[Trinidad]

Walddk, on Apr 16 2009, 06:12 AM, said:

This is quite funny. If RHO opens 1♥ and you enter the auction in second seat with 2♣, it is an overcall, and it could also be an overbid 

Roland

It's even funnier. If you would double, which is a call and not a bid, it wouldn't be an overcall, but could be described as an overbid.

Rik

[Trinidad]

Hanoi5, on Apr 16 2009, 04:13 AM, said:

I believe it's funny how some people get all riled up over most kind of language mistakes, for the real important issue is that we understand each other.

That's pretty much the point I wanted to make.

Rik

[Walddk]

And even funnier if you look in old British books and magazines.

1♠ No Bid 2♣ No Bid
2♦ No Bid 2♠ No Bid

and so on. You also see 'No' instead of 'Pass'.

As far as 'No Bid' is concerned, I guess it should have been No Bid or Call

Roland

[nick_s]

Hanoi5, on Apr 16 2009, 04:13 AM, said:

Finally I meant to ask what the proper action was with the hand in question as an overcall, so maybe I should have asked:

1♥-(???)

Actually you should have asked:

(1♥)-?

It's normal here to put opponents' bids in ()'s

[miguelm]

1S if I am responder.

Double, otherwise.

[skjaeran]

655321, on Apr 16 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

Hanoi5, on Apr 16 2009, 04:13 AM, said:

And I guess we have all agreed that double is way better than 2♣ in contrast with:

♠JTx
♥x
♦AKQJ8
♣Q9xx

After the same bidding I believe this is a 2♦ overcall (I had 4 tables in a class yesterday and only one doubled), but to make a real difficult one, what about:

♠JTxx
♥x
♦AKQJ8
♣Q9x

I would double a 1♥ opening with both of these hands.

I would overcall 2♦ with the first hand and double with the second.
It's a cultural thing, I'm sure double is technically best with both hands.

[gnasher]

Walddk, on Apr 16 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

As far as 'No Bid' is concerned, I guess it should have been No Bid or Call 

That wouldn't work, because pass is itself a call ("Any bid, double, redouble or pass"). Declining to make a call would be a breach of Law 17C ("The player to dealer’s left makes the second call, and thereafter each player calls in turn in a clockwise rotation.")

[Walddk]

gnasher, on Apr 16 2009, 07:19 PM, said:

Walddk, on Apr 16 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

As far as 'No Bid' is concerned, I guess it should have been No Bid or Call 

That wouldn't work, because pass is itself a call ("Any bid, double, redouble or pass"). Declining to make a call would be a breach of Law 17C ("The player to dealer’s left makes the second call, and thereafter each player calls in turn in a clockwise rotation.")

Strange language. In any other language I know (quite a few) you bid whether you pass, double or bid 2♥. I guess one shouldn't be surprised, because a train also makes a 'call' when it stops at a station.

"The 17:29 from London Victoria to Southampton, calling at Clapham Junction, East Croydon, Gatwick Airport, Haywards Heath, Hove, Shoreham by Sea, Worthing, Angmering, Barnham, Bognor Regis, Havant, Cosham, Fareham and Swanwick."

Long journey. Anyone for a game of bridge?

Roland

[Cascade]

Walddk, on Apr 17 2009, 05:53 AM, said:

gnasher, on Apr 16 2009, 07:19 PM, said:

Walddk, on Apr 16 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

As far as 'No Bid' is concerned, I guess it should have been No Bid or Call 

That wouldn't work, because pass is itself a call ("Any bid, double, redouble or pass"). Declining to make a call would be a breach of Law 17C ("The player to dealer’s left makes the second call, and thereafter each player calls in turn in a clockwise rotation.")

Strange language. In any other language I know (quite a few) you bid whether you pass, double or bid 2♥. I guess one shouldn't be surprised, because a train also makes a 'call' when it stops at a station.

"The 17:29 from London Victoria to Southampton, calling at Clapham Junction, East Croydon, Gatwick Airport, Haywards Heath, Hove, Shoreham by Sea, Worthing, Angmering, Barnham, Bognor Regis, Havant, Cosham, Fareham and Swanwick."

