[pbleighton]

"Since the explanation as it stands is meaningless ("6more" doesn't mean anything in English or in bridge) E/W should really ask for clarification."

I agree, and, like Ron, I think that this is probabaly a language issue, though it could be a typo.

NS should have had a better explanation, but I fault EW 99% on this one. People who call the director asking for an adjustment in marginal cases like this are a disgrace to the game. Unfortunately, they are not so uncommon.

Peter

[epeeist]

To my reading -- though I am hardly an expert -- reading Laws 9B and 75D of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge make clear that the director MUST be called when a bid has been wrongly explained (which is an irregularity). Must be called. No discretion.

So blaming EW for calling the director -- if that happened; as jillybean notes, she does not know if they did -- would have been extraordinarily unfair. "Sorry EW, I'm penalizing you for calling me, as you were obliged to do..."

The duty to call a director arises when there is an irregularity; NOT when there is an irregularity plus damage.

I have sometimes, in online bridge, called the TD -- and specifically noted I was not asking for an adjustment -- because of a serious irregularity by the opponents. For instance, in one tournament the dummy told the declarer not to ruff a card because that suit had been established -- I thought declarer probably knew, so no damage, which was why I asked for no adjustment, but still a very serious irregularity which I wanted the opponents warned about. As it turned out the opponents ignored the TD, so they ended up being booted.

[pbleighton]

"To my reading -- though I am hardly an expert -- reading Laws 9B and 75D of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge make clear that the director MUST be called when a bid has been wrongly explained (which is an irregularity). Must be called. No discretion."

Nonsense. If an explanation is unclear (as IMO this one certainly was), most people I know will ask for an explanation rather than calling the director. To call the director after you have failed to ask for a clarification is IMO poor sportsmanship.

Again, this may be a language issue - if EW thought 6more 22-24 was clear, then
they have poor English skills (no criticism intended), and they are not guilty of poor sportsmanship. If they understand English well, and were just lazy, then...

"So blaming EW for calling the director -- if that happened; as jillybean notes, she does not know if they did -- would have been extraordinarily unfair. "Sorry EW, I'm penalizing you for calling me, as you were obliged to do..."

I am not suggesting any penalty, as you would know if you had read my post carefully. They were within their rights. They were also guilty of poor sportsmanship, if they did call the director after being lazy. BTW, if they didn't call the director, who did?

I'm also not being critical of people who call the director when an irregularity occurs - I do it myself. But this type of behavior, if EW did what I think they may have done, REALLY pisses me off.

Peter

[epeeist]

pbleighton, on Jul 31 2005, 12:29 PM, said:

"To my reading -- though I am hardly an expert -- reading Laws 9B and 75D of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge make clear that the director MUST be called when a bid has been wrongly explained (which is an irregularity). Must be called. No discretion."

Nonsense. If an explanation is unclear (as IMO this one certainly was), most people I know will ask for an explanation rather than calling the director. To call the director after you have failed to ask for a clarification is IMO poor sportsmanship.

Again, this may be a language issue - if EW thought 6more 22-24 was clear, then
they have poor English skills (no criticism intended), and they are not guilty of poor sportsmanship. If they understand English well, and were just lazy, then...

"So blaming EW for calling the director -- if that happened; as jillybean notes, she does not know if they did -- would have been extraordinarily unfair. "Sorry EW, I'm penalizing you for calling me, as you were obliged to do..."

I am not suggesting any penalty, as you would know if you had read my post carefully. They were within their rights. They were also guilty of poor sportsmanship, if they did call the director after being lazy. BTW, if they didn't call the director, who did?

I'm also not being critical of people who call the director when an irregularity occurs - I do it myself. But this type of behavior, if EW did what I think they may have done, REALLY pisses me off.

Peter

We're really engaged in a circular argument. Since I thought the explanation was perfectly clear (wrong, incomplete and misleading, but clear), I consider there to have been an irregularity. A misdescription which seemed perfectly clear, with the misdescription not becoming clear until later.

Given the premise that there was a misdescription not realized by EW until later -- which I understand, you disagree with -- a director call was appropriate.

I can't remember ever having been criticized for any lack of skill with using or understanding the English language. I am in no way insulted by your suggestion I simply disagree with it.

With respect to whether there was a diretor call, as jillybean noted, she doesn't know whether there was such, she was asked to look at the bidding by a kibitzer.

[jillybean]

Ahem, I have a confession and apology to make – I looked at the hand via lin file again and see that the alert is actually "multi 6 mor 22-24" so obviously a type-o - that some had already sugggested.

