[Trinidad]

pran, on 2012-March-28, 16:18, said:

If I understand correctly what you are asking, the answer is that you are supposed to inform opponents about your agreements within this partnership, your agreements with other players are definitely irrelevant.

If I understand mycroft correctly, you are not understanding correctly what he is asking. In fact, mycroft is not really asking anything, he is just giving an example on how his opponents refused to disclose the information that they had.

Mycroft asked his opponent whether a 4=4=3=2 would be the only possible distribution with 2 clubs in the 1♣ opening and got the answer "I don't know". In reality, his opponent did know since -as it turned out later- the 1♣ opening was either
- unbalanced and natural
or
- any 18-19 balanced hand (i.e. including 4=3=4=2, 3=4=4=2, 3=3=5=2 and possibly even 5=3=3=2 and 3=5=3=2)

Too me it is obvious that this information should be given immediately when asked about the 1♣ opening. To mycroft's opponent this doesn't seem so obvious.

I think what confused you was the fact that mycroft said that he might have had different defenses against a 1♣ opener that is "Standard American or 4=4=3=2" and the 1♣ opener that his opponents were playing. He differentiates his defenses with other partners, but not with this one. If he would have had different defenses then a correct answer to his question would be crucial.

Rik

[mycroft]

Yes, sorry to confuse. This person has twice offered "content-free" and "I don't know" answers to questions about conventions where it was very much to his benefit to have the opponents more in the dark than he is. I don't think it's deliberate (for this person), but if it happens again, I'm taking it official.

My relation of this in the context of this argument is that by and large, a *proper and complete* explanation of what partner has for their choice of this call will frequently obviate the requirement to "understand the potential reponses so that I can work out what he could have for the call" - and that it frequently isn't done, and that it doesn't seem to be a problem for most people.

The side note on "I'm asking because I'm allowed to play different defences to a short club than a 4=4=3=2" is more "I'm asking all the time, now, so that when I *do* have different defences, they aren't warned by my asking/partner isn't reminded by the UI of me asking." But it was a side note - I've always asked "how short" and "what hand would he have when he's short" to "could be short" Announcements, and about half the time I get an answer; the other half I get "I don't know, it just could be short".

[mgoetze]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-28, 09:13, said:

Uh, huh. This is nonsense.



This, on the other hand, is pure horse crap.

Well, I rest my case then.

I do feel the urge to add though, that the more posts of yours I read, the more I wonder how anyone in their right mind could have made you a moderator.

[Cthulhu D]

mycroft, on 2012-March-29, 12:03, said:

The side note on "I'm asking because I'm allowed to play different defences to a short club than a 4=4=3=2" is more "I'm asking all the time, now, so that when I *do* have different defences, they aren't warned by my asking/partner isn't reminded by the UI of me asking." But it was a side note - I've always asked "how short" and "what hand would he have when he's short" to "could be short" Announcements, and about half the time I get an answer; the other half I get "I don't know, it just could be short".

How can people not answer this correctly? I say "unbalanced with clubs, balanced without 5 diamonds or 4441 without a stiff spade" It's seriously not difficult at all. Ugh.

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2012-March-28, 07:53, said:

Why?
If I understand the situation correct then opponents received the correct information (and you were at least as surprised as your opponents)?

Another example along a similar line (It is trivial these days, but was very ingenious when first used):
1NT - pass - 2♣ (Stayman) - pass -
2♦ (No major suit with 4 cards) - pass - pass(!?!?!) - pass

It turns out that opener's partner held xxxx - xxxx - xxxx - x

MI? No.

That (Garbage Stayman) is a very good example. Now, think of the first time Garbage Stayman was used. Responder figured out a smart way to get out of a bad 1NT contract, because he made clever use of the response structure. Up to then, nobody realized that responder could pass 2♦ (or 2M for that matter).

Keep in mind that there are, and certainly were, different response structures to 2♣. In many cases, you couldn't use Garbage Stayman since opener might rebid 2NT or something at the three level. Garbage Stayman is only possible if you have the explicit agreement that opener will never rebid higher than 2♠.

The responder could invent Garbage Stayman, because he knew that the rebid structure would allow him to use it.

Now suppose the guy in second seat holds ♣AKQJxxx and out. He passes 1NT because that will go down. He passes 2♦ because he thinks he will have another shot and they might get to 2NT or 3NT. Fine, tough luck. But now suppose that this guy is even smarter and more creative than responder: If he would have known this pair's responses to Stayman, he would have figured out that responder might pass 2♦ and he would have come in with 3♣. It is even possible that this guy had already invented Garbage Stayman himself, but that it hadn't come up yet. Don't you feel that he is entitled to know that a Garbage Stayman hand is possible for responder?

