[blackshoe]

To a certain extent, it depends on the design of the card and the regulations in force regarding it. The ACBL card, for example has for 2 level openings a space labelled "responses/rebids". Presumably they want you to put the meanings of pertinent rebids there. A lot of people don't, but that doesn't mean they don't need to do so.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2012-March-17, 17:56, said:

Is that what's happening? I suppose it depends on your viewpoint. Perhaps what's happening is rather that your opponents are gaining an advantage by not completely filling out their cards. The way to deal with that, of course, is to penalize them for their failure.

OK... but in the meantime I cannot know their methods?

 barmar, on 2012-March-17, 19:47, said:

So if I write "Ogust" on my CC, but don't list all the responses, I'm "not completely filling out my CC"?

I should have thought so; a convention name is never a sufficient explanation. Also see the post immediately above, which I forgot to check Multiquote for.

Anyway. If you do not have early-round actions listed on your card, and you don't believe the opponents are "entitled" to the information, I hope that everyone here would at least be courteous enough to tell them anyway.

I still find it astonishing that people are suggesting that information that should be on the CC, even if the "should" may be in some other cases arguable, can be witheld by people who have not included it. Is this thread some huge piss-take? Is there some joke that everyone is in on except me?

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2012-March-17, 19:35, said:

But if we would play different methods after 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ our CC would get overloaded and we would just fill out "2NT: asks".

If there weren't room in the designated portion of the card you could always put the information in the footnotes, couldn't you?

I have seen pairs who require supplemental sheets because their basic agreements don't fit on 2 sides of A4. But very very few.

[bluejak]

 pran, on 2012-March-16, 04:30, said:

but I want to know what people mean by their call Before they make it?

Sure. For ethical players this is an open information game, and whenever opponents want to know their system they describe it "fully and freely". Unfortunately there is a minority who prefer not to and I am surprised you support them.

It is very rare that you want to know exactly which response means what, but no ethical player would fail to answer if asked. I am totally amazed you would support them if they did.

This is very rare, but Ogust is a great example of one convention which people play in very different ways from each other and do not tell opponents. Even perfectly ethical players do not out of ignorance or laziness.

 blackshoe, on 2012-March-16, 07:55, said:

Not helpful. Why is it bizarre?

I have never known anyone who tries to hide their system from opponents, and am flabbergasted you think it reasonable.

 pran, on 2012-March-16, 15:22, said:

What do you think is the reason for, and logic behind the following clause in Law 20F1:
Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question.?

We do not worry about why this Law is here. What we worry about is your suggestion that the player should not answer.

 gordontd, on 2012-March-17, 01:32, said:

What kind of excuse do you have in mind?

Someone pointed out age and infirmity. There is also times when someone else distracted the player, especially if it is an opponent or TD, and there are novice or near-novice players.

 barmar, on 2012-March-17, 19:47, said:

So if I write "Ogust" on my CC, but don't list all the responses, I'm "not completely filling out my CC"?

Of course you are not. Both the EBU and ACBL say that names are not good enough. When I play Ogust and my partner bids 2NT she has game try values or better, and I have to bid or double with a maximum if RHO bids at the four-level. The next player along knows it may be a weak hand with a fit and never rebids above three of his bid suit. If I rebid 3NT it is meaningless: the next person along may be showing a solid suit. It is meaningless to us because we cannot have a solid suit, and opponents are entitled to that information. To summarise, people play Ogust in all sorts of different ways and opponents are entitled to that information the moment 2NT is bid.

[gordontd]

Why have your brought one of my posts from an entirely different thread here and answered it as though it had some connection to this, David?

[pran]

Please David:
Why do you carefully and consistently avoid answering the question: Who shall answer a question requesting information describing a call not yet made: The player supposed to make that call or his partner??

In my example of Multi 2♦ opening bid:
The 2♦ bid must of course be described by opener's partner, but who shall then at the same time describe the various answer bids possible (according to agreements) to this opening bid - the opener himself or his partner?

[bluejak]

 gordontd, on 2012-March-19, 10:32, said:

Why have your brought one of my posts from an entirely different thread here and answered it as though it had some connection to this, David?

