Could Be Short announcment

[TimG]

"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.

 

"may be short" only applies to non-forcing openings, so I guess #3 is possible, but I've never heard of of such a system. Nor have I heard of #2, but it seems more plausible than #3.

[blackshoe]

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.

Is there some inference I don't see in a question from an opponent that implies a verbal explanation is requested? Other than just "we're having a conversation here"?

 

For myself, if I ask a question about opponents' methods, it's because I want to know the answer. I don't particularly care how they convey that answer to me.

 

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

Oh, I quite agree. However, this does not imply that referring them to the system card in this case is rude, so that implication must come from somewhere else.

 

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.

Of course. I would never give the latter impression at the table.

[mycroft]

"may be short" only applies to non-forcing openings, so I guess #3 is possible, but I've never heard of of such a system. Nor have I heard of #2, but it seems more plausible than #3.

Montreal Relay uses a 5=5=5=1 opening structure (unless they do something else with the 4=4=4=1s). Precision, especially if they don't want to use 2♦ for the 4=4=1=5 minus-a-card crutch, will have short diamonds, including "could be as short as zero". If they are non-forcing and ostensibly natural, they go in the "could be short" box. I don't see it often, but I certainly don't see it never.

 

Aguahombre: if the non-4=4=3=2s have to Pre-Alert their 1♣ opening for "opponents needing to prepare", so does any strong club "could be short" 1♦ (to which the same defences apply). And it doesn't - at least it hasn't for a long while. Never mind the fact that those that play this (whether it could be 4=4=3=2 only or not) have no clue what the answer to that question is - and therefore wouldn't know to Pre-Alert it even if it was Pre-Alertable. Okay, that last comment was smartalecy, but it's not wrong...

[TimG]

Precision, especially if they don't want to use 2♦ for the 4=4=1=5 minus-a-card crutch, will have short diamonds, including "could be as short as zero".

 

True enough, I was thinking only of 1♣ openings.

[aguahombre]

Aguahombre: if the non-4=4=3=2s have to Pre-Alert their 1♣ opening for "opponents needing to prepare", so does any strong club "could be short" 1♦ (to which the same defences apply). And it doesn't - at least it hasn't for a long while. Never mind the fact that those that play this (whether it could be 4=4=3=2 only or not) have no clue what the answer to that question is - and therefore wouldn't know to Pre-Alert it even if it was Pre-Alertable. Okay, that last comment was smartalecy, but it's not wrong...

I was comparing the wording of the ACBL Alert Procedures (which I quoted) with their application to people who play 1C as could be shorter than two. If you are one of those, then you should decide whether the pre-alert requirement applies to you. I did not address Precision or other strong club systems, and what they show when they open 1D.

 

If, up to now, you had no clue whether it should be pre-alerted, a reading of the rules and your certain knowledge that different defenses are allowed when you play a short club which is not defined as "natural" will lead you to the newfound conclusion that it should be pre-alerted.

 

Extending what I said to 1D openings in artificial systems is just a smoke screen. Players up against a strong club system are already aware of the defenses available; encountering a possible zero or one-card club opening in a supposedly natural system is a surprise, and no one who uses that method can honestly say they don't think it is unusual enough that the opponents should be able to prepare.

[Trinidad]

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.

Is there some inference I don't see in a question from an opponent that implies a verbal explanation is requested?

Yes, there is. If they would have wanted to read it from the card, they would have done that instead of asking the question. Remember that Helene is playing in Europe where the opponents' CC is pretty much always right in front of her nose. Usually, she will have familiarized herself with the opponents' system before the start of the round. If she is asking a question, she will already know what is written on the card, and the information there will not be sufficient.

 

IMO it is not so much impolite to refer opponents to the CC when they ask for an explanation, it is at best not very cooperative and most of the time plain silly¹. What do you expect the opponents to say to that: Good idea, why didn't I think of that myself! or What? Do these score cards have explanations for your system? Groovy!?

 

Rik

 

¹With some obvious exceptions of cases where the explanation on the CC is better than you are able to give, etc.

[mycroft]

Extending what I said to 1D openings in artificial systems is just a smoke screen. Players up against a strong club system are already aware of the defenses available; encountering a possible zero or one-card club opening in a supposedly natural system is a surprise, and no one who uses that method can honestly say they don't think it is unusual enough that the opponents should be able to prepare.

I don't find a short club, even a short club that isn't in a 5=5=4=2 system, any more unusual than a short diamond. I would also likely play the same defence, were we Pre-Alerted ("Okay, pd, same defence as the short diamond?") - and in the pair that I play artificial short minor defences, that's what we do anyway.

