[axman]

 campboy, on 2015-June-23, 01:48, said:

I agree that the laws ought to allow East to ask about pass-pass-1NT, but I don't believe they currently do.

I think that the law ought to permit asking (in this case) about P-P-1N when a hand is not in progress. Which has nothing to do with a player being aware (as in before the hand) of it or anything else.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2015-June-23, 06:40, said:

However, part-way through an auction where your side has opened in first seat I don't think you're entitled to ask opponents about the opening bids they never had a chance to make.

I think asking about opponents' system (basic or otherwise) at the start is covered by 40A1b.

In theory both sides exchange convention cards at the start of the round and quickly explain their methods. That almost never happens in club bridge, and rarely happens in tournaments. In practice people ask what they need to know. In this example SB is asking about inferences that South can draw from the BOOT which SB is entitled to glean. One of those inferences is what the sequence Pass-Pass-1NT would mean, as this is a possible auction from North's point of view. The main problem is that the disclosure laws necessarily address normal auctions rather than opening bids out of turn. Sheltering behind some interpretation of Law 20 contravenes the principle of full disclosure.

And, what is the difference between "relevant alternative calls available that were not made" and "relevant alternative calls that were not made?" I cannot see how the word "available" adds to the meaning at all; another example of Grattanese?

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2015-June-23, 07:09, said:

In theory both sides exchange convention cards at the start of the round and quickly explain their methods. That almost never happens in club bridge, and rarely happens in tournaments.

I thought it was actually pretty common in the UK, at least in tournaments. This seems to be a frequent distinction made between EBU and ACBL practices.

Quote

And, what is the difference between "relevant alternative calls available that were not made" and "relevant alternative calls that were not made?" I cannot see how the word "available" adds to the meaning at all; another example of Grattanese?

I agree with you here. The only calls that are not "available" are those prohibited by law: insufficent bids (did we ever reach concensus on this?), inadmissable double/redouble, and double/redouble when prohibited by 30B2b. So you're basically not allowed to ask what it would mean if he'd tried to make an illegal call.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2015-June-23, 08:42, said:

I agree with you here. The only calls that are not "available" are those prohibited by law: insufficent bids (did we ever reach concensus on this?), inadmissable double/redouble, and double/redouble when prohibited by 30B2b. So you're basically not allowed to ask what it would mean if he'd tried to make an illegal call.

You're also not allowed to ask — or more precisely your opponent cannot be required to answer — questions about a call that is not relevant.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2015-June-23, 09:29, said:

You're also not allowed to ask — or more precisely your opponent cannot be required to answer — questions about a call that is not relevant.

True, although how is an opponent supposed to know what's relevant? And what does it even mean for it not to be relevant? I guess that means a bid that's impossible in their system, so what's the difference between not answering and saying "impossible" or "no meaning"?

[RSliwinski]

 lamford, on 2015-June-23, 02:18, said:

All calls are "available" in the sense that they are "at someone's disposal" in the context of this Law. So, the sequence Pass-Pass-1NT was "available" to North-South at the start of the auction, and, more importantly, "relevant" to East's decision now, or East could ask about all sequences, which would be ridiculous. Let us say that someone opens 1C and rebids 1NT and this differs in meaning from opening 1D followed by rebidding 1NT. They might show different balanced ranges, or the latter might be unbalanced, as some pairs play. If you were to ask about the two sequences, and it was relevant, then you would allow an opponent to refuse to answer a question about the sequence that did not occur, because only the first call of it was "available". You correctly reject PeterAlan's definition of "turn to call", so it is surprising that you choose such a restrictive definition of "available".

It could also be argued that "You play strong in third, don't you?" is a question about North-South's basic system, and that question is always allowed, however you interpret "available".

I think the following Minutes of the Law Committee are relevant.

Minutes of a meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Beijing on Friday, 10th October, 2008.
3 […] 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. (An “alternative” call is not the same call with another meaning – for example, if the reply to an opponent is that “5D shows diamonds preference”, any reply to a further question “what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?” is given voluntarily and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.)


