[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-03, 06:41, said:

Asking about alternative calls available to be made, but not made, is explicitly allowed in the law. Asking about future calls that might be made is not. AFAICS, that's the pertinent distinction.

Yes, I know.

As I understand it, you have made three different arguments.
(1) The current Laws don't allow you ask the meanings of future calls.
(2) Nobody will ever need to know the meanings of future calls.
(3) It would be impractical to allow people to ask about future calls.

I agree with you about (1), but not about (2) or (3).

It seems to me that every time I respond to your arguments (2) or (3), you counter by repeating (1). That doesn't much help us in discussing (2) and (3).

Quote

How do you think it would actually go? "Please explain 2NT", followed by something that doesn't address the meanings of specific future calls, followed by {a) questions about the meanings of specific future calls or {b} a TD call on the grounds that failure to describe such meanings is MI? IN the latter case, I gather you would agree with the person who called you, but I still don't see a legal basis for it.

If this were legal (which I agree it isn't), I think it would go
"What does 2NT mean please?"
"Game-forcing with four card support."
"What are the three-level rebids?"
"New suits show shortage, 3♥ shows a semi-balanced non-minimum, 3NT shows 18-19 balanced."
"Thank you."

I don't understand why one would need the director.

[aguahombre]

Am thinking about recommending a new category for the Postees: the "What have I done?!" Award.

Jilly would win easily for starting this thread.

[pran]

gnasher, on 2012-April-03, 09:35, said:

Yes, I know.

As I understand it, you have made three different arguments.
(1) The current Laws don't allow you ask the meanings of future calls.
(2) Nobody will ever need to know the meanings of future calls.
(3) It would be impractical to allow people to ask about future calls.

I agree with you about (1), but not about (2) or (3).

It seems to me that every time I respond to your arguments (2) or (3), you counter by repeating (1). That doesn't much help us in discussing (2) and (3).


If this were legal (which I agree it isn't), I think it would go
"What does 2NT mean please?"
"Game-forcing with four card support."
"What are the three-level rebids?"
"New suits show shortage, 3♥ shows a semi-balanced non-minimum, 3NT shows 18-19 balanced."
"Thank you."

I don't understand why one would need the director.

Could we please (everybody) restrict this thread (forum) to concern the existing laws and regulations, and to post more or less personal opinions on how the laws and regulations should be altered to the separate forum allocated for this purpose?

[bluejak]

pran, on 2012-April-03, 08:30, said:

Sorry, I have always been under the impression that you among all are very consistent about obeying the laws of bridge, and Law 21F is very specific that questions can be made (quote) 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.

Exactly, and the responses to an asking bid clearly are relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding

[blackshoe]

In what way is knowledge you have memorized (the systemic meanings of bids) an "inference"?

[pran]

bluejak, on 2012-April-03, 17:50, said:

Exactly, and the responses to an asking bid clearly are relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding

Would you care to elaborate on why (in your opinion) relevant inference from the choice of a particular bid (e.g. the asking bid) shall include not only what information he seeks (i.e. why he chose that particular bid) but also how the possible response calls are to be decoded to give this information (i.e. the explanation of the response calls)?

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2012-April-04, 03:12, said:

Would you care to elaborate on why (in your opinion) relevant inference from the choice of a particular bid (e.g. the asking bid) shall include not only what information he seeks (i.e. why he chose that particular bid) but also how the possible response calls are to be decoded to give this information (i.e. the explanation of the response calls)?

Don't you think this question has been answered on several occasions already in this thread? It is clear to most of us that the way in which the system handles the responses in order to give information to the person making the asking bid has the potential to affect whether the asker feels he can afford to ask the question or not.

[pran]

WellSpyder, on 2012-April-04, 03:29, said:

Don't you think this question has been answered on several occasions already in this thread? It is clear to most of us that the way in which the system handles the responses in order to give information to the person making the asking bid has the potential to affect whether the asker feels he can afford to ask the question or not.

No, it has not been satisfactorily answered.

And I forgot to add one important note with my question:

Be aware that the information on how to decode the response call in this situation must be given by the player that eventually will make the response call because he is the player explaining the inferences from the asking bid. This is a clear violation of Law 20F1: Explanations shall be given by partner to the player making the call (except on instruction by the TD).

