[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2012-February-26, 09:57, said:

If the opponents want to know what types of hands might have just bid 3C, I will answer as best I can, even though I doubt they really need that information at that time.

It is not your concern what information the opponents may or may not need.

Quote

If the opponents want to know what my potential answers to 3C are, they not only don't need to know, but can jolly well wait and ask after the response has occurred.

They may need to know, and obviously they don't have to wait; the question is whether the information should be volunteered in response to the initial question or if they need to ask a follow-up question. I think that the former is required.

[aguahombre]

The good news is that the people who want us to predict the future for the opponents are over there.

[pran]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-26, 16:45, said:

Yes, but are you going to answer when they ask what question it asks? That is the point of contention: some people believe they have a right to hide this information, and I can see no reason to do this apart from gaining an unfair advantage by ignoring the dictates of Full Disclosure.

It seems to me that confusion exists about who shall explain agreements, to what extent and when during the auction?

I think the real question is:
Is explanation of all possible calls that by partnership understanding can be a direct response to a particular call part of the disclosure on that call?

Examples:

Is a comprehensive explanation on all (normally) possible responses: 5♣, 5♦, 5♥, 5♠, 5NT, 6♣, 6♦, 6♥ and 6♠ part of a "full disclosure" when explaining 4NT as RKCB?

Is explanation of the (normally) possible responses: 2♥, 2♠ and 2NT part of a "full disclosure" when explaining 2♦ as "Multi"?

Note that if the answer is affirmative then such explanation will have to be given by the player who eventually will be the one making such response calls (contrary to the general rule in Law 20F)!

My understanding of Law 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.[...]") is that such explanation of responses must be delayed until a response call has actually been made, and then be given by partner to the player making the response call.

[bluejak]

My problem is not what the responses are, which I do not think is normal when asking a question. My problem is that some people seem to think that if a question is asked they do not have to tell you what the question is.

If the bidding goes 1NT - 2♣ or 2NT - 3♣ I am not suggesting that players do not tell you what the responses are [though every ethical player I know would if asked]. What I object to is that people are saying they do not need to distinguish between Stayman and Puppet Stayman and 5-card Stayman. Or, to put it another way, they think that if the bid asks a question you do not have to tell opponents what the question is.

[aguahombre]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-27, 12:31, said:

What I object to is that people are saying they do not need to distinguish between Stayman and Puppet Stayman and 5-card Stayman. Or, to put it another way, they think that if the bid asks a question you do not have to tell opponents what the question is.

Yes, we understand that is your objection. The cheapest club bid asks about partner's major suit situation, regardless of which method of responses to that question are used. If we refused to tell the opponents that, when asked, we would be violating 20F1 and the basic tenets of disclosure; but what opponent wouldn't already know that?

Going any further than explaining it asks about major(s) is entering into prediction of future happenings; 20F1 is clear. It refers to bids already made, and only bids already made. It is O.K. that some people do not like it. I like it, and do not consider my approach or the ACBL approach unethical.

[gnasher]

Aguahombre, suppose that partner opens 2NT and you have Kxx xx Kxxxx xxx. If you played normal Stayman you would bid 3NT. If you were playing 5-card Stayman you would bid 3♣.

Your opponents are entitled to know what 3♣ shows. If you play 5-card Stayman, 3♣ shows a set of hands that includes 3253 6-counts. If you play standard Stayman, 3♣ shows a set of hands that does not include 3253 6-counts.

At the point that you bid 3♣, your partner knows which hands you can have. Your opponents are entitled to know that too, at the same time as your partner knows it.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-February-27, 15:41

[aguahombre]

 gnasher, on 2012-February-27, 15:35, said:

Aguahombre, suppose that partner opens 2NT and you have Kxx xx Kxxxx xxx. If you played normal Stayman you would bid 3NT. If you were playing 5-card Stayman you would bid 3♣.

Your opponents are entitled to know what 3♣ shows. If you play 5-card Stayman, 3♣ shows a set of hands that includes 3253 6-counts. If you play standard Stayman, 3♣ shows a set of hands that does not include 3253 6-counts.

At the point that you bid 3♣, your partner knows which hands you can have. Your opponents are entitled to know that too, at the same time as your partner knows it.

Of course; but they are not entitled to know what partner is going to do with that information, until he does it.

And they are not entitled to know what will happen if they decide to enter our auction. They will know that soon enough, if it happens.

[kevperk]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-27, 12:31, said:

My problem is not what the responses are, which I do not think is normal when asking a question. My problem is that some people seem to think that if a question is asked they do not have to tell you what the question is.

