[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2012-March-06, 11:56, said:

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.

+1
IMO, you are supposed to tell:
- what 2NT asks for
- what kind of information you will be able to get
- how high the responses might get you (this shows, among other things, whether 2NT is GF opposite a max)

but not how you will get that information (which bid means what).

Rik

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-March-06, 15:54, said:

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.

At the time 3♦ has been bid it is perfectly legal to request "what would 3♣ have shown in this position?" or even "which other (alternative) responses to the 2NT bid were possible?", but it is not legal at the time of the 2NT bid to ask (for instance): "What will 3♣ or 3♦ show in response to this 2NT bid?"

The difference is that in the first case one asks about an alternative call not made instead of the call actually made, in the second case one asks about future calls not yet made.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2012-March-07, 03:02, said:

At the time 3♦ has been bid it is perfectly legal to request "what would 3♣ have shown in this position?" or even "which other (alternative) responses to the 2NT bid were possible?", but it is not legal at the time of the 2NT bid to ask (for instance): "What will 3♣ or 3♦ show in response to this 2NT bid?"

The difference is that in the first case one asks about an alternative call not made instead of the call actually made, in the second case one asks about future calls not yet made.

I'm sure this is correct, but I can imagine a situation where it unfairly disadvantages the asking side. Suppose that you have a hand where you might overcall 3♦, or you might choose to wait and hope to be able to double an artificial 3♦ bid. In order to make this decision, you need to know how likely it is that the bidding will continue 3♣-3♦, so you need to know what opener's actions will mean and what responder's options are after a 3♣ rebid.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me any such situations will be very rare.

[mycroft]

I am finding what I expected out of my 2♣ Keri response to 1NT. The explanation I've gone with is:

"either a hand that wants to play 2♦, or one of various invitational or better hands."

Invariably, the next question is "so you have to bid 2♦?" Oddly enough, they *never* care about the INV+ hands :-).

I feel that if you *ask* the question, I'm entitled/expected to answer it; but I shouldn't give it in the explanation unasked. I would rule against anyone who explained "she wants me to bid 2♦." or "transfer to diamonds" alone - that's clearly not FD; if it was just part of a complete answer, I'd probably just suggest a better way.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-07, 09:26, said:

It seems to me any such situations will be very rare.

Yes, of course, but that just means that one would very rarely choose to ask about bids that haven't yet been made. I don't understand why the rules apparently prevent one asking such questions on the rare occasions that one does want to know. The laws should simply say that you can ask about any aspect of the opponents' methods that you consider relevant.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2012-March-07, 12:15, said:

I don't understand why the rules apparently prevent one asking such questions on the rare occasions that one does want to know. The laws should simply say that you can ask about any aspect of the opponents' methods that you consider relevant.

Perhaps they should, but they don't. I suppose you can make your concerns known to Grattan, and hope something gets changed.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-07, 15:35, said:

I suppose you can make your concerns known to Grattan, and hope something gets changed.

LOL

[pran]

gnasher, on 2012-March-07, 12:15, said:

Yes, of course, but that just means that one would very rarely choose to ask about bids that haven't yet been made. I don't understand why the rules apparently prevent one asking such questions on the rare occasions that one does want to know. The laws should simply say that you can ask about any aspect of the opponents' methods that you consider relevant.

So if your RHO opens say 2♦ which is alerted and explained (on request) you find it quite OK to ask:
"What will each of the following answers mean: 2♥, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, ....... "?

And which of the opponents should answer such (additional) questions? (Just consider the consequences!)

[CSGibson]

There's been a lot of back and forth about disclosure. For the record, I am a big proponent of full disclosure, especially by those that play unusual methods. That being said, I have full sympathy for Kevin's position, and none for David's.

When asked about my 2N response to a weak 2 opener, I think "asking for further discription" is an accurate and complete explanation. I am not showing anything by bidding 2N, other than a desire to have more information. If, at that point, opponents want to ask about our response structure, I will be happy to explain our complete method, but to explain our responses unasked and before partner has a chance to give them is, in my opinion, cheating. In fact, I am very careful not to mention specific responses partner may make without that information being specifically requested by my opponent.

Once explanation of our possible responses are requested, I think I am obliged to give a comprehensive response, but opponents are aware of the downside - that they may be reminding partner of our system.

[blackshoe]

Some people aren't aware of much of anything.

There is always a set of possible hands with which you would make your asking bid, and a set with which you would not. So I think, when asked for an explanation of an asking bid, you owe opponents a description of the set of hands which would ask, unless such description is clearly "general bridge knowledge". So "asking for further description" is not adequate disclosure.

On the other question, about disclosing the meanings of calls not yet made, I believe strongly that neither the laws nor the principle of full disclosure require this, so I would not do it unless specifically so instructed by the TD — and then I would believe his ruling is in error.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-07, 19:26, said:

There is always a set of possible hands with which you would make your asking bid, and a set with which you would not. So I think, when asked for an explanation of an asking bid, you owe opponents a description of the set of hands which would ask, unless such description is clearly "general bridge knowledge". So "asking for further description" is not adequate disclosure.

Or you should specify the kind of further description being requested, from which the opponents can logically infer from GBK the kind of hands that would ask the question. Although things like non-promissory Stayman make this less clear -- while he's ostensibly asking about a 4-card major, it's sometimes just a temporizing bid forced by the rest of the system, so you should presumably mention this exception in the explanation (except that hardly anyone ever asks about Stayman).

There are some situations where this really may not be possible. For instance, in a relay system, where relays are practically automatic once you establish a game force, the asker just keeps asking until he thinks he has enough information about partner's hand to place the contract. These systems are often specifically designed to avoid divulging information about asker's hand, to make the defense more difficult.