[gnasher]

pran, on 2012-April-03, 15:06, said:

Could we please (everybody) restrict this thread (forum) to concern the existing laws and regulations, and to post more or less personal opinions on how the laws and regulations should be altered to the separate forum allocated for this purpose?

That request would be more reasonable if it came from someone who hadn't partcipated in the off-topic part of this discussion. If you make an off-topic argument, you can't complain about the replies also being off-topic.

[pran]

Maybe it is time to bring the discussion down to earth?

In the following scenarios it is to be understood that North and South as the case may be asks for (full) explanations where applicable, and for simplicity I use the agreements with which I am most familiar in my own partnershhips. I have marked in red the statements on which I understand there is disagreement:

East opens 2♦

West explains:
"Multi - that is 6 Hearts or 6 Spades with 6 - 11 HCP, or NT style hand with 20 - 21 HCP.
I am supposed to bid:
2♥ for play or correct,
2♠ as an invitation to 4♥ in case he has the weak hand with hearts,
2NT if I want a further specification of his hand."

West then bids 2NT

East explains:
"He asks for a further specification of my hand.
I am supposed to bid:
3♣ with hearts and 6 - 8 HCP,
3♦ with spades and 6 - 8 HCP,
3♥ with hearts and 9 - 11 HCP,
3♠ with spades and 9 - 11 HCP,
3NT if I have the strong NT style hand."

East then bids 3♥

West explains:
"He shows 9 - 11 with hearts."

West now bids 4NT

East explains:
"RKCB - he asks about my Aces including the King of hearts.
I am supposed to bid:
5♣ with 1 or 4 aces,
5♦ with 0 or 3 aces,
5♥ with 2 aces without the Queen of hearts,
5♠ with 2 aces and the Queen of hearts,
5NT with a void and 1 or 3 aces,
6 in the void denomination with 2 aces and a void below the trump denomination,
6 in the trump denomination with 2 aces and a void above the trump denomination."

East then bids 5♣

West explains:
"He has 1 or 4 aces and no void."

West then bids 5♦

East explains:
"He asks if I have the Queen of hearts.
I am supposed to bid:
5♥ without the queen,
5♠ with the queen and the king of spades (and no other king),
5NT with the queen but without any kings,
6 in the denomination of the king with the queen and one king below the trump denomination,
7♥ with the queen and (at least) two kings."

East now bids - well that doesn't really matter for this little tale, but is blackshoe really the only person here who can see the insanity by including the information I have given in red above with the required "full" explanation of calls? (My deepest apology if I have had support from others and not noticed them.)

From anybody else (but preferably from bluejak) I shall appreciate a very good explanation with reference to the laws on bridge why any of my text in red above shall be considered part of the required full explanation of a call.
And if some of my text in red above shall be considered part of full explanation then why not all of it? (I shall be most surprised if anybody really wants "full explanation" to include everything I have written in red above!)

And keep in mind that every single word of the explanations in red above is to be given by a player who is next to make a call so explained.

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2012-April-04, 07:46, said:

From anybody else (but preferably from bluejak) I shall appreciate a very good explanation with reference to the laws on bridge why any of my text in red above shall be considered part of the required full explanation of a call.

You have already provided the legal basis for this yourself earlier in the thread:

pran, on 2012-April-03, 08:30, said:

Law 21F is very specific that questions can be made (quote) 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.

Quote

And keep in mind that every single word of the explanations in red above is to be given by a player who is next to make a call so explained.

It seems to me that you have noticed an unfortunate implication of someone giving an explanation that might occasionally need to include some reference to how they are normally expected to respond - namely a problem of UI - and decided that the best way to avoid this is to interpret full disclosure in such a way as to potentially disadvantage an opponent compared with someone who has full knowledge of the system and agreements being used. Others have noticed this unfortunate implication but realised that it needs to be accepted because:
a) full disclosure is fundamental to how the game is intended to be played
b) it will be extremely rare for any meaningful UI to arise in the way you are postulating
c) it is not an offence to give UI anyway
d) there are other laws in place to deal with the consequences if any such UI is used illegally.

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2012-April-04, 07:46, said:

(My deepest apology if I have had support from others and not noticed them.)

NP, it happens a lot.

