[barmar]

 Trinidad, on 2012-March-15, 19:22, said:

Because the meaning of future calls without intervention is what the 2NT bidder anticipated when he bid 2NT. Therefore, these meanings are relevant since they define the hands that bid 2NT.

Does the choice of which of 3♦ and 3♥ show bad hand/good suit or good hand/bad suit really define the hands that bid 2NT?

When my partner bids an Ogust 2NT, I don't feel like I have a good idea of what his hand is like, except that it's probably a good hand. I don't think my view would be changed if we were playing different styles of responses. They affect his accuracy in deciding where to place the contract, but don't significantly change the types of hands I expect him to hold.

However, there are other conventions where the response structure does suggest the kinds of hands that use it. Promissory Stayman implies that asker has at least one 4-card major. Puppet Stayman implies at least one 3-card major, and usually denies a 5-card major. Muppet Stayman is like Puppet, but could have 5 spades.

[pran]

 bluejak, on 2012-March-15, 16:51, said:

[...]
But I am very very suspicious about the ethics of anyone who wants to hide what a call asks for.

So am I (as should indeed be obvious from my announced reluctance to accept "no agreements" or similar as a "carte blanche" to avoid giving information to opponents).

 bluejak, on 2012-March-15, 16:51, said:

Of course I am not trying to find out what every response is and why, but I want to know what people mean by their call, and this idea that you do not need to Fully Disclose what you are playing because it is an asking bid is against the general ethical approach of the game. And what reason is there to do so?

but I want to know what people mean by their call Before they make it?

I don't want to be forced into a position where by explaining my future call I implicitly remind my partner what that call will mean (depending on which call I shall make) or alternatively by explaining partner's future call I implicitly remind him which call he shall make (depending on what he wants to signal to me).

On a specific request for such disclosure I shall of course answer it, but only with the Director present and on his instruction. That way all information given in response to such a request will be authorized for me and my partner.

 bluejak, on 2012-March-15, 16:51, said:

In practical terms, ethical players tell you these things anyway. If you ask what a 2NT response to 2♠ is they tell you whether ti shows values, whether it asks for features, or an artificial description like Ogust, and if you ask whether any responses are at the four-level they tell you without problem. I am very very dubious about the ethics of someone who tries to hide this information.

I have not noticed any post here indicating the interest of hiding such information. Where have you?

More specifically I have no problem telling opponents that in response to partner's 2NT over my Multi 2♦ I shall normally describe my opening hand further with one of the bids 3♣ through 3NT. I shall also gladly tell them that my response will indicate which weak major suit I have and in case whether it is in the weaker or stronger range, or in case that I have the strong NT variant. (This is indeed part of a full description of the 2NT bid.)

But according to my view stated above I feel a problem (both legally and ethically) disclosing at this time the (precise) meaning of either (or each) of these response bids.

 bluejak, on 2012-March-15, 16:51, said:

Anyway, since you ask whether I am serious, why do you think anyone who hides this information has any right on his side?

Because this is not a question of "hiding" information.

[Trinidad]

 barmar, on 2012-March-16, 00:48, said:

Does the choice of which of 3♦ and 3♥ show bad hand/good suit or good hand/bad suit really define the hands that bid 2NT?

Frankly, I don't know. I don't see how it would. But the fact that I don't see it doesn't mean that the rebid structure doesn't influence the hand types in the 2NT bid.

If you would have asked me two years ago whether my structure of rebids (rather than the type of information asked for) in the auction 2♠ (weak, 5♠+4+m)- 2NT would influence the types of hand in the 2NT bid, I would have replied "Of course not, how can that be?". Now, I know that the response structure does influence the types of hands that bid 2NT in my system. (see post #178.) If it can happen to my structure, it might happen to yours.

Playing Ogust, I can imagine hands where you can anticipate a reply (looking at your hand) and can anticipate that the opponents might make a safe suggesting double. That might make you decide to not ask and just punt. I know I have done things like that.

