Sufficient explanation ?

[Cyberyeti]

I think it also applies if the opponent alerts, but you decide not to ask for an explanation, but instead assume that you know what they're alerting about.

 

E.g. 1NT (2♣ Alert!)

 

If you assume it's Cappaletti showing a single suit, but they're playing DONT, you have no redress.

 

The issue in this thread is when they explain, but the explanation doesn't include all details. Does 21A apply because you could have asked for more info rather than assuming, or is it MI because they should have mentioned those details in the first place. How much cross-examination are players expected to do to protect themselves from making unwarranted assumptions?

 

For instance, in my experience, most people who play Michaels and Unusual NT expect them to show at least 5-5, but 2-suited NT overcalls are more often at least 5-4 either way. So if I hear an explanation of these conventions that doesn't get specific about the expected lengths, I'm not going to grill them. I expect that players who have unusually specific agreements to disclose them proactively. Unless they play almost exclusively in an insular environment where everyone plays like they do, I think they know that they're not mainstream and a generic explanation will be misleading.

 

If I could like this post I would, you've summed it up perfectly.

[pescetom]

If I could like this post I would, you've summed it up perfectly.

 

Me too. But it also points out yet another weak area of the laws.

[pran]

I don't know about ACBL, but where I play the ALERT never says anything about whether a call is natural or not.

 

The ALERT here is simply a warning to opponents: "You may have interest in asking for our partnership understanding with this call".

 

The effect of ALERT is that unless opponents have ensured that they have received correct information they cannot afterwards claim misinformation.

 

This does of course not relinquish a partnership from the duty to make its partnership understandings available to its opponents. (Law 40A1b)

[Vampyr]

Just wish to note that when I am told the name of a convention I always ask what it means (if I am in a bad mood I will simply ask them again what the bid shows). Though I have never asked eg the length of the suits a Michaels bidder is showing, and have been burnt by this enough times that I should know better.

[Cyberyeti]

I don't know about ACBL, but where I play the ALERT never says anything about whether a call is natural or not.

 

The ALERT here is simply a warning to opponents: "You may have interest in asking for our partnership understanding with this call".

 

The effect of ALERT is that unless opponents have ensured that they have received correct information they cannot afterwards claim misinformation.

 

This does of course not relinquish a partnership from the duty to make its partnership understandings available to its opponents. (Law 40A1b)

 

This reminds me of a case where an opp opens 2♣ and it's alerted, I look at the convention card which is folded and see "Benji Acol" on the front of it (so 2♣ is an Acol 2 in any suit), I use our conventional defence to this and it turns out they were playing 2♣ as "Acol 2 in any suit or a weak 2 in diamonds" which caused all sorts of chaos as partner realised this and I didn't, and we defend it like it's a weak 2 in diamonds, and is definitely not what ANYBODY would call Benji Acol.

[pran]

This reminds me of a case where an opp opens 2♣ and it's alerted, I look at the convention card which is folded and see "Benji Acol" on the front of it (so 2♣ is an Acol 2 in any suit), I use our conventional defence to this and it turns out they were playing 2♣ as "Acol 2 in any suit or a weak 2 in diamonds" which caused all sorts of chaos as partner realised this and I didn't, and we defend it like it's a weak 2 in diamonds, and is definitely not what ANYBODY would call Benji Acol.

Misinformation.

Just another case of an incorrect CC.

You should be able to rely upon a CC, but this seems very abbreviated, and a follow-up question would certainly be recommended.

[StevenG]

Misinformation.

Just another case of an incorrect CC.

You should be able to rely upon a CC, but this seems very abbreviated, and a follow-up question would certainly be recommended.

An EBU CC has a very small box at the top "General Description of Bidding Methods". This is used for a very abbreviated description of the basic system. People do not write an essay in it. Further down the front page, which CY did not bother to look at, is "Other Aspects of System Which Opponents Should Note". This is where the weird stuff is described.

