"Generic Game Try"

[Cascade]

I suspect generic game try is an incomplete description. If 2♠ was the only game try it might be more accurate. I would have been prompted by the question to ask what other nonjump bids would have meant. If they were game tries then this would have added definition to the generic game try and necessarily made it less generic.

[Vampyr]

Old fashioned bidding would just use 3 of the agreed major for this, and just call it a game invitation (I tried this with a new partner last week, we missed game because he usually plays 1-2-3-stop). Using the first step shows essentially the same thing, but leaves room for responder to make a counter try.

 

Also allows 3 of the major to be competitive, which is probably more important.

 

By the way, +1 to Cascade above.

[aguahombre]

It follows from your post that the player responding to a "try" call has at least two different response calls to choose between and that there is some criterion for which choice he is supposed to select.

 

This criterion must be disclosed as part of a complete description of the "try" call.

Not in advance of making such call. We alert/disclose the meanings of calls which have been made (or could have been made but were not --per Cascade above), not of calls which might be made in the future.

 

"Asking for key cards, there are (5 or 6) keys for x suit on this auction." We don't tell them and remind partner that we are using 1430 or 0314.

 

"Asking for shortness." We don't say that we will be bidding the suit below that shortness.

[pran]

It follows from your post that the player responding to a "try" call has at least two different response calls to choose between and that there is some criterion for which choice he is supposed to select.

 

This criterion must be disclosed as part of a complete description of the "try" call.

 

 

Not in advance of making such call. We alert/disclose the meanings of calls which have been made (or could have been made but were not --per Cascade above), not of calls which might be made in the future.

 

"Asking for key cards, there are (5 or 6) keys for x suit on this auction." We don't tell them and remind partner that we are using 1430 or 0314.

 

"Asking for shortness." We don't say that we will be bidding the suit below that shortness.

 

You must have misunderstood:

 

Disclosing that Blackwood is asking for Aces, RKCB is asking for key cards, Stayman is asking for major suits, Trial bids is asking for help with losers, a call (made) is asking for shortness and so on is not disclosing the structure of the response.

 

The response call must be disclosed separately when it is made.

[cherdano]

And that's why the law forums are useless.

[blackshoe]

And that's why the law forums are useless.

If I were running things here the way some people seem to think I am, I would delete this post. Not gonna happen. But I would like to hear why you think this. How can we improve? Or should we just shut down and let people muddle through as best they can with no place to ask about ruling questions?

[Trinidad]

Unlike Rik, I don't think "generic game try" is adequate. It's certainly not "full disclosure", and that's what's required.

I think we have a different idea about the term "adequate" (which is most likely my fault). To give you an idea what "adequate" means to me: If my children come home from school with "adequate" grades, they may not get in trouble with their teacher, but they will have to answer to me.

 

Furthermore, I don't agree at all that it isn't full disclosure. If 1♥-2♥; 2♠ carries the same meaning as the 1♥-2♥; 3♥ in my beginner book did then "generic game try" is the exact and full meaning. There is nothing extra to disclose. In other words: Disclosure is full.

 

The only problem is that "generic game try" might be misunderstood by a listener who assumes that the bid has something to do with spades. "Generic game try, not related to spades" would certainly be clearer disclosure, but it is not fuller disclosure.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

IMO it's not full disclosure if the opponents don't understand it. I will concede that in some cases the onus is on the opponents to ask for clarification.

[Cascade]

Depends what caused the misunderstanding.

[pran]

In my case I would not be satisfied before I knew the precise difference between the bids 2♠ in the auction 1♥ - 2♥ - 2♠ and 3♥ in the auction 1♥ - 2♥ - 3♥

 

If they maintain that there is no difference at all I would want to know why they have two different bids with exactly the same meaning here. And I would most likely inform the director of my suspicion that there appears to be a (poorly hidden) CPU involved.

[pran]

IMO it's not full disclosure if the opponents don't understand it. I will concede that in some cases the onus is on the opponents to ask for clarification.

I disagree that the onus ever is on the opponents to ask further question(s). It is always the responsibility of the player answering a question to make sure that every piece of information relevant to that question and might eventually be important is covered.

[aguahombre]

In my case I would not be satisfied before I knew the precise difference between the bids 2♠ in the auction 1♥ - 2♥ - 2♠ and 3♥ in the auction 1♥ - 2♥ - 3♥

 

If they maintain that there is no difference at all I would want to know why they have two different bids with exactly the same meaning here. And I would most likely inform the director of my suspicion that there appears to be a (poorly hidden) CPU involved.

