Could Be Short announcment

[jerdonald]

BBO forum,

 

Playing in an open game today my partner opened 1 club

which I announced "could be short". On our convention

card the 0-2 club box in the MINOR OPENING section is

checked. My RHO said "how short" and I said "it's on

the convention card". He protested and said you have

to say how short when you announce. Is this correct?

I have never been questioned before when announcing

"could be short"

 

jerdonald

[RunemPard]

In every system there is typically a minimum the suit can have...

 

Strong club...0+

5+ in all but clubs...1+

5 card majors, 4 card diamond...2+

5 card majors, 1D unbalanced, 1C balanced or clubs...2+, I believe you should announce that it can have 4/5 diamonds and shorter clubs.

5 card majors, better minors...3+

 

So yes, the opponents are entitled to this.

[dustinst22]

In every system there is typically a minimum the suit can have...

 

Strong club...0+

5+ in all but clubs...1+

5 card majors, 4 card diamond...2+

5 card majors, 1D unbalanced, 1C balanced or clubs...2+, I believe you should announce that it can have 4/5 diamonds and shorter clubs.

5 card majors, better minors...3+

 

So yes, the opponents are entitled to this.

 

Not sure what the big deal is here? If the opponents ask any question about an alert/announcement, aren't you obligated to provide the answer?

[SteveMoe]

From the ACBL Alert Procedures web page (See bottom):

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

An announcement is one word or a short phrase which tells the opponents directly the meaning of partner's call. When bidding boxes are used, the "Alert" strip is tapped also. Announcements are required in the following instances:

After a natural one notrump opening bid.

 

EXAMPLE: A 15-17 1NT opening bid is made. The partner of the bidder will say aloud, "fifteen to seventeen."

 

After a or transfer response at any level to any level natural notrump opening, overcall or rebid.

 

An Announcement also is used for those methods that initially treat the bid as a transfer even though rarely the bidder will have a strong hand without the next higher suit. When the message is sent that the transfer was not a transfer, just the first step in showing another type of game-going hand, the call that sends that message must be Alerted.

 

EXAMPLES: 1NT-P-2 and 1-1NT-2-4

The 1NT bidder will say aloud, "Transfer."

 

After a 1NT forcing or semi-forcing response to a 1 or 1 opening bid with no interference.

 

EXAMPLE: 1-P-1NT The opening bidder will say aloud, "Forcing" or "Semi-forcing," if there was no other meaning attached to the agreement (such as showing four or more spades).

 

4. After a non-forcing opening 1 or 1 for which the opener could have fewer than three cards in the suit opened.

After the opening bid, the opening bidder's partner says, "May be short."

 

That said, once asked how many cards short is, you must reply. Telling someone to check your convention card is not appropriate.

The asker has the rigth to clarify under whaat conditions do oyu open 1♣ with zero ♣ cards & how that affects your 1♦ bid.

[sfi]

My RHO said "how short" and I said "it's on the convention card".

 

I don't believe that your response is ever appropriate when an opponent inquires about the meaning of a call. Just because you have the convention card at the table does not fulfill your responsibility to accurately describe your agreements when asked.

[PrecisionL]

BBO forum,

 

My RHO said "how short" and I said "it's on the convention card". He protested and said you have to say how short when you announce. Is this correct? I have never been questioned before when announcing "could be short"

 

jerdonald

Yes, this is correct and furthermore you should be announcing it: "Could be as short as two" and this will avoid the opponent having to ask everytime you announce it.

 

It was published in the ACBL January 2012 Bulletin, page 38: "The definition of what constitutes a Natural bid ... has been amended to include 1♣ openings that may be exactly 4=4=3=2 (four cards in each major, three diamonds and two clubs). The 1♣ bid will still require an Announcement [as quoted above], but players cannot use artificial defenses over this opening."

 

Just today, an opponent only said could be short and I asked how short and he said 1 or 2 clubs and wanted to argue that he was announcing properly without stating the possible shortage.

[mycroft]

The correct ACBL announcement (I'm assuming you are in ACBL jurisdiction, because that's the only one with "could be short" as an Announcement, to my knowledge) is "could be short", without naming the minimum. I will always say how short, even though it's technically incorrect (for me, it's 2), until I get told otherwise. Most won't, and I will ask "how short?"

 

And I must receive an answer. Yes, what's checked on the card is "NF 0-2", but that doesn't tell me either, unless you've written the number in the box, which I've never seen. Yes, some people play it as 0+, and my defence to a 0+ 1♣ or 1♦ is different from a 2+.

 

Another question one might get asked (again, ACBL-specific) is, on a "could be short" 1♣ call, "if it is short, will it be exactly 4♠4♥3♦2♣?" That is because if it could be anything else, the allowed defences become greater, and some pairs will play one. Again, it is your responsibility to know your system well enough to be able to answer these questions, and the opponents' right to that information on request.

