A Pearl from Ed Disclosure
#1
Posted 2013-August-20, 09:28
"Seems to me it's a good idea for almost any pair to sit down with their system notes, look at them with the question “if I were playing against this, what questions would I ask?” in mind, and then *put the answers in the system notes*. I do recognize, however, that most players aren't going to want to do this. I would say though that if that gives them a problem with how to answer a question, that's *their* problem, not the questioner's (within limits, anyway)."
The questions we ask each other during system/method discussion might well be what an opponent is getting at when he makes a follow-up inquiry. After doing as Ed suggested, we would probably not think the opponents' questions are quite as silly as we used to.
#2
Posted 2013-August-20, 13:43
-- Bertrand Russell
#3
Posted 2013-August-20, 16:35
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#4
Posted 2013-August-20, 21:43
mgoetze, on 2013-August-20, 13:43, said:
Is that along the lines of the auction 1m-(X)-? at which point responder turns to advancer and asks: "if I were to bid 1M (i.e. 1m-X-1M-?), would your double be penalty?" If the answer is no, then responder psyches his short major with weakness.
#5
Posted 2013-August-21, 02:49
#6
Posted 2013-August-21, 02:57
#7
Posted 2013-August-21, 03:07
#8
Posted 2013-August-21, 03:45
rbforster, on 2013-August-20, 21:43, said:
No. Alternate bidding sequences which WERE available (from which a player chose --past tense) are not the same as future sequences which will be available.
#9
Posted 2013-August-21, 04:06
aguahombre, on 2013-August-21, 03:45, said:
True there is a difference, but what does this have to do with full disclosure?
Knowledge what responses LHO has available could well influence my decision what to bid now?
These scenarios are not rare.
For example assume RHO opens 2♦ multi.
Knowledge how likely it is that LHO passes 2♦ could affect my decision to bid or Pass.
Rainer Herrmann
#10
Posted 2013-August-21, 04:28
We have gone here before. I now bow out of this tangent.
#11
Posted 2013-August-21, 11:13
Zelandakh, on 2013-August-21, 02:49, said:
I don't particularly want to rehash an old discussion, but…
I disagree that the correct answer to a question about responder's 2NT bid in this case is for opener to describe all his possible hand types. It would be correct to say "asks me to describe which of several hands types I hold. If you want to know what hand types I might hold, ask my partner."
OTOH, ISTR the discussion was about Ogust. If 2NT is Ogust, the correct explanation is "asks me to describe my overall strength and the quality of my suit". If 2NT is "feature" the correct explanation is "asks me to show a side suit A or K" (or however the partnership defines a "feature").
Romex uses relays in certain circumstances. Your position would imply that when a Romex player relays asking for shape definition, part of the required explanation would be "his next relay, if he makes one, will be RKCB". That's just wrong.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#12
Posted 2013-August-21, 12:32
blackshoe, on 2013-August-21, 11:13, said:
I disagree that the correct answer to a question about responder's 2NT bid in this case is for opener to describe all his possible hand types.
I think Zel was saying that the correct answer is to list the possible hand types responder might hold, not opener's hand types, rather than just say that it asks opener to describe his hand further.
We've been down this road many times. Is the possible types of hand that would ask a question really a matter of partnership agreement, or just ordinary bridge logic that can be inferred just as easily by the opponents? Sometimes it's an agreement, because of constraints from other parts of the system (e.g. the types of hand that bid Stayman differ depending on the form of transfers you use and whether you play Garbage Stayman), but other times it may be ordinary logic (e.g. 2NT response to a weak 2).
#13
Posted 2013-August-21, 13:15
barmar, on 2013-August-21, 12:32, said:
We've been down this road many times. Is the possible types of hand that would ask a question really a matter of partnership agreement, or just ordinary bridge logic that can be inferred just as easily by the opponents? Sometimes it's an agreement, because of constraints from other parts of the system (e.g. the types of hand that bid Stayman differ depending on the form of transfers you use and whether you play Garbage Stayman), but other times it may be ordinary logic (e.g. 2NT response to a weak 2).