If the bidding goes 1NT - 2♣ or 2NT - 3♣ I am not suggesting that players do not tell you what the responses are [though every ethical player I know would if asked]. What I object to is that people are saying they do not need to distinguish between Stayman and Puppet Stayman and 5-card Stayman. Or, to put it another way, they think that if the bid asks a question you do not have to tell opponents what the question is.

You keep addressing a problem is not being discussed. Noone is advocating not telling the opponents what the question is. I, and others are advocating not telling in a way that helps partner know how one is going to answer the question. If you are saying that the only way to tell the opponents what the question is requires telling the table what the responses are, then say that. I think that one CAN make it clear what is being asked without giving UI to partner. 2 clubs over 1NT asks "what is your major suit holding" not "what is your response to puppet stayman"

[pran]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-27, 12:31, said:

My problem is not what the responses are, which I do not think is normal when asking a question. My problem is that some people seem to think that if a question is asked they do not have to tell you what the question is.

If the bidding goes 1NT - 2♣ or 2NT - 3♣ I am not suggesting that players do not tell you what the responses are [though every ethical player I know would if asked]. What I object to is that people are saying they do not need to distinguish between Stayman and Puppet Stayman and 5-card Stayman. Or, to put it another way, they think that if the bid asks a question you do not have to tell opponents what the question is.

Oh dear!
Then frankly I did not understand the problem.

Of course opponents are entitled to all relevant information about a call already made, does anybody dispute that? (But players are not entitled to disclosure of possible future calls until the time such a call has also been made.)

[bluejak]

 aguahombre, on 2012-February-27, 12:56, said:

Yes, we understand that is your objection. The cheapest club bid asks about partner's major suit situation, regardless of which method of responses to that question are used. If we refused to tell the opponents that, when asked, we would be violating 20F1 and the basic tenets of disclosure; but what opponent wouldn't already know that?

Going any further than explaining it asks about major(s) is entering into prediction of future happenings; 20F1 is clear. It refers to bids already made, and only bids already made. It is O.K. that some people do not like it. I like it, and do not consider my approach or the ACBL approach unethical.

What Law says you can explain part of the meaning of a call but not all the meaning? Asking about majors: what does that mean? What Law says that you have to explain 2♣ as asking about "majors" but not about whether you are asking about four-card or five-card majors?

 kevperk, on 2012-February-27, 17:04, said:

You keep addressing a problem is not being discussed. Noone is advocating not telling the opponents what the question is. I, and others are advocating not telling in a way that helps partner know how one is going to answer the question. If you are saying that the only way to tell the opponents what the question is requires telling the table what the responses are, then say that. I think that one CAN make it clear what is being asked without giving UI to partner. 2 clubs over 1NT asks "what is your major suit holding" not "what is your response to puppet stayman"

No-one? Perhaps you should read aguahombre and a few other odd posts here, and many similar posts on rec.games.bridge. Yes, they are advocating not describing the meaning of an asking bid in full, whether it be asking for majors, asking for aces/controls, responding to weak twos and various other asks. There is a view that you are allowed to hide part of the meaning of the call.

 pran, on 2012-February-27, 17:15, said:

Oh dear!
Then frankly I did not understand the problem.

Of course opponents are entitled to all relevant information about a call already made, does anybody dispute that? (But players are not entitled to disclosure of possible future calls until the time such a call has also been made.)

Yes, several people dispute it, pran, that is the problem.

[barmar]

When I'm playing normal Stayman, and someone asks "What is 2♣?", I answer "It asks opener to show a 4-card major". When playing Puppet Stayman, I answer "It asks opener to show a 4- or 5-card major." In the latter case, I might also mention the name of the convention (ACBL's regulations say you can't give ONLY the name as an explanation, but it doesn't say you shouldn't give the name along with other info).

And that's what practically everyone else I've encountered does.

Who thinks you have to give more information, like "Opener should respond 3♦ with a 4-card major but no 5-card major, 3♥ or 3♠ if he has 5 of that suit, otherwise 3NT."?

[kevperk]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-27, 19:51, said:

What Law says you can explain part of the meaning of a call but not all the meaning? Asking about majors: what does that mean? What Law says that you have to explain 2♣ as asking about "majors" but not about whether you are asking about four-card or five-card majors?

