[Cthulhu D]

I am confused about disclosure here.

If you don't have to disclose your agreements until they come up (presumably other than what appears on a convention card) does that mean I can sit down at the table (in a jurisdiction where this is legal) pre-alert that we play potentially canapé overcalls sometimes and refuse to disclose any further information until it comes up? Or is there some finer distinction about why I have to explain how my overcalls work before i bid over you, but not if I play penalty doubles until after I crack your WJO?

[blackshoe]

There's a difference between pre-alerting and alerting in the course of an auction. In the former case, you should fully disclose your methods, including follow-ups if they ask, so they can decide on an appropriate defense before any hands are played. Once you're in an auction, though, the meaning of future calls does not require disclosure until they are actually made.

[Cthulhu D]

So if I ask before the auction you must disclose your agreements about playing penalty ir takeout after NT interference but not during it?

That is weird, does that mean you should launch an interrogation about method when a pair sits down?

[aguahombre]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-March-02, 08:42, said:

So if I ask before the auction you must disclose your agreements about playing penalty ir takeout after NT interference but not during it?

That is weird, does that mean you should launch an interrogation about method when a pair sits down?

If you want to go fishing about whether your frivolous interference will likely go for a number, I guess you should. If I detect that is your concern, the director will have to force me to answer.

[Cthulhu D]

Lol, that's the spirit of full disclosure right there. I see the before/during distinction fine though, pretty weird but okay I guess, cheers for the response

[aguahombre]

As a matter of fact, when we sit down to a team match where it is more common to exchange style information at the outset over and above required pre-alerts, we make it a point to disclose that not as many of our doubles are takeout, and not has many of our NT bids are natural, as one might expect.

My point in this thread reffered to the doubtful practice of fishing (for protection against disaster) about potential interference on specific auctions.

[mjj29]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-02, 08:33, said:

There's a difference between pre-alerting and alerting in the course of an auction. In the former case, you should fully disclose your methods, including follow-ups if they ask, so they can decide on an appropriate defense before any hands are played. Once you're in an auction, though, the meaning of future calls does not require disclosure until they are actually made.

I'm sure you should be able to ask "what are the responses to that?", it's just the answer might have to be given by the other player. Prior to the auction either player can answer.

[blackshoe]

Of course you can ask. The question is whether the other side is required to answer. I think not.

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-05, 18:17, said:

Of course you can ask. The question is whether the other side is required to answer. I think not.

I think details of the information from the responses allows the opponents to make "relevant inferences" from the choice of call and so is information to which opponents are entitled according to Law 20F:

Quote

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.

So questions about responses should be answered.

[gerry]

Amusingly an opponent recently opened 2♦ against me and found pard with

---

...he didn't imagine spades opposite and we duly scored up the double slam swing

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2012-March-05, 18:43, said:

I think details of the information from the responses allows the opponents to make "relevant inferences" from the choice of call and so is information to which opponents are entitled according to Law 20F:


So questions about responses should be answered.

And I think "relevant inferences" is about the differences between the call chosen and other calls he might have chosen, and that opponents are not thereby entitled to information about future calls at this time. It seems we disagree.

[Vampyr]

kevperk, on 2012-February-28, 10:35, said:

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.

This is an interesting angle, wanting your opponents to give inadequate disclosure so that they don't exchange UI. Most people on the partial-disclosure-side are not approaching the problem from this angle, but rather are discussing what information the asking side is "entitled" to, as if they are not entitled to everything.

I find this thread shocking.

[aguahombre]

I find it shocking that after being presented with 20F1, there are still people who think its reference to calls which have been made (and calls which might have been made) clearly talking about a point after a call has been made and not about calls which will be made ---is just a bunch of words which they can disregard and continue their rant about the ethics and full disclosure of others who can read.

[Lanor Fow]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-05, 21:58, said:

And I think "relevant inferences" is about the differences between the call chosen and other calls he might have chosen, and that opponents are not thereby entitled to information about future calls at this time. It seems we disagree.

