[Free]

It's actually a non-problem, because it's pure logic (the '=>' operator, since the auction is turn based).

Suppose the defense changes according to the meaning of a bid:
meaning A (example: strong NT) => defense X (Dbl shows a single suiter)
meaning B (example: weak NT) => defense Y (penalty Dbl)
You can't give meaning A and enforce opps to play defense Y. You have full disclosure, you know what methods opps use against whatever meaning you give to the bid, and you can pick your poison.

Asking about what opps are going to do is tricky regarding UI though. The example of asking what 1m-(Dbl)-1M-(Dbl) means basically gives a lot of UI. If your opps tell you it's takeout and you bid 1M, you would probably not have bid 1M if Dbl was penalty (suggesting 1M is a psych, because you asked for a reason). If your opps tell you it's penalty and you pass, it strongly suggests you would've psyched when opps played penalty Doubles. Etc.

[gnasher]

 gnasher, on 2013-August-27, 16:00, said:

Most authorities say that your methods can't depend on what the opponents' subsequent actions would mean.

I didn't get this quite right. As Free's much better explanation makes clear, the opponents are allowed to play something like "sound overcalls against people who play penalty doubles of aggressive overcalls; aggressive overcalls otherwise".

Regarding what you're entitled to know:
Law 20F1: "... 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."
Law 40B2C: "Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may consult his opponent’s system card ... during the auction"
Law 40B2a: "The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership’s methods."

In other words, the default is that you''re not entitled to know what their future actions might mean, but you are allowed to look at the convention card. That can be changed by regulation, so the RA could require the opponents to answer questions about future actions, or to make their system file available.

[rbforster]

 Free, on 2013-August-28, 01:44, said:

It's actually a non-problem, because it's pure logic (the '=>' operator, since the auction is turn based).

Suppose the defense changes according to the meaning of a bid:
meaning A (example: strong NT) => defense X (Dbl shows a single suiter)
meaning B (example: weak NT) => defense Y (penalty Dbl)
You can't give meaning A and enforce opps to play defense Y. You have full disclosure, you know what methods opps use against whatever meaning you give to the bid, and you can pick your poison.

Per gnasher's comment above, you don't get "full disclosure" of their methods unless they actually come up or are included on their convention card. In fact, you generally won't even know, for example, what defense the opps are playing against your strong club, or in other more complex auctions, until you see it happen. I suppose you could ask them before a longer team session and hope they told you (to avoid UI or other issues in the auction), but I don't think they have to say.

Quote

Asking about what opps are going to do is tricky regarding UI though. The example of asking what 1m-(Dbl)-1M-(Dbl) means basically gives a lot of UI. If your opps tell you it's takeout and you bid 1M, you would probably not have bid 1M if Dbl was penalty (suggesting 1M is a psych, because you asked for a reason). If your opps tell you it's penalty and you pass, it strongly suggests you would've psyched when opps played penalty Doubles. Etc.

Well, given the opps can make their defense to your 1M call depend on anything that comes before, it seems like a defense by 4th seat of "takeout unless you ask, then penalty" is a valid defensive agreement .

[helene_t]

 rbforster, on 2013-August-28, 06:16, said:

In fact, you generally won't even know, for example, what defense the opps are playing against your strong club, or in other more complex auctions, until you see it happen. I suppose you could ask them before a longer team session and hope they told you (to avoid UI or other issues in the auction), but I don't think they have to say.

They do have to tell you. How can we be sure we have a defence against their defence to our 1♣ if we don't know what they play?

[rbforster]

 helene_t, on 2013-August-28, 06:27, said:

They do have to tell you. How can we be sure we have a defence against their defence to our 1♣ if we don't know what they play?

Do they? I thought you were just supposed to be prepared for anything, since anything is legal vs a strong club and since there's no place requiring you to write a strong club defense (at least on a ACBL) convention card. I guess when it comes up, you can try to infer it by asking about the bid made, and whatever other options might be relevant as similar alternative calls not made.

[straube]

 rbforster, on 2013-August-28, 16:19, said:

Do they? I thought you were just supposed to be prepared for anything, since anything is legal vs a strong club and since there's no place requiring you to write a strong club defense (at least on a ACBL) convention card. I guess when it comes up, you can try to infer it by asking about the bid made, and whatever other options might be relevant as similar alternative calls not made.

I'm almost positive yes. I had discussions with tournament directors and was told so.

[rbforster]

Thank you for your various replies (especially gnasher) and I apologize to straube for this tangent. If you would like to continue the tangent, I started a separate thread in general discussion on the topic of what you're entitled to know about your opps bidding before it comes up, which may be of interest:

http://www.bridgebas...idding-methods/

In it, I offer the strong club defense of "suction the first time it comes up, natural the second time (then alternating)" as an example that can really mess with the assumption that you now know what your opponents play after having seen it once (and it wouldn't be alerted half the time either!).

[dake50]

Am I getting this right? Full disclosure when someone opens 1Nt and we compete,
but not full disclosure after a weak 2?
[I mean full disclosure to mean what a chosen bid means AND what a not chosen bid means.
ie. both the positive - here's what he says he has; and here's what he denies.]

[benlessard]

I would surely play semi-penalty (action doubles) here. Partner pull the double with a stiff or void. I would also play 2Nt and higher in transfers but imo its pale in comparaison to the importance of semi-penalty doubles.

edited