It would depend, IMO. In general, I believe that why partner wants to know the answer to a conventional asking bid is her business ---to be inferred by anyone else. However, we have at least one convention where we feel obligated to expound about asker's hand types without being asked.
1NT-3C...Explained as semi-automatic Puppet enroute to 3NT ---might not even have 3 cards in a major, because 1N-3N is removable. The inference that responder always wants to know about opener's major(s) is not valid, so we disclose.
#14
Posted 2013-August-21, 17:37
aguahombre, on 2013-August-21, 13:15, said:
I think you're right to do so, for the reason you state.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#15
Posted 2013-August-22, 02:38
aguahombre, on 2013-August-21, 13:15, said:
This is not acceptable because knowing the response structure can sometimes change the bridge logic. There were several examples of this from the thread being referred to. Therefore you need to at least include things like whether weak hands can be included, to what level the bidding is forced, etc. Of course this is not perfect either; someone else wrote about an auction where they (or their partner, I forget) worked out that they could use a particular asking bid as a safe runout without it having being discussed. That is information that only a player knowing the response structure could know.
Also, what Barry wrote about the possible meanings for a Stayman 2♣ bid being affected by other parts of the system is surely true of many such calls, no? Even the example given of "ordinary logic" is problematic. Depending on the response structure, the response might promise game forcing values (or at least willingness to play in game opposite certain Opener hands); invitational values; or no values whatsoever. It may or may not establish forcing passes at different levels. It may or may not hide a slam-oriented hand with a long suit. There may or may not be alternative asks. Too many players describe such a bid as their "strong" enquiry even after partner "psyching" it for the 50th time. And too many accept this as "GBK" when it is quite simply a partnership agreement and should be disclosed. So "Asks about Y. Usually shows a hand deciding between 3NT and 4M but occasionally will have slam interest or be a very weak hand with good M support" might be a possible explanation, although not complete (would slam interest and lonc clubs start 2NT or 3♣?) so adding "I can provide more detils if you wish" would be better, albeit getting somewhat long-winded. The point here though is that everyone and his dog explains the bid as "Asks about Y", and even the wine waiter thinks bidding 2NT on the "weak hand with good M support" is a psyche based on GBK rather than an agreement. And that is just plain wrong imho. The same for "psyching" new suits over a preempt and umpteen other "Standard" psyches out there.
#16
Posted 2013-August-22, 12:25
Free, on 2013-August-21, 02:57, said:
I agree, I want my system notes as short and concentrated as possible, so that they are fast to read through before major events.
Instead I would suggest that disclosure is a focus point for the partnership in the way that they discuss the proper way to explain certain bids afterwards, whenever one feels it could have been handled better at the table. Just as the partnership would discuss whenever an agreement turns out to be obscure.
#17
Posted 2013-August-22, 12:52
rhm, on 2013-August-21, 04:06, said:
For example assume RHO opens 2♦ multi. Knowledge how likely it is that LHO passes 2♦ could affect my decision to bid or Pass.
Even more reprehensible... What if RHM takes the trouble to learn opponents' entire system, before the match?
#18
Posted 2013-August-22, 12:56
mfa1010, on 2013-August-22, 12:25, said:
Instead I would suggest that disclosure is a focus point for the partnership in the way that they discuss the proper way to explain certain bids afterwards, whenever one feels it could have been handled better at the table. Just as the partnership would discuss whenever an agreement turns out to be obscure.
Then we could write them down apart from our system notes, so they are also fast to read through before major events.
#19
Posted 2013-August-22, 13:05
Zelandakh, on 2013-August-21, 02:49, said:
This sounds good in writing but is tricky in practice.
The problem is that it can be hard to foresee all possible hand types for bids that are "asking" in nature.
If we go ahead and explain some possible hand types, then this tends to be much more harmful to the opposition, when the bidder has something else, than if there was said nothing about hand types from the beginning.
Then it could be argued that the partnership should reveal their partnership experince, which is true. The problem is however, that specific sequences don't come up as often as a lot of people seem to think. So the partnership experience might not be so clear cut as people (=opponents, TDs etc.) might like it to be.
So while I tend to agree with you, I don't find it all so straightforward in practice.
#20
Posted 2013-August-22, 13:13