[Cyberyeti]

An EBU CC has a very small box at the top "General Description of Bidding Methods". This is used for a very abbreviated description of the basic system. People do not write an essay in it. Further down the front page, which CY did not bother to look at, is "Other Aspects of System Which Opponents Should Note". This is where the weird stuff is described.

 

As usual they'd filed it under the bidding box and 4 other bits of paper and it was the older version of the CC without that box on the front. Also the 2♣/♦ bids are SPECIFICALLY what makes benji what it is, there is no variation, benji means EXACTLY one thing and this wasn't it, unlike the astro complications.

[blackshoe]

As usual they'd filed it under the bidding box and 4 other bits of paper and it was the older version of the CC without that box on the front. Also the 2♣/♦ bids are SPECIFICALLY what makes benji what it is, there is no variation, benji means EXACTLY one thing and this wasn't it, unlike the astro complications.

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty

[barmar]

You should be able to rely upon a CC, but this seems very abbreviated, and a follow-up question would certainly be recommended.

Yesterday in the Bruce 0-6000 LM Pairs, LHO (a junior champion) opened 2♦, which his partner alerted. I glanced over to the bidder's CC, and he nicely turned it around so I could read it easily. It just had the usual weak 2 stuff checked, although "Ogust" was crossed out on the line for diamonds.

 

I didn't say anything, nor ask for an explanation, but at the end of the auction my partner did ask. As I expected from the way the auction proceeded, they were playing Mexican 2♦, they'd just updated the CC incompletely. There was no damage, and I simply pointed out their mistake, which they were just as surprised about.

[Vampyr]

Yesterday in the Bruce 0-6000 LM Pairs, LHO (a junior champion) opened 2♦, which his partner alerted. I glanced over to the bidder's CC, and he nicely turned it around so I could read it easily. It just had the usual weak 2 stuff checked, although "Ogust" was crossed out on the line for diamonds.

 

I didn't say anything, nor ask for an explanation, but at the end of the auction my partner did ask. As I expected from the way the auction proceeded, they were playing Mexican 2♦, they'd just updated the CC incompletely. There was no damage, and I simply pointed out their mistake, which they were just as surprised about.

 

I once got fined 1VP for having my footnotes misnumbered.

[barmar]

I once got fined 1VP for having my footnotes misnumbered.

Were you defending your thesis on bridge squeezes? :)

[pescetom]

I once got fined 1VP for having my footnotes misnumbered.

 

I'd settle for my opponents being fined for having no CC :(

[Vampyr]

Were you defending your thesis on bridge squeezes? :)

 

LOL just the footnotes on the convention card. I had added something so the footnotes were off by one; the opponents were not damaged, so it is a mystery why they appealed over this.

 

Not long after that, my partner bid based on a CC that had an entirely incorrect description of a bid. A 1VP fine would have meant our winning the event, but one was not imposed. I think that it is very important that the EBU and other NBOs establish standard automatic penalties for this kind of infraction.

[blackshoe]

I don't know that I agree with "standard automatic penalties", at least the automatic part. TDs should be giving consistent rulings, though. If a 1 VP penalty is appropriate in the one case, then it's appropriate in the other as well.

[ahydra]

It's amazing how often people simply don't get the concept of full disclosure. I'm reminded of a recent case in a tournament where I had to ask about 6 questions in order to improve the opponent's very vague explanation to one that at least made some sense (but still wasn't complete) - yes, I should have called the TD. And the people who say "it's just Acol" or "you can figure it out" or similar really get on my nerves (partner included, unfortunately).

 

In the OP's case opps should be offering a complete explanation by default - "at least 5 hearts, at least a 4-card minor, about 8-14" or whatever. OP should however have asked for further information and/or called the TD since the missing details were rather crucial to the subsequent auction. Perhaps a split or weighted score (not sure which) could be appropriate.

