[bluenikki]

mycroft, on 2025-March-22, 19:03, said:

"yes, and *what else do you need to know*, since *clearly* they haven't guessed from your question?"

Or are you suggesting they are *deliberately* misinforming you?

No, they were simply too ignorant to know that what "everyone" played in the Washington DC area is not the same as what "everyone" played everywhere. And also, of course, they were trying to make me seem ignorant.

[mycroft]

That was aimed at blackshoe, not you, sorry.

But that would probably have been my response as TD to you as well, though not quite as aggressively as you were trying to get help rather than than "reserving your rights"(*) and throwing the resulting problem at the director.

(*) Listen, I'm as big at following the rules (even when they're stupid) as anyone. My self-declared title should be a clue. But there's following the rules, and there's using the language of the rules imperiously to Bridge Lawyer and show off (or, even, to deliberately try to catch the opponents, like the "reserve my rights" "if they didn't agree about the UI, they would have objected, so they have clearly admitted it" game. Which, I am sure, only half the people who do this are actually playing, the other half simply don't understand how anybody doesn't know this. Hmmm, how could that *possibly* apply to "answering a question missing some (obvious to them) information"?)

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2025-March-21, 12:55, said:

I don't remember when "clarifying questions" *after the initial "please explain" were ever banned.

While not banned, asking leading questions like "How many clubs does that show?" can often transmit UI to partner (e.g. the questioner has long clubs of their own), so it's best to avoid them when possible.

[blackshoe]

Some "clarifying questions" I've used:

"Please explain further."
"Tell me about your partner's style." (Club players have no idea what this means).
"I don't know what that means."

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2025-March-28, 15:07, said:

Some "clarifying questions" I've used:

"Please explain further."
"Tell me about your partner's style." (Club players have no idea what this means).
"I don't know what that means."

Unfortunately, vague questions like these rarely elicit what you're looking for.

For instance, often you want to know what kind of strength the bid shows. If you just ask "please explain further", they don't know that this detail is what you want.

[jillybean]

barmar, on 2025-March-31, 13:51, said:

Unfortunately, vague questions like these rarely elicit what you're looking for.

For instance, often you want to know what kind of strength the bid shows. If you just ask "please explain further", they don't know that this detail is what you want.

Yep, you must ask just the right questions.

I am playing 3nt today. My RHO discards the 7♥ on the second diamond trick.
I ask LHO, what are your discards please?
LHO says "we play lavinthal"
I think "Oh, how nice". I ask "what does the 7♥ mean?"
LHO "she doesn't like hearts"
Me: "Oh, okay, does it say anything about preference for the other suits?"
LHO: "No we are in NT so there is no trump suit, the other suits don't matter"
Me: OH, OK!
(not corrected at any time)

The whole hand was quite a hoot, making 7 on diamond lead

---

[blackshoe]

"You must ask the right questions" is contrary to law.

I ask twice. If I don't get full disclosure, I call the director.

[jillybean]

good luck.

[mycroft]

And again, as I asked before, HTH does the opponent, who thinks *they are* providing full disclosure (either because it *is* all their agreement is because they don't know better, or because they *can not understand what you don't know* because there's only one way to play X, the way they do, work out from the zero-information re-ask what the concern is?

I will admit I do similar things at least once, when asking about, say, their weak 2; but when it doesn't work the second time, and I get more specific ("suit strength? Outside controls? Does vul or seat matter?") usually they just look at me as if I'd grown a second head."6-10, 6 card suit" (or sometimes "well, of course, it's 2/top 3,...") Given that is common, how do you deal with those people (who Just Don't Know?)

And when you call the director, and you say "I'm not getting Full Disclosure here", frankly, how does the director know what you (think you)'re not getting? What do you expect the director to do, tie them to the mast until they read your mind properly? Or ask the follow-up specific questions they guess you think you need, and hope they're right? If the director asks you what you still need (maybe because they're not experienced bridge players or suffer from One True Bidding System too), do you tell them? If so, why not ask the players? If not, why not?

I mean, I absolutely have an answer to the last one - and I know you're going to preempt me on it, so. There is a player who will obfuscate and "undiscussed" and "what do you want to know?" enough because he can use the information about what I'm interested in when declaring better than I can when defending. So I will explicitly be vague and "please explain the auction. 'Natural' or 'Standard' is fine if that call is." And yes, there are directors who don't get it either - but again, they're the ones who can't help you when "please explain" gets two incomplete answers because they don't get it either.

[barmar]

There probably should be some language in the Laws or Alert Procedures that says that if a response is unclear or incomplete you can ask more specific followup questions without it being considered UI to partner. And ideally it should also be UI to the opponents.

But this then just opens another can of worms -- what stops someone from claiming that the answer was incomplete just so he can pass coded information to partner with followups?

And pity the poor director who has to figure out what all the AI and UI is, and whether someone used UI, after this happens.

Self-alerts and screens help avoid the problem of passing information to partner, but it doesn't help with avoiding opponents' inferences about your hand.

[jillybean]

it would be a good start if players were aware of their responsibilities regarding full disclosure and offered complete explanations when asked. No more “we play blah blahh” nonsense.

We can worry about players sending coded messages hidden in their questions later.

[akwoo]

Here is a case in point. There is a local pair that has switched to a very conservative version of Precision they found online somewhere basically because they don't understand reverses and this is a way of hiding this problem.

Their 1♦ opening is 1+. They announce it as 1+ diamond, 11-16. If you ask further, they don't know what to say. Having asked 20 questions about their other openings, I've learned it includes balanced 11-14, balanced 15-16 with 4 card major, 5+diamonds with a 4 card major, both minors, or any 4441. They don't know this. An exchange:
"Can it contain hands with 5 clubs?"
"No those would open 2♣"
"Even if it is balanced with 5332?"
"Yes. Wait. I don't know. No. Those are opened 1♦."
"What about hands with 5 clubs and 4 diamonds?"
"Well, 2♣ can be 5 clubs with a 4 card major."
"Yes, but 4 or 5 diamonds?"
"Hmm... I guess not."

Partner responds 1♠.
"Alert"
"Yes?"
"0-9 hcp, nonforcing, could be as few as 3 spades."
"When would it have only 3 spades?"
"Well, if she doesn't have diamonds, she runs out to the least bad major."
"Could she have 3 hearts and 3 spades?"
"No that would bid 1♥."
A few more rounds later, it emerges that any hand with only 3 spades also has at least 6 clubs. Which they didn't realize before (and they have probably forgotten by now).

Anyway, after a few rounds of 20 questions, I now understand their system far better than they do.