In a way, we have been explaining future bids for ages. It is very common to explain whether a bid is forcing or not. In many jurisdictions you even need to alert opponents based on whether a bid is forcing or not (e.g. negative free bids). That is a simple example of explaining the bid that just had been made by saying how you are systemically expected/allowed to continue the auction.

So, explaining a bid by explaining how the auction might continue is nothing new and in some cases even prescribed the RA.

Rik

[Trinidad]

mgoetze, on 2012-March-29, 15:39, said:

Well, I rest my case then.

I can think of only one excuse for Blackshoe's post.

Rik

[bluejak]

I think we have had enough personal posts on this thread. Please desist.

[phil_20686]

I am mystified by this thread: it seems to me that you should answer almost any system question unless it is obviously irrelevant.

On the future bids bit: here is my counter example to Ed: Do you think its legal to ask whether your opponents play penalty doubles of 4S before deciding what level to preempt at? This seems like the clearest possible example of a future bid being relavent to my bidding. There are a lot of double related situations where you would like to bid differently depending on if they play pen x or t/o.

[blackshoe]

I do not agree that including whether a call is forcing or not is an explanation of future calls. Saying it is forcing is saying that a future call other than pass will (probably — one is still allowed to pass even a forcing bid) be made. It says nothing about what that future call might mean.

Rik, you have provided a long example here of how the explanation might say that the auction might continue, which as I say above is not the same as saying how it might continue, but then you add, without any corroborating evidence, that "explaining how the auction might continue is nothing new and in some cases even prescribed [by] the RA". You've provided no evidence to support that in this post. I've not gone through the entire thread, but I don't recall any such evidence previously provided, nor do I recall any such prescription (of course, I don't know every RA's regulations). Where's the beef?

[barmar]

Saying that a bid is "forcing" is just a shorthand for describing its strength and/or artificiality, it's not a description of partner's followup actions. E.g. "forcing NT" means a hand with the strength to respond, but not appropriate for any other bid (since the Laws allow asking about bids available but not made, the opponents can figure out what kinds of hands it could be by process of elimination).

[mycroft]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-March-29, 23:40, said:

How can people not answer this correctly? I say "unbalanced with clubs, balanced without 5 diamonds or 4441 without a stiff spade" It's seriously not difficult at all. Ugh.

In many cases, the issue is that they've never thought about it since they agreed to play it, n+1 years ago. For instance, the kinds of Precision pairs that can't tell me "how short" their 1♦ call is know that:
- it could be short, and
- they have to announce that
but they've forgotten why it could be short, until, of course, it comes up, in which case they say "can't bid NT, can't bid 1M, can't bid 2m, have to bid 1♦". But they still don't actually *know* what they're doing.

My other example is too smart for that - and makes up the systems for his CHOs. I'm sure he *knows*, he just doesn't think ahead, and since nobody asks these questions, he doesn't have to. At least that's the generous explanation, and that's the one I'm going with (until it happens again, I guess).

But yeah, in general I agree with you, and "has a runout with two non-touching suits, or a hand that wants to play 1NTxx" should be *at least* as easy to say as "if you pass, I have to redouble", while also, you know, explaining partner's bid.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2012-March-30, 10:47, said:

In many cases, the issue is that they've never thought about it since they agreed to play it, n+1 years ago. For instance, the kinds of Precision pairs that can't tell me "how short" their 1♦ call is know that:
- it could be short, and
- they have to announce that
but they've forgotten why it could be short, until, of course, it comes up, in which case they say "can't bid NT, can't bid 1M, can't bid 2m, have to bid 1♦". But they still don't actually *know* what they're doing.

This example seems a bit out there -- if you play Precision, don't 1♦ openings come up on a regular basis?

However, they probably do think of it similarly to the way I described forcing NT: it's the catch-all bid used for opening hands that don't fit anything else. It doesn't show anything specific, it shows "everything else".

[mycroft]

Trust me: ask all the flight B "could be short" players either "how short" or "what does she have when it's short" and see how many people can't answer it. Heck, ask all the Flight A players. Yes, you'll have to discount those who don't think they *have to* or don't *want to* answer it, but still.

Part of it is that people who play Majors 5, Diamonds 4, or Precision the "normal" way, don't realize there is any other way to do it, so "could be short" means "what I play". But part of it is that people know what they play, but can't or haven't put it into words.