That is not what Rik was saying. He was saying that 2M+1 was a vanilla game try just as 1M-2M-3M used to be, before he was born.

[blackshoe]

I disagree that the onus ever is on the opponents to ask further question(s). It is always the responsibility of the player answering a question to make sure that every piece of information relevant to that question and might eventually be important is covered.

And if the responder to the question has done that, or believes he has done that, what then? Call the director, you say? Okay. The director determines that the responder to the question has met all the requirements of full disclosure, and yet the player is still confused. Now what?

[nige1]

... 2S was alerted ... South said, "It's a generic game try." No other explanation was asked for or offered ... After the hand was over, N/S explained that 2S was artificial and had no relation to spades. My partner and I felt that that was not conveyed by the term "generic game try" The Director, however, suggested that the phrase "generic game try" necessarily means "artificial game try."

One of the definitions of "generic" is "not specific". That seems to be a reasonable way to describe a game try that doesn't refer to any particular suit.

I think "generic game try" is a completely sufficient explanation. OP: If you didn't think "generic game try" meant "game try without saying anything about the second-mentioned suit", what did you think it meant?

If a call is a (game) try then there must be something particular about the responser's hand that will make him either accept or refuse the try.

IMO, a generic game try is unspecific about particular requirements. I agree with Barmar and BBradley62. Both the rationale for the convention and the economy of the explanation remind of Fougasse's WWII cartoons "Careless talk costs lives" :)

[barmar]

You are aware (I hope) that you contradict yourself?

 

The general quality of a hand is one (among several possible) particulars of a hand.

 

So in this case the complete description should include "asking if he has maximum or minimum hand strength"

I think I described it poorly.

 

Some game tries show something about the bidder's hand. Long suit game tries show length in the suit bid, short suit game tries show shortness there, help suit game tries show a suit that needs help. These all ask the other partner to evaluate his hand in light of this additional information.

 

A non-specific (i.e. generic) game try doesn't say anything about any particular suit in the bidder's hand. Obviously it implies extra values, since he's inviting game. But it doesn't say anything about where the values are or the bidder's specific shape. If you have other game tries available it denies a hand that would make one of them, but it's likely to be a catch-all for everything you don't have specific bids for.

[pran]

And if the responder to the question has done that, or believes he has done that, what then? Call the director, you say? Okay. The director determines that the responder to the question has met all the requirements of full disclosure, and yet the player is still confused. Now what?

We all know that Directors are human and not perfect. If the player is still (genuinly) confused the next step is an appeal.

[blackshoe]

We all know that Directors are human and not perfect. If the player is still (genuinly) confused the next step is an appeal.

You're telling me that if a player tells you, after you've said that in you opinion his opponents have met their disclosure obligations, that he still doesn't understand their bidding, that your response is going to be "I've made my ruling; you're welcome to appeal if you like"? That seems awfully arrogant to me. :(

[mycroft]

IMO, that is different from telling the opponents (and reassuring partner) that you will be bidding a suit for which you would accept you would accept a SSGT or a LSGT and is different from the way Mycroft words the disclosure. If we disclose Blackwood, Stayman, or any bid which asks for information we are not disclosing what the answers will mean. In your case the continuation might actually show the suit asked about or not. You are not saying, "if I bid x, that means I have such and such."

I'm confused about the difference between "asking what suit(s) I would accept a SSGT in" (that you liked) and "She is asking in which suit I would accept a long suit game try." (that you found objectionable) - except of course, that it's long rather than short :-).

 

I don't see the difference - especially because you don't know we're going to bid the accept suit; after all, in one obvious case, we don't!

[aguahombre]

I'm confused about the difference between "asking what suit(s) I would accept a SSGT in" (that you liked) and "She is asking in which suit I would accept a long suit game try." (that you found objectionable) - except of course, that it's long rather than short :-).

 

I don't see the difference - especially because you don't know we're going to bid the accept suit; after all, in one obvious case, we don't!

I might have lost focus, but somewhere along the line we moved from talking about a generic, non-descript game try --in response to which we might show something in a side suit rather than just accept or decline---and a try which is not generic, but rather is an asking bid of some kind. In the former, we should not go into what we might do; in the latter, we must explain what the bid is asking, but not what the responses might be.

