[kevperk]

As a tournament and club director, I only play to fill in. Many times I am in the situation where my partner has opened a weak 2, or opened 2NT, or we were in the slam zone. I want to ask with 2NT,3 clubs, or 4NT, respective, but wasn't sure what responses we were playing. With the approach of saying - "Ogust",or "Puppet Stayman", or "1430 keycard", I will find out FROM MY PARTNER what his responses will be. I have always made up my mind beforehand(and have been right so far), but I can't see how anyone would know if I made no guess and just waited for my partners answer. This just seems an unacceptable way for this to happen. If anyone can give me ANY reason why my way is bad and the other way is good, other than the vague "you're being unethical and not giving full disclosure", please do.

[kevperk]

aguahombre, on 2012-February-22, 19:43, said:

Don't assume there is something wrong with your offering, just because a particular person disagrees.

The particular person is someone who's opinion I usually agree with, so would like to understand the nature of the disagreement.

[aguahombre]

kevperk, on 2012-February-22, 19:55, said:

The particular person is someone who's opinion I usually agree with, so would like to understand the nature of the disagreement.

I understand. And his take on the laws in general is the best around. For some reason, he has a hangup on this situation. Your thought process is not flawed.

[blackshoe]

At this point, I'll just say that in the ACBL "Ogust" or "Puppet Stayman" or any other provision of nothing more than the name of a convention is by regulation inadequate disclosure. You must say more than that.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-February-22, 18:43, said:

When this has been discussed before, people state unambiguously that you must not tell the opponents what the responses show.

Are we to understand that the words "refusing to tell them is unethical" referred to some other comments made by some other people in some other thread? If so, does anything else that you've said in this thread that fall into the same category, or can we assume that the rest of your comments were part of the current conversation?

PS: How are you getting on with explaining why 1♥-2NT and 2♥-2NT require different types of explanation?

[WellSpyder]

aguahombre, on 2012-February-22, 19:00, said:

bluejak, on 2012-February-22, 18:43, said:

Only unethical opponents help each other by saying "Puppet Stayman" or "Ogust". But Full Disclosure often means you are required to give UI to partner, and he can take advantage if he is a cheat or an ignoramus.

Without using such volatile and judgemental terms, what do you think of someone who believes there is a real difference between naming a convention which announces what you are going to do and announcing what you are going to do?

I don't think this is the distinction Bluejak is trying to make. What is unethical is using an explanation to give information to partner. What is required is to give full information to opponents. The fact that the latter inevitably gives info to partner (unless playing with screens) is unfortunate but unavoidable. In principle the information provided to partner makes his life more difficult not easier, because of how he is required to handle UI (though there is clearly a risk in practice that this can't be enforced adequately).

[gnasher]

Kevperk said:

No it is not. Ogust is not in response to a weak two, but in response to the asking bid response to the weak two. How can it be unethical if noone will be damaged, and it cannot benefit. Does the bid 2NT show any different type of hand if one plays Ogust than if one plays feature?

bluejak, on 2012-February-22, 18:43, said:

Of course. If your partner opens a weak two, and you want to choose between 3NT and five of a minor, a feature ask might tell you what is stopped, while Ogust would be useless.

Continuing with my analogy, suppose that partner opens 1♥ and I have a game-forcing raise with a side-suit of ♣KJxxx. My decision about whether to respond 2NT or 2♣ may depend on how effectively our methods after 2NT would allow me to show or evaluate the side suit. By your argument, the initial explanation of 1♥-2NT should detail all the hand-types that can subsequently be shown by opener or responder.

[bluejak]

According to a certain group of people, when you make a call asking a question, it is acceptable not to let the opponents know what you are asking. That is what I object strongly to. For example, 2NT - 3♣: they will not tell you it is Puppet Stayman and they call this Full Disclosure. 4NT: they will not tell you for what they are asking [actually, some of them admit to asking for aces, but not which aces] and so on.

Ok, you may think I am overboard when I consider this unethical, but do you really think hiding this information is legal?

Now some people try to muddy the waters by bringing in sequences where you do not ask a question, such as 1M - 2NT [and soon they will try 1M - 3M ], but those are not the same. When a call asks a specific question, Full Disclosure requires you to tell your opponents what the question is, and this method of trying to hide it and them claim to be doing something legal is anathema to me.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2012-February-23, 11:30, said:

For example, 2NT - 3♣: they will not tell you it is Puppet Stayman and they call this Full Disclosure.

In ACBL, they call this following the rules; and according to the rules, they fully disclose the continuations.

[barmar]

I don't think bluejak was referring to using the name "Puppet Stayman", but to describing the bid differently from normal Stayman.

I'm not sure what most people do about 4NT. I've never asked someone what 4NT was -- I've always waited until after the auction and then asked what the response showed, and the answer has always been appropriate to the flavor of Blackwood they used. I have a hard time coming up with a situation where I'd need to know before the response.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-February-23, 11:30, said:

According to a certain group of people, when you make a call asking a question, it is acceptable not to let the opponents know what you are asking. That is what I object strongly to. For example, 2NT - 3♣: they will not tell you it is Puppet Stayman and they call this Full Disclosure. 4NT: they will not tell you for what they are asking [actually, some of them admit to asking for aces, but not which aces] and so on.