If I have, I did it by accident. Mind you, I have no idea how.

 pran, on 2012-March-19, 10:44, said:

Please David:
Why do you carefully and consistently avoid answering the question: Who shall answer a question requesting information describing a call not yet made: The player supposed to make that call or his partner??

In my example of Multi 2♦ opening bid:
The 2♦ bid must of course be described by opener's partner, but who shall then at the same time describe the various answer bids possible (according to agreements) to this opening bid - the opener himself or his partner?

If the questioner needs to know at the time of the 2NT, which will be extremely rare, what the answers to the question are, the player will, of course, answer. Why not?

[pran]

 bluejak, on 2012-March-19, 11:21, said:

If the questioner needs to know at the time of the 2NT, which will be extremely rare, what the answers to the question are, the player will, of course, answer. Why not?

That the situation is extremely rare is completely irrelevant!

I still do not know whether you by "the player" refer to the player who made the 2NT bid or the player who explains the 2NT bid and eventually shall make the corresponding response bid.

But I assume that "by the player" you indicate the player who explains the 2NT bid and as part of this explanation also (according to you) must in case at this time explain his own answer bid eventually to be made.

Is the 2NT bidder now, after hearing this explanation, allowed to select his further calls according to this information? Of course not. Although the explanation may or may not match the understanding he already has of the answer bid that is going to be made this information is coming from his partner and is therefore UI to him. His argument will of course be that he already possessed the information before the auction started, but so will anybody state whether or not they needed their memory being refreshed. And there is usually no way the Director can establish any discrepancy between the 2NT bidder's understanding of the answer bid before and after he heard his partner's explanation.

This is precisely the reason why the laws specifically state that explanations shall be given about calls already made and then by partner to the player who made the call in question. (Unless the Director instructs otherwise.)


(If instead you indicate the player who made the 2NT bid we have exactly the same problem except that it is now the player who is going to make his response bid who in advance is reminded by his partner on how he is supposed to bid.)

This is all not just theory: A common mistake with Multi is forgetting which of the answers show the weaker hand and which show the stronger hand within the "weak two in major" range.

How convenient is it then not to legally explain 2NT with the explanation: "2NT asks about opener's hand and the possible responses are 3♣ or ♦ with a weaker in hearts or spades and 3♥ or ♠ with a stronger (but still weak) hand. 3NT shows the NT hand with 20-21 HCP."?

[blackshoe]

 bluejak, on 2012-March-19, 10:25, said:

It is very rare that you want to know exactly which response means what, but no ethical player would fail to answer if asked. I am totally amazed you would support them if they did.

This is very rare, but Ogust is a great example of one convention which people play in very different ways from each other and do not tell opponents. Even perfectly ethical players do not out of ignorance or laziness.

I have never known anyone who tries to hide their system from opponents, and am flabbergasted you think it reasonable.

To summarise, people play Ogust in all sorts of different ways and opponents are entitled to that information the moment 2NT is bid.

And I am flabbergasted that you think I advocate "hiding" something. As for "no ethical player", I'm sorry David, but I don't believe you, unless your definition of ethical is "one who would always answer whatever question is asked".

In response to your last sentence there, of course they are, particularly when the differences are as significant as what you described. But it is both possible and completely ethical to describe the set of responses in such a way as not to say "well, 3♣ by me will mean..." and so on.

[bluejak]

Of course there are other ways. But this idea of not allowing opponents to know what the responses are, especially what is shown and at what level, is horrible. Obviously it does not matter whether 3♦ is minimum with a good suit or whether it is maximum with a poor suit. But some people believe that you do not need to tell opponents whether you ask for features or for suit quality. They think that if they describe 4NT as ace-asking that is sufficient. They think that describing 2C as Stayman is sufficient with no reference to whether there are five card suits, and whether you can respond 2NT. Sure, these people are a small minority, but they do the game harm.