Say partner opens 2♠. You look at KQJ of spades and a diamond void. You would like to know if partner has a maximum or a minimum hand. If 3♦ shows a max with a poor suit, you might prefer to punt 4♠ to prevent the opponents from doubling partner's possible 3♦ reply, and finding their diamond fit. If 3♦ shows a min with a good suit, you can safely bid 2NT, because partner won't bid 3♦. If you would have the same hand with a heart void, your reasoning would be exactly the opposite. This makes it less/more likely that the 2NT bid will hold good trumps and a diamond/heart void.

I know that we are talking about examples where the meaning of 2NT is shifted only marginally. I don't expect many cases where this really matters in practice. But out of principle the opponents are entitled to know these marginal shifts, certainly if they specifically ask for it. All because it describes the hand types that are possible for a bid that was already made.

Rik

[Trinidad]

 pran, on 2012-March-16, 04:30, said:

Because this is not a question of "hiding" information.

Oh, yes it is. It is information about a bid that has been made and that some people refuse to give. That is hiding information (without quotation marks). You yourself only want to give this information when you are specifically instructed to do so by a TD, with the TD at the table. Why make a fuss? The opps ask about a bid made. You disclose everything about that bid. If you haven't disclosed everything (which will happen), the opponents can ask follow up questions and you will have to answer those, as long as they are about the call that was made (or could have been made). And all the time, we have been talking about explaining a call that has been made. So, you have to disclose.

If I would be the TD called to your table, I would make that clear to you and you will explain your response structure, because it gives information about the 2NT bid that has already been made.

 pran, on 2012-March-16, 04:30, said:

On a specific request for such disclosure I shall of course answer it, but only with the Director present and on his instruction. That way all information given in response to such a request will be authorized for me and my partner.

I can understand that you don't follow the above reasoning about how the explanation of 3♣-3NT gives information about 2NT. That is fine with me. I am trying to explain. My explanations may not be good or convincing enough.

But I cannot understand how a good TD can think that the answer to a question can ever be authorized if law 16B1a specifically says that it is unauthorized. How does the fact that the TD is present at the table change that?

Rik

[pran]

 Trinidad, on 2012-March-16, 07:12, said:

[...]
But I cannot understand how a good TD can think that the answer to a question can ever be authorized if law 16B1a specifically says that it is unauthorized. How does the fact that the TD is present at the table change that?

Rik

Law 16A1c said:

it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following)

TD instructions are clearly (part of) legal procedures authorized in these laws, and information arising from such instructions are therefore authorized for all players receiving it.

It is the responsibility of the TD to order a player away from the table while information is given if he (the TD) wants such information to remain UI for that player.

[blackshoe]

Not helpful. Why is it bizarre?

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2012-March-16, 07:55, said:

Not helpful. Why is it bizarre?

You do not think that the answer that you are planning to give is bizarre? If you don't see it, I don't know how to explain it.

But this specific case is one where none of this should matter. Responder has made a conventional call on the first round; opener's rebids should be listed on the convention card. But many people do not go into this much detail.

So only people who bother writing clear descriptions and/or footnotes will be disclosing information that the opponents are not entitled to. Something is not right here, unless I am missing something.

EDIT: Have just looked at the card I use with my most favourite partner and one I use with a one-a-month partner; it is all there. Once right in the description and once in a footnote. Am I doing myself a disservice? Should I remove the information, since the opponents are not entitled to read it before the rebid is made?

I had better remove Kokish, and my forcing major-suit raise structure, and my version of Puppet Stayman (especially as the latter is quite good and I don't want anyone to copy it). Oh, minor-suit super-accepts, retransfers after major super-accepts. After their weak two, their overcall of our 1NT and our reverses, should I leave "Lebensohl" and get rid of the continuations? Or is "Lebensohl" already too much advance information?

Must find a free business card offer to print out my new convention cards.

