[aguahombre]

I can think of one more reason to just answer the question: In referring the opps to our convention card, we really cannot help referring to it ourselves in the process; and that is not proper unless it is first drawn to our attention by the opponent or TD during a question.

Referring them to our card without pointing out the appropriate place where the information can be found is (IMO) flippant, time-consuming, and indeed rude. It might be within legal right to do so, but it is not the way I would like to be perceived at the table.

[aguahombre]

As for the the agreement where 1♣ could be shorter than two (beyond the ACBL GCC "natural" redefinition applicable only to 4=4=3=2), there is ample wording in the ACBL alert procedure to require it as a pre-alert.

"Pre-Alerts are designed to act as an early warning of any unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare. (See Part III.) Additionally, a pre-Alert is required when playing methods permitted by the ACBL Mid-Chart or SuperChart in an event conducted using that chart."

The "need to prepare" concerns the fact that we may change our competitive agreements against shorter-than 2.

[paulg]

paulg, on 2012-November-27, 08:52, said:

There is no specific space on the ACBL convention card to state the length of a short minor opening, so it seems pretty rude to expect me to have to search the card to see if you've put it in white space in the Minor Opening section, the Other Conventional Calls section or in the General Approach section, or on the back, when you could just TELL ME.

blackshoe, on 2012-November-27, 09:01, said:

I did say originally "if the information is on the card". If the information is not on the card, of course you give a verbal answer. The question at hand then is whether it is ever acceptable to refer an opponent to one's card. Apparently, for some people at least, the answer is "no".

Perhaps the strength of feeling from some UK players is due to the variety of system cards in place, how comprehensively they are completed, and the fact that searching, for example, a WBF card for a bit of information is a lot more tiresome than having your opponent just reply.

However I don't think I've every come across someone who has referred a question to the convention card except when they are unsure of the meaning but they know it is on the CC.

[FrancesHinden]

Speaking as a UK player, I don't think it's rude to refer someone to your convention card and there are certain circumstances when I do so. Being asked the minimum length of our 1C opener isn't one of them, but the two most common questions are
- how do you decide whether to open 1C or 1D (or similar questions)
- what does a 1S response to 1H mean

Both of these require fairly lengthy answers to be complete and they are written out, in nice clear detail, on the card.

[Bbradley62]

jerdonald, on 2012-November-26, 16:01, said:

Playing in an open game today my partner opened 1 club which I announced "could be short". On our convention card the 0-2 club box in the MINOR OPENING section is checked. My RHO said "how short" and I said "it's on the convention card".

"could be short" can mean any of these three things:

• Could be as short as 2
  
• Could be as short as 1
  
• 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.

[TimG]

Bbradley62, on 2012-November-27, 16:05, said:

"could be short" can mean any of these three things:

• Could be as short as 2
• Could be as short as 1
• 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]

helene_t, on 2012-November-27, 09:15, said:

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.

helene_t, on 2012-November-27, 09:15, said:

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.

Sjoerds, on 2012-November-27, 09:44, said:

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]

TimG, on 2012-November-27, 17:08, said:

"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]

mycroft, on 2012-November-27, 18:04, said:

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]

mycroft, on 2012-November-27, 18:04, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-27, 17:10, said:

helene_t, on 2012-November-27, 09:15, said:

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]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-28, 00:24, said:

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]

TimG, on 2012-November-27, 17:08, said:

"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]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-28, 00:24, said:

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/...procedures.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]

jerdonald, on 2012-November-28, 22:13, said:

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]

Trinidad, on 2012-November-29, 01:32, said:

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]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-29, 06:04, said:

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.