[pran]

We all know that Directors are human and not perfect. If the player is still (genuinly) confused the next step is an appeal.

 

 

You're telling me that if a player tells you, after you've said that in you opinion his opponents have met their disclosure obligations, that he still doesn't understand their bidding, that your response is going to be "I've made my ruling; you're welcome to appeal if you like"? That seems awfully arrogant to me. :(

 

I don't think any player should argue with the director at the table, he should present his case as best he can, accept the ruling and then submit an appeal afterwards if he feels justified in doing so.

 

It is of course arrogant and unacceptable behaviour if the director refuses to hear the player through when being presented the case at the table. If a player claims that he is still confused when hearing the director's first comments then the director must resolve this confusion there and then.

[barmar]

You're telling me that if a player tells you, after you've said that in you opinion his opponents have met their disclosure obligations, that he still doesn't understand their bidding, that your response is going to be "I've made my ruling; you're welcome to appeal if you like"? That seems awfully arrogant to me. :(

If I'm called at some point during the hand, and a player said that he didn't fully understand an explanation, I would ask the explainer to clarify further. Just because the original explanation was adequate, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was perfect; if it can be improved so the opponent understands, we try to do so.

 

But if I'm called after the hand is over, and the complainant is requesting some kind of adjustment due to the inadequate explanation, it's too late to solve that problem. If I judge, after listening to the opponent's argument, that the original explanation was adequate, I'd rule no damage. If the explainee still disagrees, that's when an appeal becomes necessary.

[PhilKing]

You are aware (I hope) that you contradict yourself?

 

The general quality of a hand is one (among several possible) particulars of a hand.

 

So in this case the complete description should include "asking if he has maximum or minimum hand strength"

 

If "generic game try" is insufficient, would you prefer "a generic bid for a hand too good to pass but not strong enough to bid game."

 

If only there was a shorter way to state this ...

 

Oh wait!

[Vampyr]

If "generic game try" is insufficient, would you prefer "a generic bid for a hand too good to pass but not strong enough to bid game."

 

If only there was a shorter way to state this ...

 

Oh wait!

 

What I wonder is whether the explanation should include some reference to what game tries this "generic game try" is not.

[blackshoe]

If I'm called at some point during the hand, and a player said that he didn't fully understand an explanation, I would ask the explainer to clarify further. Just because the original explanation was adequate, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was perfect; if it can be improved so the opponent understands, we try to do so.

 

But if I'm called after the hand is over, and the complainant is requesting some kind of adjustment due to the inadequate explanation, it's too late to solve that problem. If I judge, after listening to the opponent's argument, that the original explanation was adequate, I'd rule no damage. If the explainee still disagrees, that's when an appeal becomes necessary.

We are in agreement. I was talking about your first scenario.

[aguahombre]

You're telling me that if a player tells you, after you've said that in you opinion his opponents have met their disclosure obligations, that he still doesn't understand their bidding, that your response is going to be "I've made my ruling; you're welcome to appeal if you like"? That seems awfully arrogant to me. :(

Not necessarily. Sometimes the TD has nowhere else to go with it. Case on point from a Regional A/X --not a Lamford porky:

 

1NT (announced) 15-17- 2C (Stayman ACBL no alert)

2S-3D (no alert)...

 

At this point, the VUL and heretofore silent LHO starts in:

 

LHO: "I don't understand the auction".

T: "which part?"

LHO: "All of it."

ME: "Her 1NT was 15-17 like I announced."

T: "2C was Stayman".

Me: "2S showed 4 or 5 Spades and denied 4 hearts."

T: "3D showed long Diamonds and by inference 4 Hearts, forcing to game or slam."

LHO: How do you know He has 4 hearts?"

T: "Because he used Stayman and has now denied a Spade fit. With just long Diamonds and slam interest he would have made a false transfer to Hearts and then shown it (Walsh Relay)."

LHO: "You can't transfer to Hearts without hearts."

 

At this point the TD is called. We have reached the point of distraction and harrassment, IMO. The TD gets a verbatim account of what occurred, gives his opinion that enough disclosure has gone on, then gets an objection from LHO. He states he has made his ruling and they can ask more about this auction after it is concluded. He further states that LHO should stop now and they can appeal his ruling if they wish. Not arrogant.