[Trinidad]

 pran, on 2012-March-16, 07:43, said:

 Trinidad, on 2012-March-16, 07:12, said:

[...]
But I cannot understand how a good TD can think that the answer to a question can ever be authorized if law 16B1a specifically says that it is unauthorized. How does the fact that the TD is present at the table change that?

Rik

Law 16A1c said:

it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following)

TD instructions are clearly (part of) legal procedures authorized in these laws, and information arising from such instructions are therefore authorized for all players receiving it.

It is the responsibility of the TD to order a player away from the table while information is given if he (the TD) wants such information to remain UI for that player.

It is very nice that you highlighted the text in red. I took the liberty of highlighting the few words immediately preceding and following it. What do you think they mean? Could it be that they refer to the following?

Law 16B1a said:

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by [] a reply to a question [] the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

And, just for the record, TD instructions are indeed "clearly (part of) legal procedures authorized in these laws". But so is Law 40B6a. Or do you seriously want to suggest that Law 16B1a is invalid as soon as a procedure according to Law 40B6a is started? (This means: "Or do you seriously want to suggest that a reply to a question is authorized information as soon as an opponent asks a question?".) I don't think you do. That is why there are those few words preceding and following the text you highlighted.

Rik

[pran]

In reply to Trinidad (rik) without quoting the post:

What do you think is the reason for, and logic behind the following clause in Law 20F1:
Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question.?

You are, I assume, familiar with the (unwritten) rule that when the Director executes his power to request a reply from the player who made the call he will first order the partner of that player away from the table.

It makes absolutely no difference if a player should be requested to explain his own calls not yet made, Law 20F1 of course applies also in such cases.

My personal opinion is that explanations of calls not yet made should be strictly limited to information that is neccessary for the understanding of a call already made and must not include any information that essentially is relevant as description of (possible) future calls.

[Trinidad]

We are NOT talking about future calls not made. We are talking about disclosing the agreements of a bid (2NT) that was made. The only point is that the disclosing side is not able to fully disclose the meaning of 2NT, as they are required, without explaining the responses. But we are still discussing the meaning of the 2NT bid that was made.

And, to be 100% clear, this complete explanation will be made, as written in 20F1, by the partner of the player who made the call in question (the 2NT bid).

Rik

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2012-March-16, 09:29, said:

You do not think that the answer that you are planning to give is bizarre? If you don't see it, I don't know how to explain it.

But this specific case is one where none of this should matter. Responder has made a conventional call on the first round; opener's rebids should be listed on the convention card. But many people do not go into this much detail.

So only people who bother writing clear descriptions and/or footnotes will be disclosing information that the opponents are not entitled to. Something is not right here, unless I am missing something.

EDIT: Have just looked at the card I use with my most favourite partner and one I use with a one-a-month partner; it is all there. Once right in the description and once in a footnote. Am I doing myself a disservice? Should I remove the information, since the opponents are not entitled to read it before the rebid is made?

I had better remove Kokish, and my forcing major-suit raise structure, and my version of Puppet Stayman (especially as the latter is quite good and I don't want anyone to copy it). Oh, minor-suit super-accepts, retransfers after major super-accepts. After their weak two, their overcall of our 1NT and our reverses, should I leave "Lebensohl" and get rid of the continuations? Or is "Lebensohl" already too much advance information?

Must find a free business card offer to print out my new convention cards.

I have never said you shouldn't put this information on your SC, or that opponents should not be allowed to look at it. All I have said is that they are not entitled to compel you to tell them, verbally, what future calls in your system might mean.

[blackshoe]

 Trinidad, on 2012-March-16, 17:00, said:

The only point is that the disclosing side is not able to fully disclose the meaning of 2NT, as they are required, without explaining the responses.

I believe I have demonstrated, at least for Ogust, that this is not the case. At least, it is possible to say what the responses will show without tying each response to a particular future call.

[barmar]

 Trinidad, on 2012-March-16, 05:20, said:

Playing Ogust, I can imagine hands where you can anticipate a reply (looking at your hand) and can anticipate that the opponents might make a safe suggesting double. That might make you decide to not ask and just punt. I know I have done things like that.

