"Generic Game Try"

[barmar]

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."

I'd just say "We have a different way of showing a hand with just long Diamonds and slam interest." Don't mention the specific sequence, as it's not usually relevant and can (as above) just lead to more confusion. If the opponent really thinks he needs to know the alternate sequence, the Law permits him to ask about alternative bids that were not made.

[bixby]

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?

 

I thought "generic" meant "normal." I didn't understand that it meant "artificial."

 

As I see the case (putting aside the fact that there was no damage), the issue is whether it was my responsibility to understand the term "generic," or whether it was my opponent's responsibility to use a term that I would know. Several of you have suggested that "generic" means "artificial" in bridge lingo, and I'm ready to accept your wisdom, but I have to say I've never heard the term in bridge even though I've played tournament bridge for decades.

 

Given the ACBL regs ("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."), it seems to me that the explaining side should have a duty to use terms that the great majority of players would understand.

[aguahombre]

I'd just say "We have a different way of showing a hand with just long Diamonds and slam interest." Don't mention the specific sequence, as it's not usually relevant and can (as above) just lead to more confusion. If the opponent really thinks he needs to know the alternate sequence, the Law permits him to ask about alternative bids that were not made.

I could have embellished by putting in that step. Terry attempted to avoid more inquiry by preemptively stating what that "different way" would have been so the harrasser wouldn't have anything more to ask ---no such luck.

[blackshoe]

I thought "generic" meant "normal." I didn't understand that it meant "artificial."

 

As I see the case (putting aside the fact that there was no damage), the issue is whether it was my responsibility to understand the term "generic," or whether it was my opponent's responsibility to use a term that I would know. Several of you have suggested that "generic" means "artificial" in bridge lingo, and I'm ready to accept your wisdom, but I have to say I've never heard the term in bridge even though I've played tournament bridge for decades.

 

Given the ACBL regs ("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."), it seems to me that the explaining side should have a duty to use terms that the great majority of players would understand.

"Generic" is a perfectly good English word. It doesn't mean "normal", it means "not specific", as somebody mentioned upthread. It is not a word I've ever heard in a bridge context, although I can understand that someone might use it. As for it meaning "artificial", I can't speak for others, but I didn't say that, I said that one can infer from "not specific" that the bid is artificial in the bridge sense of "artificial", but that it's a subtle inference. So I would not expect someone to make it at the table, particularly if he's taken by surprise by the use of a word with which he is unfamiliar.

 

It's not up to players to know how extensive their opponents' vocabulary is. We try, in both partnerships at the table, to describe things as best we can. Sometimes we aren't perfect. While I agree that players should try to make sure their explanations are understood, I think as the recipient of an explanation we should remember that's not always so easy. After all, at some point we're going to be on the other side of this problem.

 

This is the kind of situation where a good supplementary question would be "what other game tries could he have made?" If it were me, I'd just try to remember next time that supplementary questions can help, and that I am allowed to ask them.

[PhilKing]

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

 

If there are other game tries, then it is not a generic game try by my understanding of the word. Several top UK pair play that step 1 is the only game try, the reason being that you do not want to tip off declarer's hand.

 

Sequences such as 1♠-2♠-3♥ are natural slam tries. It may sound silly, but this should have got us a swing in in the Olympiad Final in Beijing, but time heals most wounds.

[jallerton]

If there are other game tries, then it is not a generic game try by my understanding of the word. Several top UK pair play that step 1 is the only game try, the reason being that you do not want to tip off declarer's hand.

 

Sequences such as 1♠-2♠-3♥ are natural slam tries. It may sound silly, but this should have got us a swing in in the Olympiad Final in Beijing, but time heals most wounds.

 

I seem to recall that the pair in question was playing 4-card majors. I think you'd need to be opening 1m on all (17)18-19 balanced hands to make this work.

[PhilKing]

I seem to recall that the pair in question was playing 4-card majors. I think you'd need to be opening 1m on all (17)18-19 balanced hands to make this work.

 

More than one of the pairs was playing a "generic" game try - it works within Polish Club as well.

