[pran]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-04, 17:30, said:

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.

And how will whether they use DEPO or DOPI affect your choice of call directly over the 4NT bid?

[gnasher]

pran, on 2012-April-05, 02:39, said:

And how will whether they use DEPO or DOPI affect your choice of call directly over the 4NT bid?

Earlier in this thread you asked me and others to stop discussing the question of whether anyone would need to know the meanings of future calls. As you correctly pointed out, this is irrelevant under the current laws, because the only relevant question is what the laws permit you to know.

So I have stopped discussing it. Why haven't you?

[pran]

gnasher, on 2012-April-05, 03:39, said:

Earlier in this thread you asked me and others to stop discussing the question of whether anyone would need to know the meanings of future calls. As you correctly pointed out, this is irrelevant under the current laws, because the only relevant question is what the laws permit you to know.

So I have stopped discussing it. Why haven't you?

It was another attempt to show the irrelevance of a post rather than just ignoring it.

But I might probably better have ignored both his post(s) and yours?

Anyway I shall from now on.

[Trinidad]

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)?

Sven,

Please read David's post #344 in this thread. It clearly says in one sentence why you may be required to explain the responses to an asking bid after the asking bid has been made. That one line should have been the end of the discussion.

Your argument that you are not supposed to explain future calls doesn't hold. Nowhere in the Laws does it say that you are not supposed to or required to disclose future calls. The fact that Law 20F doesn't specifically mention that you have to explain future calls, does not excuse you from not explaining future calls when they give "relevant inferences from the choice of [an] action [that has been made] where these are matters of partnership understanding". After all, Law 20F specifically says that you have to explain those. Not explaining the relevant inferences of an asking bid (which includes the response structure) is a breach of Law.

If you do not understand how relevant inferences are given by the response structure, there have been several posts that have tried to explain that and I even gave an example where this happened in real life (#178). IMO, this one example alone should make anybody realize that the response structure does affect what kind of hands will be used for the asking bid. (With another response structure my partner would have never asked with the hand he held).

Your argument that the explanation of future calls gives UI doesn't hold either. Any explanation gives UI. It has been accepted that full disclosure trumps giving UI (see also WellSpyder's post #351). And, as WellSpyder says, the effect of UI is limited. Only in the case where a pair doesn't know what they are playing is the UI significant. This happens to be the case at many ACBL clubs (see my post in another thread) and probably some other small clubs as well, but in a serious competition this shouldn't happen.

Summarizing:
- Law 20F clearly states that you have to disclose relevant inferences.
- We have explained how, in the case of asking bids, the response structure gives those relevant inferences.
- Therefore, when asked, you will have to explain those relevant inferences, if necessary by giving the responses.
- The UI argument doesn't hold, since any explanation gives UI and it doesn't hold for other explanations either: FD trumps UI.

The argument that you use to debate the other side is that the Laws do not specifically tell you that you have to explain future calls. From that you conclude that you are not allowed to explain future calls or cannot be required to explain future calls. You draw that conclusion so far that you argue that you never have to explain future calls. You argue that you shouldn't even be required to explain future calls when Law 20F states that you do (because they give relevant inferences about calls that have been made). All because you state that you never have to explain future calls, while there is no basis in the Laws for your statement.

This whole debate started around the question whether an RA is allowed to forbid players to explain future calls. That would be allowed (Law 80B2e-f) if it wouldn't be against the Laws. In this case it is against Law 20F, because of the "relevant inferences" clause and, therefore, an RA is not allowed to forbid players to explain future calls if this information gives relevant inferences about bids that have been made. That is the answer to the question. Whether the ACBL will care is an entirely different question.

Rik

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2012-April-05, 02:27, said:

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.

I don't think this scheme would work -- could you really count on the opponents to ask in enough detail? The vast majority of the time, they won't care.

[kevperk]

Trinidad, on 2012-April-05, 05:55, said:

Sven,

Please read David's post #344 in this thread. It clearly says in one sentence why you may be required to explain the responses to an asking bid after the asking bid has been made. That one line should have been the end of the discussion.