 

I don't consider this "fundamentally unfamiliar to the opponents", at least when compared to a Precision 0+ diamond. If that doesn't require a Pre-Alert, and things like Flannery don't require a Pre-Alert, neither should this - there's no more "need to prepare". I think it is something that one should prepare for in advance or don't, just like Flannery and short diamond defences.

 

Look at the things they use as examples of "need to prepare": canape systems, Mid-Chart/SuperChart conventions, and weak 2s could be 8xxxx/weak 3s could be Jxxxxx (and that latter is going away in favour of "Alerting the call" "as soon as the Alert Procedure is republished", per BoD decision *two years ago* :-) 1♦ promising 5 or 4=4=4=1, or 1♣ "clubs or balanced" certainly isn't in these categories.

 

There is a good argument that it *should* be Pre-Alerted, just to avoid having to answer the question when they do open it; but I don't think the regulation says they have to.

[richlp]

"may be short" only applies to non-forcing openings, so I guess #3 is possible, but I've never heard of of such a system. Nor have I heard of #2, but it seems more plausible than #3.

Back in the late 70's a friend came up with a system called "Precise Major" in which an opening bid of 1♥ or 1♠ guaranteed exactly 5 cards in the suit. With 6-4-3-0 distribution the system bid was 1♣ which was non-forcing. All the local clubs allowed it (this was back in the day when innovation was considered a good thing and allowed conventions were not restricted to what the lowest common denominator of bridge player would tolerate) and we played it in a couple of sectionals (always getting director approval beforehand)

[blackshoe]

I was comparing the wording of the ACBL Alert Procedures (which I quoted) with their application to people who play 1C as could be shorter than two. If you are one of those, then you should decide whether the pre-alert requirement applies to you. I did not address Precision or other strong club systems, and what they show when they open 1D.

 

If, up to now, you had no clue whether it should be pre-alerted, a reading of the rules and your certain knowledge that different defenses are allowed when you play a short club which is not defined as "natural" will lead you to the newfound conclusion that it should be pre-alerted.

 

Extending what I said to 1D openings in artificial systems is just a smoke screen. Players up against a strong club system are already aware of the defenses available; encountering a possible zero or one-card club opening in a supposedly natural system is a surprise, and no one who uses that method can honestly say they don't think it is unusual enough that the opponents should be able to prepare.

Interesting argument. I wonder why TPTB didn't mention a pre-alert requirement when they announced the change in the GCC?

[jerdonald]

BBO forum,

This is why I like this forum, post a question and

got 33 replies so far.

 

I didn't mean to be rude when asked "how short" but I

had been reading the ACBL Announcement Procedures on:

http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html

where all it states is that "could be short" is the

proper announcement to a 1 club opening.

 

Now reading the Alert Procedures it clearly states that:

 

Remember that the opponents are entitled to know the agreed

meaning of all calls.

The bidding side has an obligation to disclose its agreements

according to the procedures established by ACBL.

When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of

the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the

convention is not sufficient.

The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question.

Any request for information should be the trigger.

Opponents need only indicate the desire for information -

all relevant disclosure should be given automatically.

The proper way to ask for information is "please explain.

 

I guess all this applies to announcements as well. I will

still announce "could be short" but will state "0 to 2" if

asked how short.

 

Thanks for all the replies,

 

jerdonald

[Trinidad]

I guess all this applies to announcements as well. I will

still announce "could be short" but will state "0 to 2" if

asked how short.

I am sorry, but if I were your opponent, I would be confused with such an explanation.

 

If I ask "How short can it be?" I expect to hear one number, possibly with the conditions when it would occur, e.g.: "Our 1♣ opening could be as short as two, in a 4=4=3=2 hand."

 

There can only be one minimum length. If zero clubs is possible then you answer "zero". If zero clubs is impossible, but one club is, then you answer "one". And if one club is impossible, but two clubs is, then you answer "two".

 

Or do you really mean to say: "Will be short, since it cannot be three clubs?"

 

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Jerdonald, do you see the part you quoted that reads: "Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically"? Do you think "0+ clubs", or even "0 to 2 clubs", is an accurate description of everything your partnership knows about your 1♣ opening? Why don't you tell us what the 1♣ opening actually does show. Everything! This is precisely what your opponents are entitled to know as soon as they make any enquiry whatsoever about the 1♣ opening.

[Vampyr]

Or do you really mean to say: "Will be short, since it cannot be three clubs?"

 

If so, OP should alert and not announce. Although, like others I am dubious, and wonder what the OP means by "0-2"!