[aguahombre]

If there are other game tries, then it is not a generic game try by my understanding of the word. Several top UK pair play that step 1 is the only game try, the reason being that you do not want to tip off declarer's hand.

I have a different understanding. If step 1 is the only game try, we could describe it as "our only game try"; if steps 2, 3, 4 are conventional asking or telling, but step one is a nondescript game try "generic" would apply --and imply that other bids have more specificity than step 1.

 

My prescription drugs are name brand or generic. Our bids are descriptive, or asking, or generic noises. If Last Train says nothing one way or another about the suit bid, but is merely a last train attempt to offer (game or slam) -- it is generic.

[mycroft]

Given that nobody who doesn't play Last Train understands Last Train, using an - accurate, but not terribly descriptive? - phrase like "generic slam try" for it is, in my opinion, at best useless.

 

Given that at least a minority of people in this thread took "generic game try" in the OP case as "game try in spades, could be short or long" - unless we're the only thick ones, it seems like another one of those explanations like 2♦ "11-15, 4=4=1=5 minus a card" that are much more helpful to the explaining side than the asking one.

 

(note, as I said before, I play both of these, and *use* these descriptions - internally.)

[blackshoe]

I actually like the "4=4=1=5 minus a card" explanation, though I agree that most people wouldn't get it. The problem, I think, is that most people wouldn't immediately recognize that "4=4=1=5" is 14 cards. Easier just to give them "one of 4=3=1=5, 3=4=1=5, 4=4=1=4, or 4=4=0=5". Not as elegant, but it gets the information across.

[nige1]

Given that nobody who doesn't play Last Train understands Last Train, using an - accurate, but not terribly descriptive? - phrase like "generic slam try" for it is, in my opinion, at best useless.

Given that at least a minority of people in this thread took "generic game try" in the OP case as "game try in spades, could be short or long" - unless we're the only thick ones, it seems like another one of those explanations like 2♦ "11-15, 4=4=1=5 minus a card" that are much more helpful to the explaining side than the asking one.

(note, as I said before, I play both of these, and *use* these descriptions - internally.

IMO: "Last train" is the more common description but incomprehensible to those unfamiliar with the metaphor. "Generic game try" (or "Generic slam try") is concise and accurate. Nevertheless, just as with descriptions like "11-15, 4=4=1=5 minus a card", you should keep paraphrasing until opponents seem to understand.

[aguahombre]

Given that nobody who doesn't play Last Train understands Last Train, using an - accurate, but not terribly descriptive? - phrase like "generic slam try" for it is, in my opinion, at best useless.

If you are looking for a descriptive phrase for a non-descript bid, how about "non-descript, neither showing nor denying anything about the suit bid"?

[nige1]

If you are looking for a descriptive phrase for a non-descript bid, how about "non-descript, neither showing nor denying anything about the suit bid"?

Fine if you also mention that it's a game-try :)

[Cascade]

 

My prescription drugs are name brand or generic. Our bids are descriptive, or asking, or generic noises. If Last Train says nothing one way or another about the suit bid, but is merely a last train attempt to offer (game or slam) -- it is generic.

 

I am not sure this analogy is helpful in this context.

 

The significant difference between a branded drug and a generic one is simply the brand name. The generic drug is real but marketed for its active component not is brand name.

 

I think generic is used in a different sense when applied to game try. It's not just unbranded its general rather than specific although it may or may not be impacted by any other specific game tries that are available. As such a partnership may need to be very careful to achieve full disclosure.

[aguahombre]

I am not sure this analogy is helpful in this context.

 

The significant difference between a branded drug and a generic one is simply the brand name. The generic drug is real but marketed for its active component not is brand name.

 

I think generic is used in a different sense when applied to game try. It's not just unbranded its general rather than specific although it may or may not be impacted by any other specific game tries that are available. As such a partnership may need to be very careful to achieve full disclosure.

Yeh, I was being a little more simplistic than that. Generic as opposed to the "name brands" like HSGT, LSGT or SSGT. General is better than generic.

 

We mistreat "vanilla", also. It has a distinctive flavor and is not colorless.