[pran]

WellSpyder, on 2012-April-04, 08:09, said:

It seems to me that you have noticed an unfortunate implication of someone giving an explanation that might occasionally need to include some reference to how they are normally expected to respond - namely a problem of UI - and decided that the best way to avoid this is to interpret full disclosure in such a way as to potentially disadvantage an opponent compared with someone who has full knowledge of the system and agreements being used. Others have noticed this unfortunate implication but realised that it needs to be accepted because:
a) full disclosure is fundamental to how the game is intended to be played
b) it will be extremely rare for any meaningful UI to arise in the way you are postulating
c) it is not an offence to give UI anyway
d) there are other laws in place to deal with the consequences if any such UI is used illegally.

My point is that our laws explicitly limit "full disclosure" to explanations on calls already made, alternative calls not made and to inference from the call actually chosen among possible alternative calls.

If you argue a law change then please do so in the appropriate forum, not here, so that we can avoid misunderstandings and waste of efforts.

This does not in any way "disqualify" explanations of future calls, but mandates a delay of such explanations until after the future call has been made.

And the explanation of a call that effectively "asks" about specific information certainly includes what information is asked, but not how this information is conveyed through a response call. That is part of the explanation of the response call. (The difference should be clear from my use of read and black colours in my previous scenario.)

[barmar]

WellSpyder, on 2012-April-04, 03:29, said:

Don't you think this question has been answered on several occasions already in this thread? It is clear to most of us that the way in which the system handles the responses in order to give information to the person making the asking bid has the potential to affect whether the asker feels he can afford to ask the question or not.

I think I'm starting to get pulled over to this side.

Consider a very common choice: RKC 3014 vs 1430. If your suit is a minor, there are hands that can afford to bid 4NT with one response scheme, but not the other.

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-April-04, 11:48, said:

I think I'm starting to get pulled over to this side.

Consider a very common choice: RKC 3014 vs 1430. If your suit is a minor, there are hands that can afford to bid 4NT with one response scheme, but not the other.

And what difference will this make for your choice of a call immediately following the 4NT bid? Once the response call to the 4NT bid has been made you may have all the information you want - in the regular and legal way.

[barmar]

pran, on 2012-April-04, 11:54, said:

And what difference will this make for your choice of a call immediately following the 4NT bid? Once the response call to the 4NT bid has been made you may have all the information you want - in the regular and legal way.

Could DOPI vs DEPO affect whether you interfere?

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-April-04, 12:00, said:

Could DOPI vs DEPO affect whether you interfere?

Over 4NT? I cannot see any reason why?
How can I guess the probability of being doubled (depending on DOPI or DEPO)? I have little or no idea whether my LHO has zero or one, one or two, or two or three aces.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2012-April-04, 11:25, said:

My point is that our laws explicitly limit "full disclosure"

Well. Limited full disclosure is oxymoronic. I think that it is not entirely unlikely that response schemes were left out of the description of "full disclosure" by accident.

Also, in general I find it curious that it is permitted to withold information that a)may well have been on the convention card of a more thorough pair and b) was freely available before the auction began.

And. The part of the discussion that concerns what the opponents may need to know is a red herring. It is not my business what they think they need to know and why.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2012-April-04, 15:27, said:

Over 4NT? I cannot see any reason why?
How can I guess the probability of being doubled (depending on DOPI or DEPO)? I have little or no idea whether my LHO has zero or one, one or two, or two or three aces.

You might feel, for example, that the ambiguity in DEPO could cause them a problem. Or that your interference over DOPI will limit their room to show more than I.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-04, 17:28, said:

Well. Limited full disclosure is oxymoronic. I think that it is not entirely unlikely that response schemes were left out of the description of "full disclosure" by accident.

Also, in general I find it curious that it is permitted to withold information that a)may well have been on the convention card of a more thorough pair and b) was freely available before the auction began.

And. The part of the discussion that concerns what the opponents may need to know is a red herring. It is not my business what they think they need to know and why.

I have a strong suspicion that response schemes were deliberately left out of the description in appreciation of the problems with having future calls rehearsed by the players using them in advance during the auction. Why bother with remembering Blackwood if we simply could ask: "How many aces do you have partner?" and get the answer "I have two!"? (In courtesy to the Bridge language we could simply add "that is a 4NT asking bid" and "that is a 5♥ response bid".)

And just to repeat myself: This is not a matter of withholding information, the information will be available at the proper time.