 

As for CCs, it's just hopeless. No TD enforces even having a card, let alone one that's accurately filled in. (As such, to be fined a VP for having the footnotes misnumbered is just ridiculous.) FWIW I would rule misinformation in the case CY described where the top of the card says "Benji" but 2C could also be a weak two in diamonds, even if the 2C opening box is filled in correctly.

 

ahydra

[Vampyr]

As for CCs, it's just hopeless. No TD enforces even having a card, let alone one that's accurately filled in.

 

I don’t think TDs should enforce this at the club level, as the partners may have been paired up shortly before the start of the game. But in tournaments we do have checks, although on possession of a CC rather than accuracy and thoroughness. I fill out my CC pretty thoroughly, but a lot of the comments here make me realise that I’m doing it wrong, and the less information I provide, the better.

 

For example, some people are adamant that you are notentitled to know of the agreements for any future bids. Well, after a weak two and a 2NT enquiry, I list the continuations because some opponents like to follow the action by reading. There are loads of other examples where being economical with the truth puts you at an advantage.

[blackshoe]

Even in a club, the TD should investigate. If it's a pick up pair, he should probably give them time to fill out a card, but no cards is not kosher. Even one card is problematic.

 

Your agreements should go on the card. If at the time an opponent looks at the card, he sees what future bids will mean, that's not a problem, and players should not be parsimonious with what they put on the card to avoid that possibility.

 

I can't speak for other directors, but being economical with the truth will not get players very far with me.

[pescetom]

Even in a club, the TD should investigate. If it's a pick up pair, he should probably give them time to fill out a card, but no cards is not kosher. Even one card is problematic.

 

Your agreements should go on the card. If at the time an opponent looks at the card, he sees what future bids will mean, that's not a problem, and players should not be parsimonious with what they put on the card to avoid that possibility.

 

I can't speak for other directors, but being economical with the truth will not get players very far with me.

 

I wish we could clone you for our own clubs then; economy is all the rage.

 

I have to say I don't think it's very realistic to expect a pick up pair to fill out a card before a tournament: many of them could not manage it even given a day. Perhaps a more realistic approach is to have available "standard" CCs for the most frequently played systems and to ask people without their own CCs to select and play a standard CC, filling out a list of exceptions if appropriate. It doesn't take long to write down a short list of exceptions "1NT 15-18 including 5-card major, no transfers to minors, etc etc".

 

But even that would be very difficult to enforce, at least here in Italy at club level. Organisers TDs and most players are pretty much aligned, CCs are a good idea but not here or now please.

[barmar]

It's amazing how often people simply don't get the concept of full disclosure. I'm reminded of a recent case in a tournament where I had to ask about 6 questions in order to improve the opponent's very vague explanation to one that at least made some sense (but still wasn't complete)

Last night my partner asked the opponents about their leads and carding when he became declarer. The answer was "If I bid a suit, she normally leads that suit." He had to do a bit of grilling to get the information he was actually looking for. They were a pair of older women who were experienced in bridge, but not duplicate -- this was their first foray out of the Gold Rush Pairs into the open game. After the hand was over we told them that they can expect this question routinely, and should have a set answer (I gave them a script they can use).

[Vampyr]

Even in a club, the TD should investigate. If it's a pick up pair, he should probably give them time to fill out a card, but no cards is not kosher. Even one card is problematic.

 

Your agreements should go on the card. If at the time an opponent looks at the card, he sees what future bids will mean, that's not a problem, and players should not be parsimonious with what they put on the card to avoid that possibility.

 

I can't speak for other directors, but being economical with the truth will not get players very far with me.

 

But you’re one of the people who is most adamant about not being entitled to knowing about future calls. So in that way of thinking, it would be illegal for me to write e.g. Ogust rather than 2NT forcing relay. People who fill out their card more thoroughly are placed at a disadvantage. Why do you think this is good?

[Vampyr]

But you’re one of the people who is most adamant about not being entitled to knowing about future calls. So in that way of thinking, it would be illegal for me to write e.g. Ogust rather than 2NT forcing relay. People who fill out their card more thoroughly are placed at a disadvantage. Why do you think this is good?

