preempt. Or shortness responses. Because the Alert Procedures say so, and the concept of "default treatment" doesn't actually exist. However, please note my self-selected title.

Yes, there are some cases where the convention or convention group is "so standard that we've chosen to make it not Alertable"; but they're itemised - and much smaller than most people think.

I would Alert the feature response, and explain it as "non-minimum weak 2, with a [suit] A or K." and "no outside A or K, or minimum weak 2" as appropriate.

I can see that it is arguably a non-Alertable treatment, but that people who want to argue that "their odd treatment" shouldn't be Alertable come in two flavours: those that are of the "why should we have to do this? Everybody plays it" school, and those that would like to discourage questions about their bidding for whatever reason. I have sympathy for the first school - but don't really think it applies here (as opposed to the 15-17 NTers, who I have sympathy for, and it does apply, but the problems with not Announcing it are well-proven). My opinion of the second school (which I'm sure none of the people in this thread are in, but they sure do exist) is unprintable.

And I will join the "tut-tut"ers over the unasked explanation. Having said that, I had the auction a while back:

---

where 3♣, after a *long* pause, was Alerted with "Alert, but I don't know what it means." The opponents, rightly, got on partner's case about it; but one would suggest that the UI transmitted had already been transmitted...

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2012-February-21, 19:18, said:

3♣, after a *long* pause, was Alerted with "Alert, but I don't know what it means."

Wow. Silly me, assuming that the case in the OP was the only time this ever happened.

[gnasher]

 kevperk, on 2012-February-21, 14:21, said:

If your partner is not sure what responses, and you reply "Ogust", hasn't that helped your side?
If your partner is not sure what responses, and you reply "feature", hasn't that helped your side?

No, I've damaged my side by giving my partner UI, thereby constraining his actions.

bluejak said:

Whether it is MI or not, attempts to hide what you are playing are seriously unethical, and the excuse of giving UI is awful. As the ACBL points out, it does not matter how the question is phrased, a full and complete answer is required, and your method of not answering in full is against the Laws and ethics of the game.

I don't think Kevperk's examples are an attempt to hide what he is playing. They appear to be an attempt to answer the question that was asked, and not some other question. The opponents asked the meaning of 2NT, so he tells them the meaning of 2NT. They didn't ask him to explain what subsequent actions will mean; if they want to know, no doubt they will ask.

If I play 1♥-2NT as a game-forcing raise with four-card support, I describe it as "game-forcing with four-card support". I don't say "Game-forcing with four-card support, and asking me to bid 3♣ with any minimum, 3♦ with a balanced non-minimum, 3♥ with a non-minimum and short clubs, 3♠ with ..." Similarly, if I play 2♥-2NT as an invitational or better hand, asking for more information, it seems entirely proper to describe it as "an invitational or better hand, asking for more information".

[bluejak]

If you play Ogust in response to a weak two, saying it is an asking bid is merely trying to avoid giving full information. 2NT in response to 1M is not an ask, so it is not comparable. But if you play an asking bid your opponents have a right to know what sort of asking bid and refusing to tell them is unethical.

[blackshoe]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-22, 08:48, said:

If you play Ogust in response to a weak two, saying it is an asking bid is merely trying to avoid giving full information. 2NT in response to 1M is not an ask, so it is not comparable. But if you play an asking bid your opponents have a right to know what sort of asking bid and refusing to tell them is unethical.

It seems to me the correct explanation of 2NT, playing Ogust, is something like "asks me to further describe the strength of my hand and suit". I do not think it is correct to say anything about what future bids (e.g., 3 of a suit by me) will mean. Do you disagree?

[aguahombre]

Bluejack has been on record before on this issue. His definition of full disclosure includes that which will happen on subsequent rounds of bidding; we believe that it applies to what has happened (and even what other bids not made would have meant). I don't remember his opinions extending to "unethical" and "cheating" before, when debating the matter; but, we aren't going to change his mind.