[pran]

 bluejak, on 2012-March-19, 18:47, said:

Of course there are other ways. But this idea of not allowing opponents to know what the responses are, especially what is shown and at what level, is horrible. Obviously it does not matter whether 3♦ is minimum with a good suit or whether it is maximum with a poor suit. But some people believe that you do not need to tell opponents whether you ask for features or for suit quality. They think that if they describe 4NT as ace-asking that is sufficient. They think that describing 2C as Stayman is sufficient with no reference to whether there are five card suits, and whether you can respond 2NT. Sure, these people are a small minority, but they do the game harm.

Is the reason why you avoid answering direct questions that you have no meaningful answer?

The description of 2NT bid over a Multi 2♦ opening bid includes that it requests further clarification of the actual hand held by the opener. The expected answer will show if the opener has a 20-21 NT hand or a weak 2 in either major, and in the latter case whether the strength of the hand is within the weaker or stronger range for a traditional weak two.

This ought to be obvious for anyone, and I have never disputed it.

Even the information: Which answer calls can be expected in response to the 2NT bid could be considered part of this explanation, but when you state that a (further) description of these various answer calls available is part of a complete disclosure on the 2NT bid I must strongly object.

Such description is due (only) after a response to the 2NT bid has been made.

There is (as I have pointed out) a serious legal problem with descriptions of answer calls before the call is actually made, and an important point here is if such premature explanation should be given by the player eventually making the call or by his partner. Your only answer to this question so far was ambiguous.

[mjj29]

 pran, on 2012-March-19, 17:32, said:

Is the 2NT bidder now, after hearing this explanation, allowed to select his further calls according to this information? Of course not. Although the explanation may or may not match the understanding he already has of the answer bid that is going to be made this information is coming from his partner and is therefore UI to him. His argument will of course be that he already possessed the information before the auction started, but so will anybody state whether or not they needed their memory being refreshed. And there is usually no way the Director can establish any discrepancy between the 2NT bidder's understanding of the answer bid before and after he heard his partner's explanation.

Surely if this were the case whenever my partner alerted, announced or explained correctly my bid I'd be forced to throw the board, because taking the correct action in my system is suggested by the fact my partner has remembered the system. This is stupid. (also, L16 says _unexpected_ alert or lack of alert, although I'll grant that's after the 'reply to a question' part). Fundamentally, if partner gives an accurate description of our system I can't be constrained by that or the entire game would grind to a halt.

[pran]

 mjj29, on 2012-March-20, 05:28, said:

Surely if this were the case whenever my partner alerted, announced or explained correctly my bid I'd be forced to throw the board, because taking the correct action in my system is suggested by the fact my partner has remembered the system. This is stupid. (also, L16 says _unexpected_ alert or lack of alert, although I'll grant that's after the 'reply to a question' part). Fundamentally, if partner gives an accurate description of our system I can't be constrained by that or the entire game would grind to a halt.

Quite true, and that is the main reason why the laws have very strict conditions for when during the auction, and by whom explanations are to be given, namely after a call has been made, (not before) and by partner to the player who made the call.

Any deviation from this requires specific instruction by TD in the particular case.

(Specific descriptions of possible responses to a particular call are not part of the description of that call and must be delayed until such response has actually been made.)

[Trinidad]

 pran, on 2012-March-19, 17:32, said:

How convenient is it then not to legally explain 2NT with the explanation: "2NT asks about opener's hand and the possible responses are 3♣ or ♦ with a weaker in hearts or spades and 3♥ or ♠ with a stronger (but still weak) hand. 3NT shows the NT hand with 20-21 HCP."?

David and I have been explaining extensively that explanations about specific responses are only given when they are specifically asked for.

No one is suggesting that the 2NT should be explained as:
"It asks about my hand. If I rebid 3♣ I have a minimum weak two in hearts. If I rebid 3♦ I have a minimum weak two in spades. If I rebid 3♥ I have a maximum weak two in spades. If I bid 3♠ I have ♠K54♥KQJ943♦T2♣75 and 3NT is reserved for the remaining hands."

The debate is about the question whether the opponents are entitled to know about the responses to asking bids if they want to. Both David and I think that the opponents are entitled to it, because it is in the spirit of full disclosure, and that it should be given when asked for (already for the simple reason that the person answering the question cannot anticipate that the asker is interested in knowing the exact responses).