Minutes of Laws Committee meeting in Sao Paulo on Friday 4th September 2009.
7. A previous minute of the committee (10th September 2008, re Law 20F1) had been questioned. The law states that in response toquestions during the auction and play a player is entitled to be told about “calls actually made, relevant alternative calls not made, and relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding”. The minute had clarified that an ‘alternative’ call is not the same call with a different meaning. Thus if systemically after 4NT a response of 5D shows preferred minor the response here to Blackwood is not an available alternative call systemically and the player has no entitlement to information as to what it would mean.
Mr. Weinstein was inclined to the opinion that since a player is entitled generally (Laws 40A1(b) and 40A2) to know the opposing partnership’s understandings arising from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal, when asking questions during the auction and play he should not be restricted by the terms of the specific Law 20F1. The Secretary was of the opposite opinion.
The meeting engaged in a lengthy discussion and the Chairman decided that the subject should be continued when the committee reconvened.

Minutes of Laws Committee meeting in Sao Paulo on Tuesday, 8th September 2009.
13. The committee returned to the matter regarding Law 20F1 that was the subject of its minute dated 10th October 2008. After further discussion it was agreed to abide by the 2008 minute.

[lamford]

 RSliwinski, on 2015-June-23, 16:18, said:

I think the following Minutes of the Law Committee are relevant.

Minutes of a meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Beijing on Friday, 10th October, 2008.
3 […] 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. (An “alternative” call is not the same call with another meaning – for example, if the reply to an opponent is that “5D shows diamonds preference”, any reply to a further question “what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?” is given voluntarily and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.)

Thanks for that. I think that the meaning of Pass-Pass-1NT is "a relevant inference from the choice of action" of the OBOOT of 1NT in third seat, but others may disagree. And even if SB is not entitled to ask this question, the WBFLC seem to be saying that a response can be given voluntarily. The corrected announcement would still constitute MI, as would an incorrect voluntary response to a question there is no requirement to answer.

[blackshoe]

 lamford, on 2015-June-24, 03:04, said:

Thanks for that. I think that the meaning of Pass-Pass-1NT is "a relevant inference from the choice of action" of the OBOOT of 1NT in third seat, but others may disagree. And even if SB is not entitled to ask this question, the WBFLC seem to be saying that a response can be given voluntarily. The corrected announcement would still constitute MI, as would an incorrect voluntary response to a question there is no requirement to answer.

No. If the question is "what's the range of your third-seat 1NT opening?" the answer "15-17" is most emphatically not MI. It is an accurate description of the partnership agreement.

If the question is "what does your partner's 1NT bid show?" the answer should be "in first and second seat 1NT shows 12-14, in third and fourth it shows 15-17. We have no agreement about what it shows when the bid is out of turn".

I think the lesson learned here is "don't let the <expletive deleted> Secretary Bird lead you down the garden path with his questions".

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2015-June-24, 05:17, said:

No. If the question is "what's the range of your third-seat 1NT opening?" the answer "15-17" is most emphatically not MI. It is an accurate description of the partnership agreement.

If the question is "what does your partner's 1NT bid show?" the answer should be "in first and second seat 1NT shows 12-14, in third and fourth it shows 15-17. We have no agreement about what it shows when the bid is out of turn".

I think the lesson learned here is "don't let the <expletive deleted> Secretary Bird lead you down the garden path with his questions".

I agree entirely, except that SB only asked one question; the response to the question was not MI. However, South did also blunder by changing his announcement, and that was the MI. If he had just said "Yes", to the question "You play a strong NT in third, don't you", then he would have survived. Mind you nobody has actually answered the OP which asks "How would you rule?" I suspect that is because they will only rule in favour of SB through gritted teeth.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2015-June-22, 14:42, said:

I think the key word is "available". At no point in the auction was a 1NT opening after two passes available, so it doesn't seem to matter how relevant it is.

I have just realised that this is wrong. SB could have refused to accept the BOOT, and the auction would have reverted to the dealer, who would have had to Pass, second hand would have passed, and North could have opened 1NT after two passes. The interesting secondary issue is what the new announcement should be, and what default agreement is assumed. I think the only legal announcement is "no agreement", but that infringes the Blue Book.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2015-June-23, 08:42, said:

I thought it was actually pretty common in the UK, at least in tournaments. This seems to be a frequent distinction made between EBU and ACBL practices.

The CCs are given to the opponents or are available to them (for instance, are located under the bidding boxes), but more often than not the opponents don't peruse them. And sometimes you have to ask for a basic description of their system, but it is pretty unusual to begin play before you have heard it.