 

So RHO was wrong - you don't have to, in fact technically shouldn't, give the minimum in the Announcement. But he is right, too - if he wants to know, you must tell him.

 

(I frequently get "I don't know how short, I just know it can be short!" Gotta love it...)

[blackshoe]

That said, once asked how many cards short is, you must reply.

True.

 

Telling someone to check your convention card is not appropriate.

Nonsense. If the information required is on the card, it's perfectly acceptable to refer an opponent to that card. If he refuses to look at it, then fine, give him a verbal answer — but then he's the one in the wrong, not you. Especially if he's rude about his refusal, as (IME) many players are.

[blackshoe]

Yes, this is correct and furthermore you should be announcing it: "Could be as short as two" and this will avoid the opponent having to ask everytime you announce it.

 

It was published in the ACBL January 2012 Bulletin, page 38: "The definition of what constitutes a Natural bid ... has been amended to include 1♣ openings that may be exactly 4=4=3=2 (four cards in each major, three diamonds and two clubs). The 1♣ bid will still require an Announcement [as quoted above], but players cannot use artificial defenses over this opening."

 

Just today, an opponent only said could be short and I asked how short and he said 1 or 2 clubs and wanted to argue that he was announcing properly without stating the possible shortage.

Sorry Larry, but your opponent was right, and you are wrong. The Alert regulation still says that you announce a non-forcing 1m opening that could be on fewer than 3 cards by saying "may be short". That was and still is the correct procedure, regardless of the change to the General Convention Chart. If the Bulletin article says the announcement should be something other than just "may be short", the Bulletin article is wrong, too.

[Vampyr]

Nonsense. If the information required is on the card, it's perfectly acceptable to refer an opponent to that card. If he refuses to look at it, then fine, give him a verbal answer — but then he's the one in the wrong, not you.

 

Acceptable? Perhaps, but it's pretty rude.

[pran]

Acceptable? Perhaps, but it's pretty rude.

It may be acceptable in certain jurisdictions, but I have seen this question before and AFAIK it is NOT acceptable for instance here in Norway.

 

A player is always entitled to a spoken and complete answer to a spoken question.

[campboy]

While it is legal to refer an opponent to your convention card rather than answering a question I don't think it is appropriate to do so except in the case where you can't remember the full answer but know it is on there. Rudeness is inappropriate at the bridge table.

[Vampyr]

Sorry missed campboy's post and repeated what he wrote.

 

 

Perhaps it should be possible to have a short grace period during which a person can delete a duplicate or redundant post?

[Vampyr]

Especially for people who somehow manage to post one of each type in quick succession... :blink:

[blackshoe]

1. If you want a post deleted, so state in the post, preferably after deleting any other content, and I will delete it. I don't know why we can't routinely delete our own posts. I think that's an option in the software (I could be wrong). I'll ask.

 

2.

From wikipedia: Rudeness (also called impudence or effrontery) is a display of disrespect by not complying with the social "laws" or etiquette of a group or culture. These laws have been established as the essential boundaries of normally accepted behavior. To be unable or unwilling to align one's behavior with these laws known to the general population of what is socially acceptable is to be rude.

Rudeness "constituted by deviation from whatever counts as politic in a given social context, is inherently confrontational and disruptive to social equilibrium" (Kasper, 1990, p. 208). Rudeness, particularly with respect to speech, is necessarily confrontational at its core.

Forms of rudeness: inconsiderate, insensitive, deliberately offensive, impolite, a faux pas, obscenity, profanity, violating taboos, and deviancy. In some cases, an act of rudeness can go so far as to be criminal behavior.

Frankly, it did not occur to me that asking someone to refer to my system card might possibly be considered "not complying with the social 'laws' or etiquette of a group or culture". Perhaps it's different in England because of the requirement to exchange cards at the start of a round, which does not exist here. Or perhaps not. But my thought was and is "if it's not there to be referred to, why require it at all?"

 

Law 40 specifies that RAs may require system cards and regulate their use. The RA may specify methods of disclosure. The ACBL's General Conditions of Contest say that each member of a pair must have a "substantially completed" card, and that they must be identical (except, I suppose, for the order in which the names are written at the top). Law 40 also specifies the times at which a player or his opponent may look at his system card. Law 20 says, in effect, "questions should normally be answered by the partner of the player making the call or play in question". The Alert regulation says any question should result in a full "data dump" — which I grant you is difficult to get from an ACBL System Card. Nothing in law or regulation (at least in the ACBL) says aye, yes, or no about whether or when players should look to an opponent's system card for an explanation of his call or play. Nothing in law or regulation says anything about whether it is appropriate (or inappropriate) to refer an opponent to one's card. I have had players rudely (by their tone and body language) tell me they don't look at system cards.