Ok, you may think I am overboard when I consider this unethical, but do you really think hiding this information is legal?

Now some people try to muddy the waters by bringing in sequences where you do not ask a question, such as 1M - 2NT [and soon they will try 1M - 3M ], but those are not the same. When a call asks a specific question, Full Disclosure requires you to tell your opponents what the question is, and this method of trying to hide it and them claim to be doing something legal is anathema to me.

Does some of the above refer to me or Kevperk? Or is this yet another rebuttal of some unknown person's argument from some earlier thread?

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-February-23, 11:45, said:

In ACBL, they call this following the rules; and according to the rules, they fully disclose the continuations.

Who discloses these continuations, and when? If you're suggesting that the partner of a player who bid 3♣, by agreement Puppet Stayman, should say, when asked about three♣, what the continuations are, I disagree. There is no requirement in law or regulation to explain the meaning of calls which have not yet been made. In fact, I think a regulation like that would be in conflict with the laws.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-23, 23:02, said:

Who discloses these continuations, and when? If you're suggesting that the partner of a player who bid 3♣, by agreement Puppet Stayman, should say, when asked about three♣, what the continuations are, I disagree. There is no requirement in law or regulation to explain the meaning of calls which have not yet been made. In fact, I think a regulation like that would be in conflict with the laws.

You know the rules and what "disclosing the continuations means". For those who might not, the rules are that the responses to 3C are alerted and explained (if asked) and the partner of the person would made the response alerts. The alert is after the alertable bid has been made.

What I said was clear.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-February-24, 00:55, said:

What I said was clear.

Apparently not, or I would not have questioned it.

[bluejak]

We must not be confused by red herrings. Sure, it is difficult to think of someone being misled by not knowing which sort of ace-asking convention 4NT is. But there are two problems with this whole approach.

First, there are other situations where knowledge of what the asking bid asks for can affect the opponents' bidding. Knowing whether an ask is Ogust or a feature ask can affect whether a player thinks it is safe or necessary to overcall. This idea that a player need not disclose what 2NT is is merely an attempt to gain an unfair advantage by lack of Full Disclosure.

Second, some people think answering with a name is good enough. If someone tells their opponent that 3♣ is Stayman or 4NT is Balckwood then it is reasonable for them to assume that a 3♦ response is Stayman and a 5♦ response shows one ace out of four without further enquiry.

Quote

For example, 2NT - 3♣: they will not tell you it is Puppet Stayman and they call this Full Disclosure.

aguahombre, on 2012-February-23, 11:45, said:

In ACBL, they call this following the rules; and according to the rules, they fully disclose the continuations.

I know of no authority for this lack of Full Disclosure. Ok, some players will do this, but it is not following the rules in my view and I know of no statements by the ACBL that this follows the rules. I believe the main reason a player does this is to gain an unfair advantage.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-February-25, 12:08, said:

We must not be confused by red herrings. Sure, it is difficult to think of someone being misled by not knowing which sort of ace-asking convention 4NT is. But there are two problems with this whole approach.

First, there are other situations where knowledge of what the asking bid asks for can affect the opponents' bidding. Knowing whether an ask is Ogust or a feature ask can affect whether a player thinks it is safe or necessary to overcall. This idea that a player need not disclose what 2NT is is merely an attempt to gain an unfair advantage by lack of Full Disclosure.

Who suggested that "a player need not disclose what 2NT is"?

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2012-February-25, 12:08, said:

I know of no authority for this lack of Full Disclosure. Ok, some players will do this, but it is not following the rules in my view and I know of no statements by the ACBL that this follows the rules. I believe the main reason a player does this is to gain an unfair advantage.

Cheapest club response to a NT opener is not alerted if it asks for a four-card or longer major. Responses to that cheapest club bid are alertable if they are different than a major only showing 4 and 3D denying a major. If you don't recognize the alert procedures and chart as authorities, then I see the problem. If you think, despite this authority, the 3C bidder's partner should tell the opponents what he is going to do before he does it, then I see the problem.

[bluejak]

No-one is doubting the alert rules, which are not the subject of this thread.

But if you asked what the bid shows, are you not going to tell the truth?

[aguahombre]

The bid shows a desire for an answer to the question it asks. The answer will be alerted, and explained if asked by the opponents.

If the opponents want to know what types of hands might have just bid 3C, I will answer as best I can, even though I doubt they really need that information at that time.

If the opponents want to know what my potential answers to 3C are, they not only don't need to know, but can jolly well wait and ask after the response has occurred.

[bluejak]

Yes, but are you going to answer when they ask what question it asks? That is the point of contention: some people believe they have a right to hide this information, and I can see no reason to do this apart from gaining an unfair advantage by ignoring the dictates of Full Disclosure.