[Vampyr]

The Laws Committee minute is puzzling as it puts people who have a more thoroughly filled-out convention card at a disadvantage. I wonder why they wanted to do this.

A side issue to the main topic of the thread is that it makes sense to create agreements with partner about various actions over a BOOT. Probably simplest to show a few specific hand-types with direct action, and otherwise don't accept.

This is not, of course, as important as agreements over an IB, because there it is your turn and you are required to do something.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2015-June-24, 07:38, said:

The Laws Committee minute is puzzling as it puts people who have a more thoroughly filled-out convention card at a disadvantage. I wonder why they wanted to do this.

This is a frequent complaint: players who follow the rules more diligently can be at a disadvantage of those who are lax, since the latter are not usually penalized.

Quote

A side issue to the main topic of the thread is that it makes sense to create agreements with partner about various actions over a BOOT. Probably simplest to show a few specific hand-types with direct action, and otherwise don't accept.

This is not, of course, as important as agreements over an IB, because there it is your turn and you are required to do something.

Unless you're in ACBL territory, which prohibits altering your agreements after an infraction (regardless of which side committed it). However, players often apply bridge logic to make inferences from whether a player accepts or declines an IB or BOOT.

[barmar]

So what those minutes essentially say is that "relevant" means that the call is available in the auction that actually occurred up to that point. Calls in some other potential auction are not relevant.

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2015-June-24, 06:41, said:

I have just realised that this is wrong. SB could have refused to accept the BOOT, and the auction would have reverted to the dealer, who would have had to Pass, second hand would have passed, and North could have opened 1NT after two passes.

It is still true that at no point in the auction so far was pass-pass-1NT available. Yes, it might subsequently have become available, but even if it did it would be a third-seat 1NT opposite a partner who was silenced throughout, which probably has a different meaning.

[barmar]

 campboy, on 2015-June-24, 10:58, said:

It is still true that at no point in the auction so far was pass-pass-1NT available. Yes, it might subsequently have become available, but even if it did it would be a third-seat 1NT opposite a partner who was silenced throughout, which probably has a different meaning.

Exactly. If a pair plays Gambling 3NT, but one of them bids 3NT when he knows his partner is barred, you would not expect him to to necessarily hold a long, solid minor. When a player bids opposite a barred partner, the explanation should be something like "We normally play that this shows X, but since he knows I'm barred he's probably just guessing at a final contract".

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2015-June-24, 09:39, said:

Unless you're in ACBL territory, which prohibits altering your agreements after an infraction (regardless of which side committed it).

Yeah, I think we all knew this. Sorry for not mentioning in my post that it did not apply to the ACBL. I had assumed that ACBL players were smart enough to know that methods prohibited by their jurisdiction were not available to them.

I guess I have made an ass out of u and me.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2015-June-25, 09:59, said:

When a player bids opposite a barred partner, the explanation should be something like "We normally play that this shows X, but since he knows I'm barred he's probably just guessing at a final contract".

That makes sense, but I think campboy is arguing that the opponents have no right to know what the bid would mean if it was not out of turn, but was made in turn after two passes. He will correct me if that is not the case.

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2015-June-25, 17:56, said:

That makes sense, but I think campboy is arguing that the opponents have no right to know what the bid would mean if it was not out of turn, but was made in turn after two passes. He will correct me if that is not the case.

I'm not talking about right to know so much as right to ask. If East did reject the BOOT and the auction proceeded p p 1NT, he would only be permitted to ask about the meaning of 1NT (or alternative calls) opposite a silenced partner. In the unlikely event that NS have a specific agreement about this, South can describe that agreement. If they don't, however, the correct answer is going to be along the lines that barmar describes.

[Vampyr]

 campboy, on 2015-June-26, 00:26, said:

I'm not talking about right to know so much as right to ask. If East did reject the BOOT and the auction proceeded p p 1NT, he would only be permitted to ask about the meaning of 1NT (or alternative calls) opposite a silenced partner. In the unlikely event that NS have a specific agreement about this, South can describe that agreement. If they don't, however, the correct answer is going to be along the lines that barmar describes.

I don't think that such an agreement is permitted anywhere, even though the Laws, bizarrely, allow an RA to permit it.