[aguahombre]

On a thread in Bridgewinners, our Blackshoe made the following comment regarding the attitude to take on full disclosure. I think more people should see it, so I brought it over here. It doesn't seem to fit into an IBLF category, so I posted it here.

"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.

[mgoetze]

Wasn't Blackshoe the guy who claimed he was not obligated to answer questions about what alternative bidding sequences his partner had available?

[blackshoe]

No, unless you're talking about alternative future sequences.

[rbforster]

mgoetze, on 2013-August-20, 13:43, said:

Wasn't Blackshoe the guy who claimed he was not obligated to answer questions about what alternative bidding sequences his partner had available?

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.

[Zelandakh]

As I recall, it was a discussion centering initially on a 2NT response to a Weak 2 that then branched out into other auctions. The point was whether you can ask about the response structure to an ask or must wait until the response is actually given. The solution is that an answer of "asks about Y" is not full disclosure; you should really describe the possible hand types that you can hold, thereby fully describing your call rather than describing your partner's future call(s).

[Free]

Seems like the suggestion would put a lot of redundant information in your system notes, something you don't want imo.

[Zelandakh]

It is what you explain to an opponent that asks. Full disclosure is for the opponents, not for the partnership.

[aguahombre]

rbforster, on 2013-August-20, 21:43, 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.

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.

[rhm]

aguahombre, on 2013-August-21, 03:45, 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.

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

[aguahombre]

Full disclosure about bids already made is required. Other than pre-alerts, point ranges, and opening bids, no one is entitled to information about calls we might make in the future...especially in hypothetical competitive auctions.

We have gone here before. I now bow out of this tangent.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2013-August-21, 02:49, said:

As I recall, it was a discussion centering initially on a 2NT response to a Weak 2 that then branched out into other auctions. The point was whether you can ask about the response structure to an ask or must wait until the response is actually given. The solution is that an answer of "asks about Y" is not full disclosure; you should really describe the possible hand types that you can hold, thereby fully describing your call rather than describing your partner's future call(s).

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.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-August-21, 11:13, 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.

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).

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2013-August-21, 12:32, said:

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).

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.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-August-21, 13:15, said:

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.

I think you're right to do so, for the reason you state.

[Zelandakh]

aguahombre, on 2013-August-21, 13:15, said:

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.

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.

[mfa1010]

Free, on 2013-August-21, 02:57, said:

Seems like the suggestion would put a lot of redundant information in your system notes, something you don't want imo.

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.

[nige1]

rhm, on 2013-August-21, 04:06, 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.

IMO RHM is right in common sense and natural justice even if wrong according to some daft law. How should a director rule when RHM deliberately and with malice aforethought picks opponents' system card and reads about the meaning of possible continuations after RHO's bid? Should the director rule that the information on opponents' system-card is unauthorised?

Even more reprehensible... What if RHM takes the trouble to learn opponents' entire system, before the match?

[aguahombre]

mfa1010, on 2013-August-22, 12:25, 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.

Then we could write them down apart from our system notes, so they are also fast to read through before major events.

[mfa1010]

Zelandakh, on 2013-August-21, 02:49, said:

As I recall, it was a discussion centering initially on a 2NT response to a Weak 2 that then branched out into other auctions. The point was whether you can ask about the response structure to an ask or must wait until the response is actually given. The solution is that an answer of "asks about Y" is not full disclosure; you should really describe the possible hand types that you can hold, thereby fully describing your call rather than describing your partner's future call(s).

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.

[aguahombre]

It is not easy to discuss this when someone is focussing on what the holdings of the answerer might be, and someone else is talking about the possible holdings of the person asking the question.