[Trinidad]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-07, 09:25, said:

(Or are you really sure that the answer "No" to the first two questions adds up to full disclosure?)

Bbradley62, on 2011-October-07, 09:44, said:

If East wants a complete description, he should not be asking yes/no questions. Since the first two questions were yes/no questions, the responses were either correct or incorrect, but they cannot be incomplete. East should accept the answers he was given as correct and call the director if/when it becomes clear that they weren't.

Excuse me!?!

As soon as it is clear that East doesn't understand the NS agreements South is supposed to clarify the NS agreement in such a way that East understands it. That was at the point where East asked his second question.

But South' priorities were not with full disclosure. He tried to be as funny as possible in the eyes of his partner. If East's second question would have been: "What does it promise?" smart ass South would without any doubt have replied: "Less than 4 spades." (Chuckle chuckle).

Rik

[Bbradley62]

mrdct, on 2011-October-07, 14:59, said:

After the second yes/no question, East obviously hadn't got the bottom of what North's bid meant as all he's been told is that it doesn't show 4♠ and can't have 4♠ so he wants to ask a further question or two to get a better grasp on what sort of hands North can and can't have.

After the second yes/no question, East obviously hadn't got the bottom of what North's bid meant because he (East) hadn't bothered to ask a comprehensive question. If his third question had been "could North have four hearts?", that would at least not have contradicted the previous answer, although his approach would be tiresome.

The sentence you quote from the Orange Book is followed by:

Quote

Unless the questioner really only wants to know something specific he should merely ask "What does that call mean?". If the questioner asks a more specific question then a TD or Appeals Committee is unlikely to consider it misinformation if he gets a correct but incomplete answer to his question. Furthermore, asking "What does that call mean?" rather than any more pointed question tends to avoid a suggestion of unauthorised information.

and later:

3 E 1 said:

A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences. If a player shows unusual interest in one or more calls of the auction, then this is unauthorised information to partner. Partner must carefully avoid taking advantage, which may constrain the actions partner is permitted to take during the remainder of the auction or when on lead during the play. (Law 16B, 73C). Asking about a call of 3NT or below which has not been alerted may cause more problems than asking about an alerted call, as may asking repeated or leading questions.

In the scenario given by OP (nod to Agua), East has created any problem that exists, unless South has given an incorrect answer, which we have no reason to believe he has.

[Bbradley62]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-07, 15:17, said:

Excuse me!?!

As soon as it is clear that East doesn't understand the NS agreements South is supposed to clarify the NS agreement in such a way that East understands it. That was at the point where East asked his second question.

But South' priorities were not with full disclosure. He tried to be as funny as possible in the eyes of his partner. If East's second question would have been: "What does it promise?" smart ass South would without any doubt have replied: "Less than 4 spades." (Chuckle chuckle).

Rik

Excuse you!

South is under no such obligation. And assigning a smart-ass answer by South to an unasked question is assuming facts not in evidence, to say the very least.

[Trinidad]

Bbradley62, on 2011-October-07, 15:38, said:

Excuse you!

South is under no such obligation. And assigning a smart-ass answer by South to an unasked question is assuming facts not in evidence, to say the very least.

Let me conclude that there is a clear disagreement between you and me about the meaning of full disclosure. To me in practice it roughly means that initially you will answer the question asked. When it appears that the asker wants to know more you should:
- try to understand the asker's problem.
- explain your agreement in full. This means also volunteering answers to the relevant questions that were not asked (already just for the fact that the asker may not know what questions he should ask).

A small example involving something that I play: In certain auctions, when we have agreed that a major will be trump, we play that 3NT is an "inconvenient cue". It means that it shows a control (we play mixed cues) in the "most expensive suit". Thus, when we have bid to 3♠, 3NT shows a first or second round control in hearts.

Suppose that the auction goes: ... 3♠-4♣ and an opponent asks: "Does that show a first or second round control?" a smart ass would answer "yes", many would answer: "it can be either/or" and the correct answer is "it can be either/or, and it denies a control in hearts (since with a heart control we would have bid 3NT)".

The opponent didn't ask anything about the heart control. But you can see that he will assume that 4♣ didn't say anything about the heart control, since few pairs play inconvenient cues. He couldn't know to ask about hearts, therefore you have to volunteer that information.

You seem to think that full disclosure is limited to answering questions that were asked. (This makes me wonder why it would be called full disclosure and not partial or limited disclosure.)