[aguahombre]

OP's 1C "could" have 0-2 if short. It could have more. I am sure he is deeply apologetic for posting something confusing.

 

If he had said, "could be 0-2", we would be able to get on with our lives.

 

The announcement regulation is the culprit causing all the waste of time at the table and here. Lose the word "short", as with other names or adjectives, and require the announcement to state how short it could be.

[barmar]

If so, OP should alert and not announce. Although, like others I am dubious, and wonder what the OP means by "0-2"!

I suspect he's just parrotting the ACBL convention card. It has checkboxes for expected minimum length, labeled "4", "3", "NF 0-2", and "Conv".

 

But this is wrong. Checking the 0-2 box doesn't necessarily mean that your minimum length can be 0. You check that box if your agreement is any of the lengths 0, 1, or 2 -- to find out which it is, the opponents need to ask, and then you should give the actual minimum length.

 

This is another reason why "Look at our CC" is not a proper answer to the question, unless you've added more details somewhere on the card.

[Zelandakh]

It is worse than this barmar. The OP seems to think that the opponents are not entitled to more information than they can get from a completed CC. Hence my post spelling out (hopefully) that they are entitled to know everything that he and his partner know regardless of the form of query raised.

[Vampyr]

OP's 1C "could" have 0-2 if short. It could have more. I am sure he is deeply apologetic for posting something confusing.

 

If he had said, "could be 0-2", we would be able to get on with our lives.

 

Or not. "Could be 0-2" will not convey to all opponents that it really "could be 0-13" unless there are some additional constraints on a hand that is 0-2 (or on a hand that is 3+).

 

barmar:

I suspect he's just parrotting the ACBL convention card. It has checkboxes for expected minimum length, labeled "4", "3", "NF 0-2", and "Conv".

 

But this is wrong. Checking the 0-2 box doesn't necessarily mean that your minimum length can be 0. You check that box if your agreement is any of the lengths 0, 1, or 2 -- to find out which it is, the opponents need to ask, and then you should give the actual minimum length.

 

This is another reason why "Look at our CC" is not a proper answer to the question, unless you've added more details somewhere on the card.

 

LOL so the answer to the question was not even on the CC!

 

The ACBL CC seems to take a strange form. Why not check "Natural" or "Conv" and have a space to write in the minimum length - it seems bizarre to have 3 checkboxes for 5 possible answers.

 

In general I think that the checkboxes are a poor idea anyway, since you will necessarily not be using many of them, so they just waste space that you could use to describe what you are playing. When I used to use this card, I found that the only way to remove the unused boxes was to edit the card in bitmap format, which was a real pain and took ages for each different card. But that was many years ago and I expect that things have changed for the better.

 

The announcement regulation is the culprit causing all the waste of time at the table and here. Lose the word "short", as with other names or adjectives, and require the announcement to state how short it could be.

 

True, this would be an improvement, and I hope that this is the form our announcements over here would take once(!) they are introduced. In the ACBL further questions might need to be asked, since you cannot play special defenses to 2-card club suits in some cases (as mentioned earlier if 1♣ is 2-cards only when 4=4=3=2). As 2-card club openings are very popular in the ACBL, one would have to ask quite often, and this could get rather tedious.

 

EDIT: Crossed Zelandakh's post. Best to say that the OP seemed to think. He had the wrong idea about disclosure, but has posted his question here and gotten the correct information.

 

Most bridge players who don't know what is required of them in terms of disclosure have not posted on this forum and been educated.

[helene_t]

I used to explain the 1♣ opening as "natural, or a balanced hand without four diamonds". I am not sure if that is best since it may be construed as denying four diamonds even with longer clubs, or to allow a balanced hand with a 5cM.

 

But the reason why I abandoned the practice was that it is too complex/unusual for club players to grasp. It seems to work best to say "could be short" or "we play 5-card majors". Neither of those explanations convey that it actually tends to be natural since most balanced hands without a 5cM and without 4cD will have 4-5 clubs, but opps seem to prefer it so I explain it that way to make them happy. Some more experienced players will ask after the auction and then I can explain how many clubs it can now be infered that opener has, which will often be "4-5" due to failure to bid major suits.

 

Some like the explanation "could be prepared" which I think is misleading if we play Walsh style, since "prepared" sounds to me like "I am going to show my 4-card major if I have it". But maybe the word "prepared" refers to something else, or maybe it has just gained the meaning "natural or balanced" by semantic erosion.

[Vampyr]

If your club opening promises 2 and your diamond promises 4, then "could be (as) short (as two)" seems fine. "We play 5-card majors" is not.

 

"Natural or balanced" would definitely include hands with 2 or 3 clubs and four diamonds. In this style a diamond opening promises an unbalanced hand.