Your argument that you are not supposed to explain future calls doesn't hold. Nowhere in the Laws does it say that you are not supposed to or required to disclose future calls. The fact that Law 20F doesn't specifically mention that you have to explain future calls, does not excuse you from not explaining future calls when they give "relevant inferences from the choice of [an] action [that has been made] where these are matters of partnership understanding". After all, Law 20F specifically says that you have to explain those. Not explaining the relevant inferences of an asking bid (which includes the response structure) is a breach of Law.

If you do not understand how relevant inferences are given by the response structure, there have been several posts that have tried to explain that and I even gave an example where this happened in real life (#178). IMO, this one example alone should make anybody realize that the response structure does affect what kind of hands will be used for the asking bid. (With another response structure my partner would have never asked with the hand he held).

Your argument that the explanation of future calls gives UI doesn't hold either. Any explanation gives UI. It has been accepted that full disclosure trumps giving UI (see also WellSpyder's post #351). And, as WellSpyder says, the effect of UI is limited. Only in the case where a pair doesn't know what they are playing is the UI significant. This happens to be the case at many ACBL clubs (see my post in another thread) and probably some other small clubs as well, but in a serious competition this shouldn't happen.

Summarizing:
- Law 20F clearly states that you have to disclose relevant inferences.
- We have explained how, in the case of asking bids, the response structure gives those relevant inferences.
- Therefore, when asked, you will have to explain those relevant inferences, if necessary by giving the responses.
- The UI argument doesn't hold, since any explanation gives UI and it doesn't hold for other explanations either: FD trumps UI.

The argument that you use to debate the other side is that the Laws do not specifically tell you that you have to explain future calls. From that you conclude that you are not allowed to explain future calls or cannot be required to explain future calls. You draw that conclusion so far that you argue that you never have to explain future calls. You argue that you shouldn't even be required to explain future calls when Law 20F states that you do (because they give relevant inferences about calls that have been made). All because you state that you never have to explain future calls, while there is no basis in the Laws for your statement.

This whole debate started around the question whether an RA is allowed to forbid players to explain future calls. That would be allowed (Law 80B2e-f) if it wouldn't be against the Laws. In this case it is against Law 20F, because of the "relevant inferences" clause and, therefore, an RA is not allowed to forbid players to explain future calls if this information gives relevant inferences about bids that have been made. That is the answer to the question. Whether the ACBL will care is an entirely different question.

Rik

In the minutes of the WBFLC in Beijing, it says "20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents’ >prior< auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation >only< of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing." Why did they choose to use the words "prior" and "only"? It just seems that if they wanted the laws to be interpreted the way you suggest, they certainly wouldn't have worded it this way.

[pran]

kevperk, on 2012-April-06, 01:17, said:

In the minutes of the WBFLC in Beijing, it says "20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents’ >prior< auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation >only< of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing." Why did they choose to use the words "prior" and "only"? It just seems that if they wanted the laws to be interpreted the way you suggest, they certainly wouldn't have worded it this way.

("You" in the last sentence here apparently refers to Trinidad for whose entry this post was a comment.)

Thanks a lot for this information!

I must admit I do not read the various minutes from WBFLC as carefully as I used to do, and it is very comforting to see this reference which I understand to be a confirmation that my position is entirely correct.

A member of the Norwegian Law committee has similarly backed me up (in private), and he gave an example of what is considered inference from the choice of action: If a player bids 4NT (asking for aces) then such inference can be that he has no void because in that case he would (might) instead have used exclusion Blackwood.

regards

[Trinidad]

kevperk, on 2012-April-06, 01:17, said:

In the minutes of the WBFLC in Beijing, it says "20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents’ >prior< auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation >only< of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing." Why did they choose to use the words "prior" and "only"? It just seems that if they wanted the laws to be interpreted the way you suggest, they certainly wouldn't have worded it this way.

Let me put it like this. (I am refering to post #178).
1) Do you think that the fact that the 2NT bidder might hold a signoff with long clubs is a relevant inference?
2) Do you agree that the opponents are entitled to know this inference (after the 2NT bid has been made, of course)?
3) The partner of the 2NT bidder was not able to draw the inference himself. He would have gladly added "He can have a weak hand with clubs" to his explanation, but he was unaware and, hence, could not explain the inference directly.
4) Do you agree that if the partner of the 2NT bidder would have explained the response structure, the opponent just might have drawn the inference himself?