=When my opponents bid 2♣, they are asking about "majors", I'll find out what responses they play when the responder bids. I don't see a problem. If I really think I need to know whether they are asking about four-card or five-card majors before responder bids, I can inquire(look at the card, or ask if I must), but I sure don't want them to volunteer the info unasked.
=

 bluejak, on 2012-February-27, 19:51, said:

No-one? Perhaps you should read aguahombre and a few other odd posts here, and many similar posts on rec.games.bridge. Yes, they are advocating not describing the meaning of an asking bid in full, whether it be asking for majors, asking for aces/controls, responding to weak twos and various other asks. There is a view that you are allowed to hide part of the meaning of the call.


Yes, several people dispute it, pran, that is the problem.

Ok, you choose to believe some here want to hide part of the meaning. I understand there are some like that. I don't think they are the ones posting here. If some here do want that, I agree they are wrong. You seem so worried about them that you fail to address my concerns.

[gnasher]

 kevperk, on 2012-February-27, 21:30, said:

Ok, you choose to believe some here want to hide part of the meaning. I understand there are some like that. I don't think they are the ones posting here. If some here do want that, I agree they are wrong. You seem so worried about them that you fail to address my concerns.

You mean that you don't think it was sufficient for him to tell you that you are "trying to avoid giving full information", and that what you do is "against the Laws and ethics of the game"? How much more explanation did you want?

Apparently I also participated by trying to "muddy the waters". As I understand it, we're both part of a secret conspiracy to agree with some post on rec.games.bridge that neither of us has ever seen.

[Zelandakh]

Some "model" explanations. Vary according to your personal agreements.

Explanation for Stayman: "It shows a 4 card major; or a balanced invite; or a weak hand with 3+ in both majors and 4+ diamonds; or a weak hand with both majors; or various game-forcing hands (further details on request)."
Explanation for Puppet Stayman: "It shows 3 or more cards in a major (but not 5-5); or a balanced invite; or a weak hand with 6+ diamonds; or a weak hand with 2+ in both majors and 5+ diamonds; or various game-forcing hands (further details on request)."
Explanation for Ogust/Feature: "A weak or invitational hand with support; or a hand choosing between 3NT and 4 of the major; or various very strong hands (further details on request).

This seems to satisfy the requirements of both sides of this debate. No, I do not give these explanations myself in the local club .

[kevperk]

 gnasher, on 2012-February-28, 02:55, said:

You mean that you don't think it was sufficient for him to tell you that you are "trying to avoid giving full information", and that what you do is "against the Laws and ethics of the game"? How much more explanation did you want?

Apparently I also participated by trying to "muddy the waters". As I understand it, we're both part of a secret conspiracy to agree with some post on rec.games.bridge that neither of us has ever seen.

I am NOT trying to avoid giving information. I have all along been thinking about this from the point of my opponents. I don't want my opponents to not fully disclose their methods, but I also don't want them to help themselves by giving more than required, if it means it could help them.

I don't understand why some are so worried about people that don't want to disclose their methods, or misdescribe their methods. If my opponents do that, I can easily get redress. I have NEVER had that problem and not get adequate protection. I HAVE had opponents potential help each other by explaining the way some advocate. I even gave examples earlier where "I" COULD have been helped.

Not one person has address how my way can in any way hurt me if my opponents follow it, or how the way others advocate NOT potentially help my opponents.

[mycroft]

"Asking if I have a 4-card major." vs "Asking if I have a 4- or 5-card major."

"Asking me to show a feature in a maximum hand." vs "Asking about the quality of my hand and suit" vs "asking about my distribution" vs "asking me about the length and quality of my hand". Also appropriate - "guarantees/does not guarantee invitational values".

Of course, if I said to 1NT-2♣ "asks me to bid 2♦", that would not only be wrong (explaining my responses), it would also not be full disclosure (which is, really, describing *her* hand). So I go with "either a hand that wishes to play 2♦, or one of various invitational or better hands." - and I'll try to iterate "various" if they care. So far, everybody's just cared about "so you're forced to bid 2♦, right?"

[barmar]

Or Lebensohl: "Asks me to bid 3♣, usually in preparation for a weak signoff -- he could show other hand types with his next bid."

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2012-February-28, 12:31, said:

Or Lebensohl: "Asks me to bid 3♣, usually in preparation for a weak signoff -- he could show other hand types with his next bid."

The problem I see with that seemly innocent prediction that you will bid 3C is that you won't bid 3C with certain hands ---unless it is the Leben after a 1NT opening, as opposed to the Leben after a reverse ---or the Leben response to 2M double. Thus, it is probably better to just not do any predicting.

[blackshoe]

It's not a prediction.

[aguahombre]

Not merely a prediction, is what you mean. It is also a misleading prediction. It implies that the person explaining will in fact bid 3C, when he might not.

In the case where 3C is forced, it is merely a prediction.