 

tl;dr: it did not occur to me that asking a player to look at my system card could be considered rude. Frankly, if it is considered rude, I think that's ridiculous. But there is apparently nothing in law or ACBL regulation that suggests that a player should ever look at an opponent's card. That makes me wonder why in hell regulation requires me to provide one, but I suppose it means it's pointless to mention the damn thing at all. :o :blink: :o

[paulg]

There is no specific space on the ACBL convention card to state the length of a short minor opening, so it seems pretty rude to expect me to have to search the card to see if you've put it in white space in the Minor Opening section, the Other Conventional Calls section or in the General Approach section, or on the back, when you could just TELL ME.

[blackshoe]

There is no specific space on the ACBL convention card to state the length of a short minor opening, so it seems pretty rude to expect me to have to search the card to see if you've put it in white space in the Minor Opening section, the Other Conventional Calls section or in the General Approach section, or on the back, when you could just TELL ME.

I did say originally "if the information is on the card". If the information is not on the card, of course you give a verbal answer. The question at hand then is whether it is ever acceptable to refer an opponent to one's card. Apparently, for some people at least, the answer is "no". :blink: :o :(

[helene_t]

I think that if opps ask for a verbal explanation instead of looking at the CC it is because they prefer a verbal explanation, for whatever reason.

 

It is still ok to refer them to the CC if there is a special reason, which opps might not be aware of, why looking at the CC might be better:

- I don't remember our exact agreement

- My partner might not remember and I don't want to give him UI

- My English is not so good so opps might not misunderstand my verbal explanation

 

If none of those apply I think it is most politie just to give them a verbal explanation.

[Sjoerds]

BBO forum,

I have never been questioned before when announcing

"could be short"

jerdonald

 

And what is the problem with answering this first time?

[Sjoerds]

About rudeness. The sound that comes with it might be more important.

If it sounds like: "I understand your question, but I think it is best for you to look at the card. And if any question remains I am absolutely willing to answer them".

or

something like: Why the @#% do you think I made that damn card, use your eyes!"

that makes a great difference.

[aguahombre]

I can think of one more reason to just answer the question: In referring the opps to our convention card, we really cannot help referring to it ourselves in the process; and that is not proper unless it is first drawn to our attention by the opponent or TD during a question.

 

Referring them to our card without pointing out the appropriate place where the information can be found is (IMO) flippant, time-consuming, and indeed rude. It might be within legal right to do so, but it is not the way I would like to be perceived at the table.

[aguahombre]

As for the the agreement where 1♣ could be shorter than two (beyond the ACBL GCC "natural" redefinition applicable only to 4=4=3=2), there is ample wording in the ACBL alert procedure to require it as a pre-alert.

 

"Pre-Alerts are designed to act as an early warning of any unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare. (See Part III.) Additionally, a pre-Alert is required when playing methods permitted by the ACBL Mid-Chart or SuperChart in an event conducted using that chart."

 

The "need to prepare" concerns the fact that we may change our competitive agreements against shorter-than 2.

[paulg]

There is no specific space on the ACBL convention card to state the length of a short minor opening, so it seems pretty rude to expect me to have to search the card to see if you've put it in white space in the Minor Opening section, the Other Conventional Calls section or in the General Approach section, or on the back, when you could just TELL ME.

 

I did say originally "if the information is on the card". If the information is not on the card, of course you give a verbal answer. The question at hand then is whether it is ever acceptable to refer an opponent to one's card. Apparently, for some people at least, the answer is "no". :blink: :o :(

 

Perhaps the strength of feeling from some UK players is due to the variety of system cards in place, how comprehensively they are completed, and the fact that searching, for example, a WBF card for a bit of information is a lot more tiresome than having your opponent just reply.

 

However I don't think I've every come across someone who has referred a question to the convention card except when they are unsure of the meaning but they know it is on the CC.

[Finch]

Speaking as a UK player, I don't think it's rude to refer someone to your convention card and there are certain circumstances when I do so. Being asked the minimum length of our 1C opener isn't one of them, but the two most common questions are

- how do you decide whether to open 1C or 1D (or similar questions)

- what does a 1S response to 1H mean

 

Both of these require fairly lengthy answers to be complete and they are written out, in nice clear detail, on the card.

[Bbradley62]

Playing in an open game today my partner opened 1 club which I announced "could be short". On our convention card the 0-2 club box in the MINOR OPENING section is checked. My RHO said "how short" and I said "it's on the convention card".

"could be short" can mean any of these three things:

1. Could be as short as 2
   
2. Could be as short as 1
   
3. Could possibly be a void

Does your convention card really indicate which of these three possibilities applies to your partnership agreement? There aren't boxes to check to distinguish between these three alternatives, so you'd have to write something in free-style.