[pran]

phil_20686, on 2012-March-30, 09:09, said:

I am mystified by this thread: it seems to me that you should answer almost any system question unless it is obviously irrelevant.

On the future bids bit: here is my counter example to Ed: Do you think its legal to ask whether your opponents play penalty doubles of 4S before deciding what level to preempt at? This seems like the clearest possible example of a future bid being relavent to my bidding. There are a lot of double related situations where you would like to bid differently depending on if they play pen x or t/o.

This question has (indirectly) been answered in a comment from (at least the Norwegian) Law committee:

A partnership must decide and disclose the nature of their opening bids at the three level (for instance if they are weak [preemptive] or strong [invitational]) without knowing whether their opponents' possible double will be weak (for takeout) or strong (for penalties).

Their opponents have the privilege to select their defences over such opening bids after first learning the nature of these.

[Trinidad]

Just for the record, I am with Pran on this one. A preemptor is only supposed to know whether the opponent's double is penalty or takeout after he has made his preempt.

Bids are fully disclosed in the order that they are made.

But that is something very different from what I have been arguing. I have been arguing that you should be able (or might even need) to disclose an asking bid that has been made by explaining:

- what the bid asks for
- what the possible answers might be

since this defines the hand types that are included in the asking bid.

Rik

[blackshoe]

The law does not prohibit explanations that exceed the requirements of full disclosure, so anyone is "able" to explain the meanings of future calls if he wishes. Equally, the laws do not, indeed can not require explanations that exceed the requirements of full disclosure. I keep seeing assertions that someone "may" need to explain the meanings of future calls in order to meet the requirements of full disclosure, but I have seen no convincing example of same. I see the argument that the response "define" the meaning of an asking bid. I don't buy that either.

[phil_20686]

pran, on 2012-March-30, 16:11, said:

This question has (indirectly) been answered in a comment from (at least the Norwegian) Law committee:

A partnership must decide and disclose the nature of their opening bids at the three level (for instance if they are weak [preemptive] or strong [invitational]) without knowing whether their opponents' possible double will be weak (for takeout) or strong (for penalties).

Their opponents have the privilege to select their defences over such opening bids after first learning the nature of these.

That is not an answer.

Even if I play all of 2s, 3s and 4s as weak, then I am still entitled to know what your defence is to a weak 4s and 3s bid before I make one.

I am not entitled to ask what is your defence to a 2S bid before I decide to play whether it is weak or strong, when at the table. That is I cannot ask, "What is your defense to 2S" and if you say t/o, then decide that 2S is strong and hold you to it.

I am perfectly entitled to know your defense to a weak 3S bid before I open a weak 3S bid.

[phil_20686]

Trinidad, on 2012-March-30, 17:17, said:

Just for the record, I am with Pran on this one. A preemptor is only supposed to know whether the opponent's double is penalty or takeout after he has made his preempt.

Bids are fully disclosed in the order that they are made.

This is incorrect. On an EBU card you are required to fill out your defense to weak 2 bids, 3 bid and 4 bids. Are you therefore claiming that the EBU convention card requires illegal disclosure?

I am entitled to complete disclosure and understanding of your defensive methods to a particular bid. I accept that I may not change my methods on account of your disclosure, but I may well choose to avoid a bid, or to shade the requirements of a bid, in response to the methods you are playing. This is common sense, in the same way that overcalling an acol 1C is not the same as overcalling a strong 1C.

[pran]

phil_20686, on 2012-March-30, 20:38, said:

That is not an answer.

Even if I play all of 2s, 3s and 4s as weak, then I am still entitled to know what your defence is to a weak 4s and 3s bid before I make one.

I am not entitled to ask what is your defence to a 2S bid before I decide to play whether it is weak or strong, when at the table. That is I cannot ask, "What is your defense to 2S" and if you say t/o, then decide that 2S is strong and hold you to it.

I am perfectly entitled to know your defense to a weak 3S bid before I open a weak 3S bid.

Sure, as far as I can read that is precisely what I said? (A partnership must decide and disclose [...])

[campboy]

phil_20686, on 2012-March-30, 20:38, said:

I am not entitled to ask what is your defence to a 2S bid before I decide to play whether it is weak or strong, when at the table. That is I cannot ask, "What is your defense to 2S" and if you say t/o, then decide that 2S is strong and hold you to it.

I am perfectly entitled to know your defense to a weak 3S bid before I open a weak 3S bid.

These are not different things. Just as in the weak/strong 2♠ example, your opponents are permitted to change their defence to a weak 3♠ based on your style of pre-empting, so you can't necessarily vary your style of pre-empting based on their defence.