In all cases such as the 2NT ask, the 4NT ask, Leben, good-bad, etc, the opponents are entitled to know what kinds of hands are being shown by the bidder who is doing the asking (if there are in-fact a set of hands described by the conventional bid). The opponents have no need to know, and nothing good can come of telling them (and reminding partner) what the continuations will mean before the continations occur.

My opinion of my own ethics is that I go beyond what appears to be the minimum disclosure required. I draw the line here. I will not freely disclose what might happen next; I will disclose fully what has happened. If, in the only situation I can imagine where an opponent would like to know what will happen **, I do not provide that information, I consider that a good thing.

**Opponent might want to know that if he makes a risky bid in the middle of our conventional asking sequence we have or don't have a way of penalizing him. Poor baby will just have to find out when he tries it, and I will be happy to disclose that partner's double is penalty after she doubles.

[jillybean]

 Vampyr, on 2012-February-22, 05:24, said:

Wow. Silly me, assuming that the case in the OP was the only time this ever happened.

Nope, just me silly enough to post my great mistakes.

[gnasher]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-22, 08:48, said:

If you play Ogust in response to a weak two, saying it is an asking bid is merely trying to avoid giving full information. 2NT in response to 1M is not an ask, so it is not comparable.

I can't see any qualitative difference between:
(1) 2♠-2NT = Invitational or stronger. In reply, opener shows a side-suit feature if non-minimum, or 3♠ if minimum.
(2) 2♠-3NT = Game-forcing. In reply, opener shows a shortage (or the lack therof) if non-minimum, or 3♣ if minimum.

Can you explain why you think that these require different explanations?

Quote

But if you play an asking bid your opponents have a right to know what sort of asking bid and refusing to tell them is unethical.

Who said anything about "refusing to tell them"? If they ask what opener does in reply to 2♠-2NT, of course you tell them. We are discussing what to tell them when all they have done is to ask the meaning of 2NT.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2012-February-22, 09:08, said:

It seems to me the correct explanation of 2NT, playing Ogust, is something like "asks me to further describe the strength of my hand and suit". I do not think it is correct to say anything about what future bids (e.g., 3 of a suit by me) will mean. Do you disagree?

For most partnerships that would be a rather inadequate explanation. If 2NT implies interest in game, the opponents are entitled to know that. One thing you really must do is answer the question that was actually asked.

[blackshoe]

 blackshoe, on 2012-February-22, 09:08, said:

It seems to me the correct explanation of 2NT, playing Ogust, is something like "asks me to further describe the strength of my hand and suit". I do not think it is correct to say anything about what future bids (e.g., 3 of a suit by me) will mean. Do you disagree?

 gnasher, on 2012-February-22, 09:59, said:

For most partnerships that would be a rather inadequate explanation. If 2NT implies interest in game, the opponents are entitled to know that. One thing you really must do is answer the question that was actually asked.

Fair enough, but beside the point, which was whether David thinks including the meanings of all the answers to an asking bid is required for full disclosure of the meaning of the asking bid.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2012-February-22, 11:02, said:

Fair enough, but beside the point, which was whether David thinks including the meanings of all the answers to an asking bid is required for full disclosure of the meaning of the asking bid.

Law 20F1 said:

During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made [...]

IMHO this means that explanations can only be requested of calls already made at the time of the request. Consequently no explanation of future possible calls may be requested even when such calls will be responses to a call already made.

However, at the time of a response call a player may request explanation of all possible response calls that could have been made in addition to the call actually made.

Example: At the time a player bids 4NT his call must be explained as RKCB if that is the agreement. But opponents are not at that time entitled to information on the meaning of for instance a 5♣ response before a response call is actually made. (And of course the meaning of the response call(s) must be made by the player making the quering call, not the player explaining the query call.)

I see no other way of understanding Law 20F1.

[kevperk]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-22, 08:48, said:

If you play Ogust in response to a weak two, saying it is an asking bid is merely trying to avoid giving full information. 2NT in response to 1M is not an ask, so it is not comparable. But if you play an asking bid your opponents have a right to know what sort of asking bid and refusing to tell them is unethical.