Also your question about who should explain has been answered. Feel free to browse back to my post #210.

Rik

[pran]

 Trinidad, on 2012-March-20, 15:45, said:

David and I have been explaining extensively that explanations about specific responses are only given when they are specifically asked for.

No one is suggesting that the 2NT should be explained as:
"It asks about my hand. If I rebid 3♣ I have a minimum weak two in hearts. If I rebid 3♦ I have a minimum weak two in spades. If I rebid 3♥ I have a maximum weak two in spades. If I bid 3♠ I have ♠K54♥KQJ943♦T2♣75 and 3NT is reserved for the remaining hands."

The debate is about the question whether the opponents are entitled to know about the responses to asking bids if they want to. Both David and I think that the opponents are entitled to it, because it is in the spirit of full disclosure, and that it should be given when asked for (already for the simple reason that the person answering the question cannot anticipate that the asker is interested in knowing the exact responses).

Also your question about who should explain has been answered. Feel free to browse back to my post #210.

Rik

OK,
So what you say is that when I am asked about my partner's 2NT bid and I respond as I have stated earlier in this thread my RHO may also ask me a question like:

And what will your possible responses of respectively 3♣, 3♦, 3♥, 3♠ and 3NT show?

My answer to this question shall then be something like:

I shall bid 3♣ with a weaker weak 2♥ opening hand, 3♦ with a weaker weak 2♠ opening hand, 3♥ with a stronger weak 2♥ opening hand, 2♠ with a stronger weak 2♠ opening hand and 2NT with a 20-21 HCP NT shaped hand.

What a wonderful opportunity to rehearse my system agreements with my partner during the auction before I make my call!

Since this information is considered part of "full disclosure" of the 2NT bid I suppose I am permitted (read "obliged") to give it even without being asked specifically for it?

[Vampyr]

 pran, on 2012-March-20, 17:23, said:

My answer to this question shall then be something like:

I shall bid 3♣ with a weaker weak 2♥ opening hand, 3♦ with a weaker weak 2♠ opening hand, 3♥ with a stronger weak 2♥ opening hand, 2♠ with a stronger weak 2♠ opening hand and 2NT with a 20-21 HCP NT shaped hand.

What a wonderful opportunity to rehearse my system agreements with my partner during the auction before I make my call!

You cannot rely on this method, because the opportunity will come very rarely, when the opponents specifically ask.

In any case you will not have a problem if partner has remembered your systemic agreements -- do you find this to be a fairly rare occurance?

[mgoetze]

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.

[aguahombre]

 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.

If I were you, I wouldn't want to play against people who can read, either. Not even curious here why you chose us two out of those who have said the same thing as we have and the ones who wrote the applicable section(s).

[pran]

 Vampyr, on 2012-March-20, 18:13, said:

You cannot rely on this method, because the opportunity will come very rarely, when the opponents specifically ask.

In any case you will not have a problem if partner has remembered your systemic agreements -- do you find this to be a fairly rare occurance?

Sure I can rely on that method!

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

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.

Consequently I am not only allowed, but required to perform my little rehearsal of our agreements whenever opponents ask about the 2NT bid (or even when they ask a general question about any auction that has included the 2NT bid)! They need not include specific questions about our answering agreements for 2NT.

The fact that I trust my partner to remember our system, or whether it is a rare occurance is completely irrelevant: 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.

[barmar]

 barmar, on 2012-March-17, 19:47, said:

So if I write "Ogust" on my CC, but don't list all the responses, I'm "not completely filling out my CC"?

 Vampyr, on 2012-March-18, 22:18, said:

I should have thought so; a convention name is never a sufficient explanation. Also see the post immediately above, which I forgot to check Multiquote for.

But the convention card is not an explanation.

The Responses/Rebids area of the 2-level bids section of the ACBL card barely has room to list the names of all the conventions I play (Ogust, McCabe, meaning of redouble), there's no room for the details of these conventions.

No one expects the convention card to be detailed system notes, they're just a concise summary. Maybe that's just an ACBL thing, because our card is so brief.