In the case of asking bid such as 2nt over 2M opening, the reason for making such a call is because one is interested in one or more of the responses. The relevant inferences about this call (2nt) over others must therefore be heavily based on the possible responses.

Yes it may be possible in many cases to explain what hands could bid this without referenceing the responses, but I would imagine that for the vast majority, to get all the inferences the explination would be very long, and have a lot of potential for missing some of the inferences that one is required to disclose.

[blackshoe]

Lanor Fow, on 2012-March-06, 08:15, said:

In the case of asking bid such as 2nt over 2M opening, the reason for making such a call is because one is interested in one or more of the responses. The relevant inferences about this call (2nt) over others must therefore be heavily based on the possible responses.

Yes it may be possible in many cases to explain what hands could bid this without referenceing the responses, but I would imagine that for the vast majority, to get all the inferences the explination would be very long, and have a lot of potential for missing some of the inferences that one is required to disclose.

So? You seem to want to disagree with me (which is fine) but this post doesn't say anything we haven't already heard about why I should be considered wrong.

[Lanor Fow]

I didn't read this thread all in one go, so was perhaps not completly aware of all the arguments to and fro. I didn't think that what I posted had been brought up in that fashon whilst discussing 20f1, but if it had then my apologies for adding nothing of substance. I did post as I was interested to hear a rebuttal of the argument by one of the parties who disagree (as I currently cannot think of one) rather than to just indicate disagreement. I will re-read the thread and look for my answer there.

[barmar]

Lanor Fow, on 2012-March-06, 08:15, said:

Yes it may be possible in many cases to explain what hands could bid this without referenceing the responses, but I would imagine that for the vast majority, to get all the inferences the explination would be very long, and have a lot of potential for missing some of the inferences that one is required to disclose.

I think it's often possible to explain without referencing the responses.

For instance, I'd describe Ogust as "Asking partner to describe the strength of his hand and the quality of his suit." I don't see the need to specify whether 3♦ or 3♥ will be the "weak hand, good suit" response. Of course, once partner makes a response, I'll explain what it shows if asked. And if they ask "What would 3♣ have meant?" I'll answer, although it seems like a silly question -- whatever it means, they already know he doesn't have that type of hand.

[kevperk]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-05, 23:47, said:

This is an interesting angle, wanting your opponents to give inadequate disclosure so that they don't exchange UI. Most people on the partial-disclosure-side are not approaching the problem from this angle, but rather are discussing what information the asking side is "entitled" to, as if they are not entitled to everything.

I find this thread shocking.

I don't think following my advice is giving inadequate disclosure. Knowing that a 2NT response to a weak two is asking for "some kind" of information, or that a minimum club response to a NT bid is asking for major holdings, or that a 4NT bid is asking for ace/keycards, is adequate for me as long as the disclosure is not misleading. I feel that most of those who think it is inadequate are just worried about their opponents hiding something, and not really thinking about how these responses will be adequate 99% of the time.

[mycroft]

It's only a silly question, Barry, if you know Ogust, and know the basic structure of the system.

1♥-2NT!-3♦! - when I found out that 3♦ showed a non-minimum, I wanted to know what 3♣ would have meant to see what options the person had. I know what a bid means, but without the negative inferences, I may not be able to work out what partner knows he "doesn't have" when they bail in game, for instance.

I expect I ask about "calls not made" more often than almost everybody; and it's still once every 20 sessions or so. But I would not want that ability taken away (as one TD did to me, long ago - wanting to know what a different bid would have meant was "intimidating the opponents" Don't they know their system? Well, in this case, it's arguable that they didn't :-)

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2012-March-06, 13:36, said:

It's only a silly question, Barry, if you know Ogust, and know the basic structure of the system.

I suppose. I was thinking of:

2NT
Please explain.
Asks for hand strength and suit quality.
3♦
Please explain.
Bad hand, good suit.

Whatever 3♣ shows, it seems obvious to me that it's a different combination of suit and hand qualities.