Rik

[aguahombre]

Rik: I think in your scenario full disclosure as you state would apply only if failure to bid 3NT denied a heart control. I would guess though, that many who use the 3NT inconvenient cue would more likely do so without a club control to allow partner that cue, and bidding 4C may or may not control hearts.

If that is the case, 4C (if asked) should just be answered re: the club bid without mentioning anything about hearts. Only if our favorite East further enquires would we then go into full disclosure mode.

[blackshoe]

Rik is correct regarding disclosure of his agreement. Aqua changes the agreement, and then talks about disclosure of that different agreement. Apples and orangutans.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-07, 17:35, said:

You seem to think that full disclosure is limited to answering questions that were asked.

This is what was indicated in the Orange Book quote Bill provided.

[Bbradley62]

I agree that the proper answer to the question about the cuebid is "it can be either/or, and it denies a control in hearts (since with a heart control we would have bid 3NT)".

Similarly, in a different situation, if I were asked "can your partner have four spades?", I would say "yes, but only if he also has five hearts" if that were the case, not simply "yes". If the follow-up question was "can he have four spades and five diamonds?", I would be likely to give a smart-ass response. However, if the original question was "does that show 5 spades?" I wouldn't say "yes, and at least 8 points" unless that was an unusual treatment.

In the story as presented by OP, if the correct answers to the first two questions are "yes" (not "no"), then we have been given no reason to think that South failed to fully disclose anything.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-07, 18:34, said:

Rik is correct regarding disclosure of his agreement. Aqua changes the agreement, and then talks about disclosure of that different agreement. Apples and orangutans.

Is that o.k. with you if I expand on his post to include a slightly different scenario which might require a different amount of disclosure?

[blackshoe]

Well, I don't mind you expanding on it, but it did take me a couple of reads to realize you were talking about a different situation and not disagreeing with Rik's description of his situation. It might be better if folks who want to change the scenario explicitly say that's what they're doing (yes, I recognize that sometimes it's obvious — but sometimes it isn't, and the person doing the changing may not always recognize that it's not).

[aguahombre]

I am such a poor misunderstood soul

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-07, 18:43, said:

This is what was indicated in the Orange Book quote Bill provided.

If the quote that Bill provided really would be the full story on disclosure of agreements in the EBU then the conclusion would be that within the EBU full disclosure is not required.

Fortunately there is still Law 40B6a that reads (emphasis mine):

Quote

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

and Law 20F1:

Quote

During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding.

And Laws trump regulations, even the Orange Book, so within the EBU full disclosure is still required.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-08, 01:35, said:

If the quote that Bill provided really would be the full story on disclosure of agreements in the EBU then the conclusion would be that within the EBU full disclosure is not required.

Fortunately there is still Law 40B6a that reads (emphasis mine):

and Law 20F1:

And Laws trump regulations, even the Orange Book, so within the EBU full disclosure is still required.

Rik

Asking a leading question, or asking a question that can be answered with "yes" or "no" is not requesting an explanation of opponents' auction, it is requesting information about a specific feature of opponents' aution. Acceptable answers to such questions may normally be limited to the information that was specifically requested without being in conflict with Law 20F.

Besides, such "limited questions" can easily been suspected of conveying messages to partner by drawing attention to the specific feature concerned and should therefore always be avoided.

"What are we entitled to know from your auction" or "please explain your auction" are perfect requests for information.

[blackshoe]

Yes they. OTOH, my experience of the latter, in particular, is that I get answers like "well, he bid... and then I bid ....". After which I thank them and tell them that's not what I asked for, I asked for an explanation of the meaning of their bidding. Then they call the director, who asks me in which particular call am I interested.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2011-October-08, 01:57, said:

"What are we entitled to know from your auction" or "please explain your auction" are perfect requests for information.

Well, for all we know the conversation started this way, and the exchange of which we have been given a correct or incorrect or incomplete account was the result of followup questions.

blackshoe, on 2011-October-08, 08:25, said:

Yes they. OTOH, my experience of the latter, in particular, is that I get answers like "well, he bid... and then I bid ....". After which I thank them and tell them that's not what I asked for, I asked for an explanation of the meaning of their bidding. Then they call the director, who asks me in which particular call am I interested.

Or, who knows, maybe it was more like this.