[FrancesHinden]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-07, 15:35, said:

Perhaps they should, but they don't. I suppose you can make your concerns known to Grattan, and hope something gets changed.

Vampyr, on 2012-March-07, 15:41, said:

LOL

Why is that a LOL? Do you think Grattan was simply lying when he directly asked for suggestions for changes to be considered by the WBFLC?

[FrancesHinden]

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 understand what you can possibly find shocking. The Law is very clear and very specific: you are not entitled to ask about calls not yet made; therefore you are not entitled to everything
What's more, the logic behind this law makes very good sense to me for the reasons that Trinidad (and others) are arguing. I don't want to play in a world where there are conversations along the lines of:

North: 4NT
East: What's that mean?
South: It asks me for keycards with 1430 responses, except that if I've got a void I jump to 5NT with an even number of keycards or bid 6 of the void with an odd number of keycards. Oh, and if you double we play DOPI/ROPI


or

North 2H
East Pass
South 2NT
West: what's that mean?
North: It asks me to bid a singleton with a maximum, 3NT with a solid suit, or 3H with a minimum

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2012-March-07, 21:41, said:

Or you should specify the kind of further description being requested, from which the opponents can logically infer from GBK the kind of hands that would ask the question. Although things like non-promissory Stayman make this less clear -- while he's ostensibly asking about a 4-card major, it's sometimes just a temporizing bid forced by the rest of the system, so you should presumably mention this exception in the explanation (except that hardly anyone ever asks about Stayman).

This is essentially what I was saying in my answers on this subject. I think it is necessary to describe the hand types that the bidder can hold rather than (specifically) what is being asked for. In this case something like "a hand with a 4 card major, or a balanced invite, or a game-forcing hand with a 5+ card minor" would probably do the trick.

barmar, on 2012-March-07, 21:41, said:

There are some situations where this really may not be possible. For instance, in a relay system, where relays are practically automatic once you establish a game force, the asker just keeps asking until he thinks he has enough information about partner's hand to place the contract. These systems are often specifically designed to avoid divulging information about asker's hand, to make the defense more difficult.

As I wrote earlier, relay systems have relay breaks. It is not automatic to just keep relaying. In these cases it is usually easier to list the hand types not held rather than those held. It is quite common for relayers to hide behind "it's just a relay" as an answer without giving the negative connotations they have from partner not having chosen an alternative route. As an example, we had a thread where people were saying how, during an auction review, they would like descriptions of the individual bids to know which questions were being asked as opposed to just finding out what the bids showed. But this should not be necessary if the relaying side described what the relayer had shown, or at least implied, by their choice of sequence. If the relayer asks about a 3 card major and then signs off in 3NT then there is a reasonable expectation that they hold 5 cards in a major. Even if this is not promised the description should include "will very often be a hand with a 5 card major" or something along these lines.

[FrancesHinden]

p.s. playing with screens there is more of an incentive to allow for questions about continuations

[FrancesHinden]

Zelandakh, on 2012-March-08, 02:27, said:

This is essentially what I was saying in my answers on this subject. I think it is necessary to describe the hand types that the bidder can hold rather than (specifically) what is being asked for. In this case something like "a hand with a 4 card major, or a balanced invite, or a game-forcing hand with a 5+ card minor" would probably do the trick.

Yes. We don't play normal Stayman, we alert partner's 2C bid and describe it as "at least invitational values, initially asking about opener's major suits"

I think that's enough for most cases as the full explanation would take so long it wouldn't be helpful... if we said every time "either invitational with a 5-card major, inv or FG with one or two 4-card majors, or 5-5 majors FG, or invitational with 5-4/4-5/5-5 majors, or a balanced/semi-balanced slam try" no-one would take it in..

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-March-08, 02:27, said:

I don't want to play in a world where there are conversations along the lines of:

North: 4NT
East: What's that mean?
South: It asks me for keycards with 1430 responses, except that if I've got a void I jump to 5NT with an even number of keycards or bid 6 of the void with an odd number of keycards. Oh, and if you double we play DOPI/ROPI


or

North 2H
East Pass
South 2NT
West: what's that mean?
North: It asks me to bid a singleton with a maximum, 3NT with a solid suit, or 3H with a minimum

Wouldn't you like to live in a world where it usually goes:

North 2H
East Pass
South 2NT
West: what's that mean?
North: Asking about range and shape, not necessarily strong

But once in a blue moon it continues:

East: How are you expected to reply?
North: I bid a singleton with a maximum, 3NT with a solid suit, or 3H with a minimum

[gnasher]

pran, on 2012-March-07, 17:58, said:

So if your RHO opens say 2♦ which is alerted and explained (on request) you find it quite OK to ask:
"What will each of the following answers mean: 2♥, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, ....... "?

And which of the opponents should answer such (additional) questions? (Just consider the consequences!)

I've considered the consequences, and they seem fine to me. I don't much care which one of them answers. I ask them a question about their methods, and one of them tells me. Or if they don't have an agreement, they tell me that they don't have an agremeent.

[pran]

gnasher, on 2012-March-08, 04:43, said:

I've considered the consequences, and they seem fine to me. I don't much care which one of them answers. I ask them a question about their methods, and one of them tells me. Or if they don't have an agreement, they tell me that they don't have an agremeent.

So you will appreciate the answer: "2♦ is multi and I intend to answer 2♠ which is invitation to game in hearts if partner has a weak hand with hearts and suggests pass if he has a weak hand with spades"?

Never try that with me as Director in charge!