[Vampyr]

Cascade, on 2011-March-16, 03:02, said:

I don't have an issue with requiring the opponents to process the information provided.

I do. If they have to "process" the information, then I have not given a full explanation.

[phil_20686]

I think there has to be some judgement involved in what constitues full disclosure here. Can you imagin if every acol 1s opener was described as "opener is described "4+ cards, but not a balanced hand in the 11-14 or 20-22 range, and excluding hands which are longer in another suit, but with the exception that with 5-6 hands partner is allowed to open a 5 card major before a 6 card minor to improve his rebids. Also with some 4333 with bad spades he might open a club even though our agreement is that 1c is 4+ cards"

I think I would have to quit the game. There is such a thing as being obtuse by providing too much information.

[Cascade]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-16, 10:38, said:

I do. If they have to "process" the information, then I have not given a full explanation.

That is simply not true.

A full explanation is one that covers every possibility.

It is part of the game to use the information provided to make deductions. So long as the explanation is not deliberately made to hide something then I can't see why one full explanation is better than another.

[mycroft]

Okay, Cascade, I've shown hearts, diamonds, longer diamonds, low shortness, two cards in the high suit, and the more common distribution. It's just "logic logic" to work out my pattern. Should I require the opponents to process that information, or should I just say "he's 2461"? I bet if I continued with "7 AKQ points, two aces and a(nother) D card" (yeah, I'm cheating here a bit, go with me) it's just "logic logic" that it's the Q and not the K, so I can make them work that out?

How about Balanced, "no 4M or 5m", 2 hearts (equivalently, 3 spades - depends on how you play the Baron Corollary). Should I require the opponents to process that information, or should I say "3244"?

I'm sure I can come up with lots of examples like that. Not giving the summary, if summary there can be without "showing" your own hand, isn't "full or complete", not in my view - especially if it's to my advantage to not have the opponents work it out (say, because the described hand is going to be declarer).

[Cascade]

Not sure about the "more common distribution" - that may not be general knowledge - but I can't see why the opponents can't work out the rest.

If you say 7 AKQ points (with the knowledge that ace is one etc) then it seems pretty straight forward to work out that the other honour is a queen not a king when two aces have been shown. After all you probably agree a generic scheme to show your honours - show controls, then aces, then other honours - not a specific scheme that says after 7 controls and two aces we are now showing queens.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2011-March-16, 10:21, said:

Not everyone agrees. The EBU L&EC considered a regulation of this sort and decided not some time back: it was the view of some members that players that ask specific questions should get the specific answer asked for. For example, if someone asks "Is that weak" then, if it is weak, the answer "Yes" suffices even if there is something else.

Which can lead to arguments of the form "That's not weak! You have 11 points!" "Yes, but they're a terrible 11, not worth more than 8." If you don't like those numbers, substitute whatever floats your boat.

bluejak, on 2011-March-16, 10:21, said:

Part of the reason for this is that some members felt that questioners deserved such an answer for such a question even if "Please explain" would have got a more helpful answer. Also, a person who literally only wants the answer to the question asked should not be subjected to what he considers irrelevancies.

IME, those latter people are the ones who scream the loudest when something they thought would be irrelevant turns out to be important.