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2011-October-08, 01:57, said:

Asking a leading question, or asking a question that can be answered with "yes" or "no" is not requesting an explanation of opponents' auction, it is requesting information about a specific feature of opponents' aution. Acceptable answers to such questions may normally be limited to the information that was specifically requested without being in conflict with Law 20F.

Besides, such "limited questions" can easily been suspected of conveying messages to partner by drawing attention to the specific feature concerned and should therefore always be avoided.

"What are we entitled to know from your auction" or "please explain your auction" are perfect requests for information.

That's all very true, but it isn't very relevant for the question whether answering with "yes" or "no" (to a question that could -in principle- be answered by "yes" or "no") is sufficient when it is obvious that the asker tries to understand what a bid means.

My post was intended to clarify that -according to the Laws- answering with yes/no may well be insufficient. It was in reply to Bill Bradley's posts that claim that yes/no is sufficient, and that explaining more is inappropriate, since the Orange Book seems to say so.

Rik

[Trinidad]

I would like to extend this thread with a little contest. It is called "guess the auction".

I would be interested in seeing what various posters think the actual auction -up to the point of the dreaded conversation- was. Mrdct has indicated that a T-Walsh auction would be possible. I will post my idea below. I am interested in yours. Maybe the OP can later clarify what the auction was and hand out the prize (eternal fame and glory) to the correct guesser.

I think that the auction started (possibly with passes before the opening bid):

---

What do you think?

Rik

[mrdct]

pran, on 2011-October-08, 01:57, said:

Asking a leading question, or asking a question that can be answered with "yes" or "no" is not requesting an explanation of opponents' auction, it is requesting information about a specific feature of opponents' aution. Acceptable answers to such questions may normally be limited to the information that was specifically requested without being in conflict with Law 20F.

Whether a question about a bid or auction is general, specific or binary it is still caught by Law 40B6a as it is an "opponent's enquiry". The moment the opponents have enquired about the meaning of a bid, full disclosure takes over. As Trinidad has said, Laws trump regulations so I think the guidance in Orange Book 3 B 9 where it says "If the questioner asks a more specific question then a TD or Appeals Committee is unlikely to consider it misinformation if he gets a correct but incomplete answer to his question" is in conflict with the Laws and is therefore invalid.

Whether the query is a yes/no question or a broader "what does that bid mean?" the requirement to "disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience" cannot be varied by regulation. In this case, South should have fully explained what North's bid meant (including all negative inferences from things that it denied and alternative bids that North had available other than matters "generally known to bridge players") in response to East's first question.

[pran]

mrdct, on 2011-October-09, 17:49, said:

Whether a question about a bid or auction is general, specific or binary it is still caught by Law 40B6a as it is an "opponent's enquiry". The moment the opponents have enquired about the meaning of a bid, full disclosure takes over. As Trinidad has said, Laws trump regulations so I think the guidance in Orange Book 3 B 9 where it says "If the questioner asks a more specific question then a TD or Appeals Committee is unlikely to consider it misinformation if he gets a correct but incomplete answer to his question" is in conflict with the Laws and is therefore invalid.

Whether the query is a yes/no question or a broader "what does that bid mean?" the requirement to "disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience" cannot be varied by regulation. In this case, South should have fully explained what North's bid meant (including all negative inferences from things that it denied and alternative bids that North had available other than matters "generally known to bridge players") in response to East's first question.

If the auction goes 1♠ - 2♠ (alerted) and opponents ask "Is that Michael's cue bid?" I shall consider "YES" (or for instance "NO - it is game forcing and asks if partner has control in spades for 3NT") as complete answers.

I would assume that opponents know Michael's when asking in this manner so that a complete description of this convention to be uncalled for.

[mrdct]

pran, on 2011-October-10, 01:56, said:

If the auction goes 1♠ - 2♠ (alerted) and opponents ask "Is that Michael's cue bid?" I shall consider "YES" (or for instance "NO - it is game forcing and asks if partner has control in spades for 3NT") as complete answers.

I would assume that opponents know Michael's when asking in this manner so that a complete description of this convention to be uncalled for.

I make no such assumption. There are plenty people who play different variants of Michaels; specifically in relation to strength. I'm sure that if we took a poll here there would most definately be a divergence of opinion on which hands are suitable for a Michaels Cue Bid.

By not immediately disclosing what strength agreements relate to the bid, the partner of the Michaels bidder is forcing the opponents to ask follow-up questions to ascertain strength which creates potential UI problems for the non-offenders.