Long journey. Anyone for a game of bridge?

Roland

That sounds like a long time between calls :-)

[gnasher]

Walddk, on Apr 16 2009, 06:53 PM, said:

Strange language. In any other language I know (quite a few) you bid whether you pass, double or bid 2♥.

Colloquially, many English people alos use "bid" to include pass, double and redouble.

The distinction isn't particularly an English language thing - it come from the Laws of Bridge, whose wording is currently in the hands of seventeen people, from the Netherlands, France, Italy, Switzerland, Great Britain and the USA.

The Laws use "bid" and "call" to represent two different concepts, the former meaning "an undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six) in a specified denomination" and the other meaning either one of those or a pass, double or redouble.

This distinction helps to make the Laws readable. For example, "A player may double only the last preceding bid" is more concise than "A player may double only the last preceding undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks".

If the lawmakers didn't use "bid" and "call" in this way, what terminology should they have chosen instead?

[Walddk]

gnasher, on Apr 17 2009, 12:02 AM, said:

If the lawmakers didn't use "bid" and "call" in this way, what terminology should they have chosen instead?

In the Danish version of the law book we also differentiate. "Bud" = "bid", "Melding" = "call". I always found that silly and confusing. Name them all "bids", just like you call a spade a spade.

The members of the Law Committee may be legal experts, but just like lawyers don't know how to use a language (thank goodness they have secretaries), the same applies to the above mentioned members. Let me add that Mike Hargreaves is the rare exception to that rule.

The law book could have been written in a language humans understand, but it isn't. The more complicated, the better seems to be the jumping-off point. The book is supposed to be read and understood by laymen, not only judges in the Supreme Court.

Roland

[Trinidad]

In Swedish the difference between a 'call' and a 'bid' is made in an artificial way. The Swedish translation of 'call' is 'bud' (which is the linguistic equivalent of the English 'bid'). To clarify the difference between 'call' and 'bid' in the Laws, the term 'aktivt bud' ('active bid') is used for a 'bid'.

I have never heard the term 'aktivt bud' used in spoken Swedish, not even in discussions between TDs, other than at the TD course that I took there.

In Dutch, the situation is more confusing. According to the Law book 'a call' is 'een bod' and 'a bid' is 'een bieding'. But if you ask any Dutch bridge player (other than Ton Kooijman ) what the word 'bieding' means they will tell you that it means 'auction'.

Rik

[gnasher]

Walddk, on Apr 17 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

I always found that silly and confusing. Name them all "bids", just like you call a spade a spade.

Then how would you rewrite the phrases "the last preceding bid", "bid out of rotation", "insufficient bid", etc?

I don't disagree that it would be better for the wording in the Laws to reflect everyday usage, but on this specific question it seems quite hard to choose terminology which is both intuitive and useful. It seems that that problem isn't confined to the English version of the Laws, either.

[barryallen]

Trinidad, on Apr 16 2009, 08:56 AM, said:

Hanoi5, on Apr 16 2009, 04:13 AM, said:

I believe it's funny how some people get all riled up over most kind of language mistakes, for the real important issue is that we understand each other.

That's pretty much the point I wanted to make.

Rik

Was there a point? You think you found one but I am not sure one ever existed?

As for call and bid, they both can mean the same thing, just one being American and the other English. The American adaptation established in Poker and transferred by the huge amount of books and literature from American authors. I did not realise they now have two separate definitions, if that is the case? Over time with both being in common use and selection from either side, it is not uncommon for some to regularly use both for the same definition.

[barmar]

I think gnasher's point is well taken. The distinction between "bid" and "call" is useful in the Laws document, as it allows for more concise wording. However, in most other settings, the words can be used interchangeably, and context takes care of things. So, when someone asks "What's your bid?", they're not implying that you must choose a bid rather than a call (although I just realized that the editors of the ACBL Bulletin were careful to name their equivalent to MSC "What's Your Call?", perhaps to avoid complaints by pedants).