 

Or Jacoby t2NT. I’ve just put forcing raise and not indicate what my rebids will mean. In these examples the disclosure is quite sufficient.

[axman]

But you’re one of the people who is most adamant about not being entitled to knowing about future calls. So in that way of thinking, it would be illegal for me to write e.g. Ogust rather than 2NT forcing relay. People who fill out their card more thoroughly are placed at a disadvantage. Why do you think this is good?

There was a day when by law the expectation was to be informed before the hand what the methods were. As in, complete method. Perhaps that day was prior to the emergence of someone called Meckwell.

[blackshoe]

When you fill out a system card, It is not unreasonable, particularly where space is at a premium, to refer to a particular convention name. However, if you're going to do that, you should provide a footnote that explains fully what the agreement is. Where much of the card consists of pre-printed checkboxes, you may not have a choice. In particular, the ACBL card, under "Response/Rebids" after a 2 level opening has a checkbox for whether 2NT is forcing, with no room by the checkbox for anything. There is a short blank line above the box on which most people will write "Feature" or "Ogust" or whatever. There isn't room to go into detail, so there should be a footnote, with an explanation somewhere else. On pre-printed cards, there's very little room on the front, and no room on the back, which has a pre-printed personal score sheet. Computer generated cards typically only print the front, so you can put your expansions on the back, but then there's the problem that card holders are typically designed on the assumption that there's not going to be anything to look at on the back of the card. My solution: after I get everything printed where I want it, laminate the damn thing. If I'm writing a card by hand, usually with a pick-up partner, well, I've got a problem, don't I? :huh: :blink:

 

Law 40 no longer refers to "prior disclosure" (meaning disclosure prior to the start of a segment). That's unfortunate.

 

What I'm adamant about is that a player is not entitled to be told verbally, in response to a question, what future calls will mean. If you write down your systemic responses to, e.g., an Ogust 2NT, then if an opponent actually looks at the card, he's entitled to read and assimilate what's there. OTOH, most players around here never look at system cards.

[Vampyr]

When you fill out a system card, It is not unreasonable, particularly where space is at a premium, to refer to a particular convention name. However, if you're going to do that, you should provide a footnote that explains fully what the agreement is. Where much of the card consists of pre-printed checkboxes, you may not have a choice. In particular, the ACBL card, under "Response/Rebids" after a 2 level opening has a checkbox for whether 2NT is forcing, with no room by the checkbox for anything. There is a short blank line above the box on which most people will write "Feature" or "Ogust" or whatever. There isn't room to go into detail, so there should be a footnote, with an explanation somewhere else. On pre-printed cards, there's very little room on the front, and no room on the back, which has a pre-printed personal score sheet. Computer generated cards typically only print the front, so you can put your expansions on the back, but then there's the problem that card holders are typically designed on the assumption that there's not going to be anything to look at on the back of the card. My solution: after I get everything printed where I want it, laminate the damn thing. If I'm writing a card by hand, usually with a pick-up partner, well, I've got a problem, don't I? :huh: :blink:

 

Law 40 no longer refers to "prior disclosure" (meaning disclosure prior to the start of a segment). That's unfortunate.

 

What I'm adamant about is that a player is not entitled to be told verbally, in response to a question, what future calls will mean. If you write down your systemic responses to, e.g., an Ogust 2NT, then if an opponent actually looks at the card, he's entitled to read and assimilate what's there. OTOH, most players around here never look at system cards.

 

 

Just addressing one issue, which is that it is not the first time that the ACBL convention card has been demonstrated to be hopeless. Why not use a 2-sided convention card and have the scorecard separate? Also, checkboxes take up a lot of room, since you are not checking all of them. What is the reason for not having player write what they are doing instead of using a lot of space to print what they are not doing?

 

Here we exchange convention cards and people often look at them. But initially, the normal verbal general description of system is all they need, possibly similar in the ACBL.