No it is not. Ogust is not in response to a weak two, but in response to the asking bid response to the weak two. How can it be unethical if noone will be damaged, and it cannot benefit. Does the bid 2NT show any different type of hand if one plays Ogust than if one plays feature?

If I wanted to be unethical, I would want it the way you suggest. In this situation, from the start, I have been thinking about it from the point of the opponents of the bidding side. I don't want my opponents helping each other by explaining what their bids are going to mean.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2012-February-21, 13:42, said:

Where can the full regulations be found?

There's a link to Alert Procedures at the top of the Alert Chart web page. The chart is a terse summary of the procedures, but many details are omitted for brevity.

[bluejak]

 gnasher, on 2012-February-22, 09:47, said:

Who said anything about "refusing to tell them"? If they ask what opener does in reply to 2♠-2NT, of course you tell them. We are discussing what to tell them when all they have done is to ask the meaning of 2NT.

When this has been discussed before, people state unambiguously that you must not tell the opponents what the responses show.

For example, many of the people who argue this way think that when asked about a 3♣ response to 2NT they believe they should not say that it asks for five-card majors because that tells people the replies, and will refuse to answer if asked whether is is Puppet Stayman or Stayman, or in similar situations if it is Ogust or a feature ask, or if it is Blackwood or RKCB.

 blackshoe, on 2012-February-22, 11:02, said:

Fair enough, but beside the point, which was whether David thinks including the meanings of all the answers to an asking bid is required for full disclosure of the meaning of the asking bid.

No, not the answers, what the bid asks for.

 kevperk, on 2012-February-22, 18:00, said:

No it is not. Ogust is not in response to a weak two, but in response to the asking bid response to the weak two. How can it be unethical if noone will be damaged, and it cannot benefit. Does the bid 2NT show any different type of hand if one plays Ogust than if one plays feature?

Of course. If your partner opens a weak two, and you want to choose between 3NT and five of a minor, a feature ask might tell you what is stopped, while Ogust would be useless.

 kevperk, on 2012-February-22, 18:00, said:

If I wanted to be unethical, I would want it the way you suggest. In this situation, from the start, I have been thinking about it from the point of the opponents of the bidding side. I don't want my opponents helping each other by explaining what their bids are going to mean.

Only unethical opponents help each other by saying "Puppet Stayman" or "Ogust". But Full Disclosure often means you are required to give UI to partner, and he can take advantage if he is a cheat or an ignoramus.

[aguahombre]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-22, 18:43, said:

Only unethical opponents help each other by saying "Puppet Stayman" or "Ogust". But Full Disclosure often means you are required to give UI to partner, and he can take advantage if he is a cheat or an ignoramus.

Without using such volatile and judgemental terms, what do you think of someone who believes there is a real difference between naming a convention which announces what you are going to do and announcing what you are going to do?

[kevperk]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-22, 18:43, said:

When this has been discussed before, people state unambiguously that you must not tell the opponents what the responses show.

For example, many of the people who argue this way think that when asked about a 3♣ response to 2NT they believe they should not say that it asks for five-card majors because that tells people the replies, and will refuse to answer if asked whether is is Puppet Stayman or Stayman, or in similar situations if it is Ogust or a feature ask, or if it is Blackwood or RKCB.

I'm not other people. I never argued this, because, like you, I feel it IS being unethical in hiding ones methods. I'm not sure why anyone would want to know the answer, but how is the dialogue - "asking for clarification" - "what form of asking bid" - "Ogust"/"feature" - not better than "Ogust" or "feature" right away. Again, I would much rather my opponents use the former rather than the latter. Most of the time, I believe noone would ask for the responses(he will find out the response that describes the hand on the very next bid), again, I can't see why someone would need to know at that time. I am surprised that you don't see the problem with the approach that you suggest. What is the problem with the approach I suggest?

[aguahombre]

Don't assume there is something wrong with your offering, just because a particular person disagrees.