[mycroft]

I didn't mean to be rude when asked "how short" but I

had been reading the ACBL Announcement Procedures on:

http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html

where all it states is that "could be short" is the

proper announcement to a 1 club opening.

Not rude, and not wrong. "Could be short" is the correct Announcement. However, the Announcement is not full disclosure, so your legal responsibility is not over. The Law says that you are entitled to use a Partnership Understanding provided it is disclosed to the opponents in the manner the Regulating Authority (here, the ACBL) requires.

 

The ACBL requires:

- an Alert of certain partnership understandings (most conventions, and some natural calls), but

- that Alert to be an Announement of a specified format for certain Alertable calls (including a "could be short" 1m opening)

 

AND:

When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of

the agreement.

 

Note:

I guess all this applies to announcements as well.

This applies to *all* calls, Alertable, Announceable, or no. Yes, in many cases, non-Alertable calls' explanations are "natural, (some range and/or forcing/NF and/or To Play/INV/GF/...)" or "1st or 2nd round control" or "takeout" or minimal things like that. But upon request, the answer must be given, and it must be complete.

 

I will still announce "could be short" but will state "0 to 2" if asked how short.

This will (okay, should) generate a TD call. If it doesn't, it will certainly generate a rather nasty "which one is it?" response. "0-2" is completely unacceptable, and I think is the issue you are having in the beginning. It looks like you think that since that's what's on the card, that's the limit of your responsibility to explain. It's not.

 

Could it be 0? If so, say so. Be prepared for "under what circumstances would it be 0?" question, because this is odd. If not,

Could it be 1? It's probably only 1 in very limited cases, and I'd probably say something like "could be 1 if exactly 4=4=4=1" or whatever applies.

Could it never be less than 2? If so, say so. What are you trying to hide? (Please note, I hope the answer is "nothing, I just don't understand", and if not the answer is "I won't be doing it any more". Any positive answer to that question is a severe breach of the Proprieties).

 

One final comment: if it is 1♣ and the minimum is 2, know whether the only shape that will be 2 is 4=4=3=2 or not. Since earlier this year, different defences are allowed against "artificial" could be short openings than "natural" 4=4=3=2 1♣ openings - and some people play them. In fact, I could see the following scenario play out:

 

"Director, they bid 2♦ 'either major' after our 1♣ opening. Is that legal?"

"Well, he told us that 1♣ could be short, and when we asked how short, he said "0-2". So obviously, it's not the protected type, so we play our short minor defence."

"But it can only be 2 if we're 4=4=3=2"

"Then explain it that way. They used an illegal system against you, but only because of your misinformation. Play on."

 

I'm sorry if this is sounding pedantic and curt; I tend to go into "teacher mode" when it becomes clear there's a low-level misunderstanding. My fault.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL CC seems to take a strange form. Why not check "Natural" or "Conv" and have a space to write in the minimum length - it seems bizarre to have 3 checkboxes for 5 possible answers.

I often wonder whether the person(s) who designed the ACBL CC have any clue how to play bridge. They were certainly not well versed in forms design.

 

In general I think that the checkboxes are a poor idea anyway, since you will necessarily not be using many of them, so they just waste space that you could use to describe what you are playing. When I used to use this card, I found that the only way to remove the unused boxes was to edit the card in bitmap format, which was a real pain and took ages for each different card. But that was many years ago and I expect that things have changed for the better.

Yes and no. The available dedicated editors still suck in the same way. Many people use a spreadsheet, and once you get a template set up, editing is much easier than using a dedicated program.

[Vampyr]

Yes and no. The available dedicated editors still suck in the same way. Many people use a spreadsheet, and once you get a template set up, editing is much easier than using a dedicated program.

 

Do you know of anyone who has made their template available for others' use?

[blackshoe]

No, I don't - and I don't have one. I know a player here who has a pretty good one. When he gets back from SF, I can ask him for a copy.

[Trinidad]

When I played in the USA in the '90s, I had my CC in MS Word. It's not that hard to make one and edit it whenever needed.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

I'm sorry if this is sounding pedantic and curt; I tend to go into "teacher mode" when it becomes clear there's a low-level misunderstanding. My fault.

 

But you might have taken a chill pill instead. The OP was in search of information, and came on here to ask for it. He had received the information he needed in previous posts.

 

Yes, the 0-2 thing was a bit weird, but I think that the OP was really trying to get it right, and was brave enough to come on again, knowing that if he was wrong, better-informed people would set him straight.

 

When people are in search of education, giving them a rebuke instead will only discourage them and others from seeking help.