Say partner opens 2♠. You look at KQJ of spades and a diamond void. You would like to know if partner has a maximum or a minimum hand. If 3♦ shows a max with a poor suit, you might prefer to punt 4♠ to prevent the opponents from doubling partner's possible 3♦ reply, and finding their diamond fit. If 3♦ shows a min with a good suit, you can safely bid 2NT, because partner won't bid 3♦. If you would have the same hand with a heart void, your reasoning would be exactly the opposite. This makes it less/more likely that the 2NT bid will hold good trumps and a diamond/heart void.

While I suppose this logic is possible, I find it quite a stretch that the opponents could use the explanation of the possible responses to work out the kinds of hands you might hold when using Ogust. When you avoid it, you could just as easily have a hand that's worried about the club suit and anticipate a 3♣ response.

On the other hand, what makes some players champions is that they're adept at picking up on all the clues and figuring out what they imply; when reading bridge columns I'm sometimes amazed at how they work these things out. Should they be deprived of these clues just because I can't figure out how they can decipher them?

[Trinidad]

 barmar, on 2012-March-17, 11:17, said:

While I suppose this logic is possible, I find it quite a stretch that the opponents could use the explanation of the possible responses to work out the kinds of hands you might hold when using Ogust. When you avoid it, you could just as easily have a hand that's worried about the club suit and anticipate a 3♣ response.

I fully agree that this is quite a stretch for Ogust. But for other conventions this may not be a stretch at all. Think of the best known convention in bridge: Stayman. You could explain this as: "asking bid". You could explain it as: "asks (at first) for a major". And you could give the possible responses. At least that would give the opponents the idea that it might go: 1NT-2♣; 2♦-Pass.

 barmar, on 2012-March-17, 11:17, said:

On the other hand, what makes some players champions is that they're adept at picking up on all the clues and figuring out what they imply; when reading bridge columns I'm sometimes amazed at how they work these things out. Should they be deprived of these clues just because I can't figure out how they can decipher them?

And again I fully agree.

Rik

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2012-March-16, 18:05, said:

I have never said you shouldn't put this information on your SC, or that opponents should not be allowed to look at it. All I have said is that they are not entitled to compel you to tell them, verbally, what future calls in your system might mean.

So they get to find out about my methods, but not about those of a person who was more lax in filling out their convention card? This cannot be correct.

[blackshoe]

No? Why not?

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2012-March-17, 16:31, said:

No? Why not?

Do you have to ask? Is it not obvious that a player should not be disadvantaged by having a properly filled-out convention card?

[blackshoe]

Is that what's happening? I suppose it depends on your viewpoint. Perhaps what's happening is rather that your opponents are gaining an advantage by not completely filling out their cards. The way to deal with that, of course, is to penalize them for their failure.

[Trinidad]

 blackshoe, on 2012-March-17, 17:56, said:

Is that what's happening? I suppose it depends on your viewpoint. Perhaps what's happening is rather that your opponents are gaining an advantage by not completely filling out their cards. The way to deal with that, of course, is to penalize them for their failure.

How "deep" you fill out your convention card is -to a large extent- a matter of taste and a function of the complexity of the pair's system and the pair's tolerance for small font sizes. No CC of a pair playing somewhat advanced methods can ever be complete. That's OK since completeness is not the aim of the CC.

Most pairs that I meet don't have opener's rebids for 2♦-2NT on their card. We do, but that is largely due to the fact that we play the same method after a 2♥ opening, a 2♠ opening, all 2 level overcalls of a weak NT (Multi-Landy), a 2♦ and 2♥ overcall of a strong NT (DONT), Michaels' cuebids and some I may have missed. That makes it easy to explain the method in a corner of the (WBF style) card and refer to it at the appropriate places.

But if we would play different methods after 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ our CC would get overloaded and we would just fill out "2NT: asks".

Rik

[barmar]

So if I write "Ogust" on my CC, but don't list all the responses, I'm "not completely filling out my CC"?