[Vampyr]

Yeh, I was being a little more simplistic than that. Generic as opposed to the "name brands" like HSGT, LSGT or SSGT. General is better than generic.

 

Well, quite. In this context "generic" would apply not to a non-name brand drug (a very specific and non-literal use of the word) but to any old drug.

[mycroft]

The problem with all of this (and, as I said, I have some of them in my repertoire myself; one that comes to mind immediately, but I'm sure some that don't) is that even if you mean it as "general game try", it's unclear if you have "specific game tries", and if so, what they are (and therefore, what you don't have). Witness my befuddlement, even with an explanation that the implication is that there are 2 spades, on aguahombre's generic game try = "what I know, which is unspecified LSGT".

 

Now, all the people here will be comfortable with the followup "what does it deny?" or "what other game tries do you have?" But at least some of the opponents will be those who can't see what they're not being told, *and* are the type to think "well, he does it, therefore it must be right" and start giving out similarly vague and less-than-full disclosures on their calls (for instance, 1♣ precision - 1♦ "waiting". Yes, I've heard that, from people who should know better as well as people who don't.) Also, those people *aren't* comfortable with the above kind of supplemental question - partly because they don't actually *know that they know* it, but also because their opponents didn't explain that part, so why should they?

 

I also know that trying to explain 2NT Lebensohl or 2♣ Keri, or my 2♣ scramble from 1NTx (any hand that can't make any other call to play. To play, at least undoubled, even in the possible 2-1 fit. See, even here I have trouble explaining).

 

Blackshoe, I also like the 4=4=1=5 without a card explanation - as I said, I use it internally with my partners that play it. It's intutively obvious, if you've played the convention. After trying it twice on standard bidders, I've reverted to "11-15, three-suited, short in diamonds. Could be 34 either way in the majors." and my answer to any vaguely relevant supplemental question is the 4 shapes.

 

While I appreciate the vanilla comment - absolutely, it has a (strong!) flavour, and it certainly isn't "vanilla" when you do it right - *that* comes from ice cream - "ice cream" without qualification, for many years and still now in cases like pie à la mode, means vanilla (or "vanilla", which means they waved a bean over the ingredients sometimes in production). Note that not only is vanilla in this context a (North) Americanism, so is "pie à la mode" - the fashion in France isn't "with a scoop of ice cream on top" :-)

[barmar]

Now, all the people here will be comfortable with the followup "what does it deny?" or "what other game tries do you have?"

The law says that players can ask about calls available but not made. It doesn't say we have to volunteer that level of detail when explaining the calls that were made. I'm not saying you should try to hide behind the laws to give the minimum disclosure required, but there should be a happy medium.

 

In the end, it comes down to personal judgement. Try to be reasonable and give people the benefit of the doubt when their standard doesn't meet your expectations. Most people aren't trying to get you with legal technicalities, they just have slightly different understandings about the requirements than you.

[lamford]

I think "generic" is fine. It means "non-specific" in this context. The alert shows that it is artificial (unless natural game-tries are alertable in the US!)

[barmar]

I think "generic" is fine. It means "non-specific" in this context. The alert shows that it is artificial (unless natural game-tries are alertable in the US!)

That's correct, natural game tries are not alertable. Short-suit game tries are, though. So you can't assume that an alerted game try says nothing about the suit bid.

[mycroft]

and I would believe that "help needed in [suit], could be long or short" would also be Alertable (because it could be short), and given that that's the misread of "generic" those of us who are having one are having...

[Vampyr]

That's correct, natural game tries are not alertable. Short-suit game tries are, though. So you can't assume that an alerted game try says nothing about the suit bid.

 

But help-suit game tries are, I assume?

[aguahombre]

But help-suit game tries are, I assume?

Help suit game tries don't seem to be alertable in the ACBL, AFAICS. But, having seen people allegedly use them I agree that they don't say anything about the suit.

[Vampyr]

Help suit game tries don't seem to be alertable in the ACBL, AFAICS. But, having seen people allegedly use them I agree that they don't say anything about the suit.

 

I guess it always shows length, well three at least, which is likely why it is not alertable.

[Vampyr]

Why can't I make a single post on my mini iPad? :(