Obviously, it would be better if we would be able to explain such an inference explicitly. But in the cases where we aren't, shouldn't the next best thing be to give the opponent the explanation that gives this inference by implication? That will at least give the opponent the same chance as the partner of the 2NT bidder to come up with the inference.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2012-April-06, 03:26, said:

Let me put it like this. (I am refering to post #178).
1) Do you think that the fact that the 2NT bidder might hold a signoff with long clubs is a relevant inference?
2) Do you agree that the opponents are entitled to know this inference (after the 2NT bid has been made, of course)?
3) The partner of the 2NT bidder was not able to draw the inference himself. He would have gladly added "He can have a weak hand with clubs" to his explanation, but he was unaware and, hence, could not explain the inference directly.
4) Do you agree that if the partner of the 2NT bidder would have explained the response structure, the opponent just might have drawn the inference himself?

Obviously, it would be better if we would be able to explain such an inference explicitly. But in the cases where we aren't, shouldn't the next best thing be to give the opponent the explanation that gives this inference by implication? That will at least give the opponent the same chance as the partner of the 2NT bidder to come up with the inference.

Rik

The information available to opponents immediately following the 2NT bid includes:
1: The partnership understanding of the 2NT bid.
2: The calls he (according to partnership understandings) could have chosen instead of the 2NT bid.
3: The partnership understanding related to each such alternative call.
4: The inference from the player chosing to bid 2NT instead of one of his available alternatives.

So if your partnership understandings include a particular call alternative to the 2NT bid and this alternative call would have shown a signoff with long clubs then the relevant inference of chosing 2NT instead of this alternative call is that he (probably) does not have a signoff hand with long clubs.
This inference is part of an explanation of the 2NT bid.

Otherwise the inference that because partnership understandings do not include any call to describe a signoff hand with long clubs the 2NT bid might be used in the hope that partner would bid 3♣ which then could be passed out is not part of the explanation of the 2NT bid.

The best evidence of this situation here is that the player who bid 3♣ got as surprised as his opponents that the bid was passed out. However, this experience may very well lead to an implicit (or even explicit) additional partnership understanding of the 2NT bid in the future.

[barmar]

What you're saying is that since you don't trust the player to give an explanation including all the relevant inferences, you should be allowed to ask for additional information (not specifically authorized by the Laws) so you can draw those inferences yourself. Is that it?

It seems more like the appropriate way to handle this within the Laws is to request an explanation with inferences. Then, if it turns out they didn't include the possibility of weak with long clubs in the explanation, you get a ruling based on misinformation.

If this was the first time this possibility came up, and the explainer didn't anticipate it, that's too bad for him. Getting a ruling against him should help him remember for the future.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2012-April-06, 08:34, said:

If this was the first time this possibility came up, and the explainer didn't anticipate it, that's too bad for him. Getting a ruling against him should help him remember for the future.

That is an interesting thought. I think you just invented a way around all that silly discussion about how to determine whether we have an agreement.

[blackshoe]

If you're looking for a ruling "against" somebody, does that mean you called the TD "on" him?

[aguahombre]

That + above was to atone for my failure to recognize your pun about generals in the MOD forum thread.

We might also inquire whether Corporal punishment is a Major concern; or whether a director should keep his agenda Private.

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-April-06, 08:34, said:

What you're saying is that since you don't trust the player to give an explanation including all the relevant inferences, you should be allowed to ask for additional information (not specifically authorized by the Laws) so you can draw those inferences yourself. Is that it?

If this is addressed to me I must express my admiration for a "mindreader" that (apparently) can read more of my mind that it actually contains. Not that such mindreading seems reliable.

[kevperk]

Trinidad, on 2012-April-06, 03:26, said:

Let me put it like this. (I am refering to post #178).
1) Do you think that the fact that the 2NT bidder might hold a signoff with long clubs is a relevant inference?
2) Do you agree that the opponents are entitled to know this inference (after the 2NT bid has been made, of course)?
3) The partner of the 2NT bidder was not able to draw the inference himself. He would have gladly added "He can have a weak hand with clubs" to his explanation, but he was unaware and, hence, could not explain the inference directly.
4) Do you agree that if the partner of the 2NT bidder would have explained the response structure, the opponent just might have drawn the inference himself?

Obviously, it would be better if we would be able to explain such an inference explicitly. But in the cases where we aren't, shouldn't the next best thing be to give the opponent the explanation that gives this inference by implication? That will at least give the opponent the same chance as the partner of the 2NT bidder to come up with the inference.

Rik

1) Yes, of course
2) Yes, of course
3) No question asked
4) Yes, but if the opponent asks about the subsequent 3 club bid and also other available bids (in other words, the response structure), the opponent still just might have drawn the inference himself.
If the opponents are damaged by not know the inference, then the can appeal to the director for redress.

[barmar]

pran, on 2012-April-06, 13:58, said:

If this is addressed to me I must express my admiration for a "mindreader" that (apparently) can read more of my mind that it actually contains. Not that such mindreading seems reliable.

I don't think I was reading your mind, I was interpreting your logic. You want the opponents to disclose things so you can form the inferences yourself, even though the Laws already require them to disclose those inferences directly.

So just as you can infer what's in someone's hand from the bids, I can infer what's in your mind from his.

[Trinidad]

kevperk, on 2012-April-07, 00:09, said:

1) Yes, of course
2) Yes, of course
3) No question asked
4) Yes, but if the opponent asks about the subsequent 3 club bid and also other available bids (in other words, the response structure), the opponent still just might have drawn the inference himself.
If the opponents are damaged by not know the inference, then the can appeal to the director for redress.

Thank you for your answers.

Regarding 4: But then the opponent can only draw the inference one round later than he was entitled to (according to your answers to 1 and 2). I realize that this would hardly matter in this particular case, but there may be a case where it would matter.

Furthermore, my view on this is that if the responder had fully disclosed the response structure rightaway, it should be part of GBK that the 2NT bidder might have held a club sign-off. After all, at the time, there was no -explicit or implicit- agreement. (Now, of course, there is.) Fully disclosing the response structure (i.e. everything relevant that you know through explicit and implicit agreements around this auction) should not lead to an MI ruling.
I agree with you that withholding the response structure could lead to an MI ruling.

Rik

[kevperk]

Trinidad, on 2012-April-08, 09:50, said:

Thank you for your answers.

Regarding 4: But then the opponent can only draw the inference one round later than he was entitled to (according to your answers to 1 and 2). I realize that this would hardly matter in this particular case, but there may be a case where it would matter.

Furthermore, my view on this is that if the responder had fully disclosed the response structure rightaway, it should be part of GBK that the 2NT bidder might have held a club sign-off. After all, at the time, there was no -explicit or implicit- agreement. (Now, of course, there is.) Fully disclosing the response structure (i.e. everything relevant that you know through explicit and implicit agreements around this auction) should not lead to an MI ruling.
I agree with you that withholding the response structure could lead to an MI ruling.

Rik

As the opponent, I would much rather the response structure not be disclosed BEFORE the response is made. In my experience in these situations, the potential UI problems are far more of a real problem than the MI problems.

[Trinidad]

kevperk, on 2012-April-12, 12:35, said:

As the opponent, I would much rather the response structure not be disclosed BEFORE the response is made. In my experience in these situations, the potential UI problems are far more of a real problem than the MI problems.

That is fine. Nobody forces you (as an opponent) to ask for it.

But in the rare case that the opponents would ask for the response structure (before the response has been made) -because they feel it helps them to understand the asking bid- should you then give this information?

Rik

[kevperk]

Trinidad, on 2012-April-13, 07:58, said:

That is fine. Nobody forces you (as an opponent) to ask for it.

But in the rare case that the opponents would ask for the response structure (before the response has been made) -because they feel it helps them to understand the asking bid- should you then give this information?

Rik

Yes, if it is specifically requested. If I just ask for an explanation of the bid itself, I don't want them to volunteer the response structure.

Kevin