So now two lessons for me to learn

1. I know what multi 2♦ is
2. Don’t jump to conclusions

sheepishly,
jb

[mycroft]

Given the length of explain space on BBO (about enough for 1D to be explained as "2+D, 11-15, 1NT is 14-16 here"), I can see the problem with explaining a Multi (of any sort, worse if there is a strong variant).

However, the standard abbreviations are M=Major, m=minor; if the explanation were "Multi - 6Mor 22-24", I'd have more sympathy than "Multi - 6mor 22-24".

Playing their style, I'd describe it as "wk2 in H or S, or 22-24 bal", but I might run out of room (and my opps would claim I was holding up the game as I typed everything into that little box).

Michael.

[jillybean]

mycroft, on Aug 1 2005, 02:25 PM, said:

Given the length of explain space on BBO (about enough for 1D to be explained as "2+D, 11-15, 1NT is 14-16 here"), I can see the problem with explaining a Multi (of any sort, worse if there is a strong variant).

However, the standard abbreviations are M=Major, m=minor; if the explanation were "Multi - 6Mor 22-24", I'd have more sympathy than "Multi - 6mor 22-24". 

Playing their style, I'd describe it as "wk2 in H or S, or 22-24 bal", but I might run out of room (and my opps would claim I was holding up the game as I typed everything into that little box).

Michael.

Best then to alert ONLY the convention name and if ops need more information it can be provided via alert box or if too much for alert box sent by private message to both opps.

Better still, bid and alert "multi" and as auction continues message opps with full explanation.

[mycroft]

Jilly, I would strongly suggest not doing that. No set of regulations that I know of suggests explaining using solely the name of the convention, and the two I know well specifically state that this is unacceptable. People do it anyway, and get away with it, but it has two *major* problems:

1) People don't play the convention the same way. *Especially* the Multi. You are *always* going to get asked about the strong variants if you don't supply them (the list is so wide - including "none"), so you might as well right up. Also, some people play much weaker suits in their weak variants of multi 2D than "normal" 2M, in fact some playing the Multi specifically so that 2M can be sound weak 2.

Same for Flannery, Precision 2D, Polish 1C, Drury, Bergen Raises and about half the conventions on the planet.

If you mean one thing by "bergen raise", for instance, and the opponents play it the other way, you haven't disclosed accurately.

2) There is a distinct embarassment involved with not knowing. Say I open 2D, and alert "Precision". So there are some who will want to know if 4=3=1=5 is possible (case 1), and there are those who won't have a clue what a Precision 2D *is* - and will feel uncomfortable asking because it sounds like I think everybody knows (and frankly, some of the explanations I have got for things like flannery when I ask for full explanations have a severe unspoken edge of ", doesn't everybody know that?" or ", you idiot" to them).

How about opening 2C, with the explanation of "EHAA"? Are you one of the 1% of BBO players (less than that in RL) who has any idea what that means? If you are, are you *sure* that your partner knows - sure enough to be comfortable making a takeout double that partner will easily think is clubs, or worse yet, a Fishbein 2D that partner might pass with 4=4=2=3?

Side note, not directed to jb or anyone in this thread - there has been a lot of griping about explanations of Polish 1C around recently, and someone saying "it's a hard call to explain, and takes a lot of space". my answer is "Tough. My Precision 1D is hard to explain, and takes a lot of space. I do it - every time - and a lot more people know what I've got than know your Polish 1C (which version, by the way? Is it limited to 20 or so, or could you have slam-in-hand? What's your NT range, therefore which balanced hands go in 1C? Do you have something special for 4=4=4=1s or are they lumped into 1C as well?)." End side note.

Which is my worry about this whole thread, really. The multi-er needed to make *sure* that their opponents knew what 2D showed; and missing the capital M and the space was very confusing, and caused a problem. Again:

Part of what goes with the right to play any convention - in particular a multi-meaning, difficult to explain convention - is the responsiblity to be able to explain, *clearly and accurately*, what is going on in your auction to opponents who have never heard of this convention before. That includes inferences they may not immediately get even though they're "obvious" from system logic.

If you can't do that, you don't get to play the convention. If you can, but can't be bothered to do that, you really shouldn't get to play bridge. It's that simple, and it applies equally to Poles playing PC against Americans, Americans playing Natural NT overcalls against Poles, Chinese playing Precision against French, Brits playing 4-card Majors against Chinese, or Canadians playing Drury and DONT against the Scots. It goes double for people playing EHAA, Moscito or Strong Pass against anybody (not pointing any fingers. I have yet to see anyone playing those systems who aren't absolutely and completely forthcoming about their system).

Michael.

[epeeist]

mycroft, on Aug 2 2005, 12:54 PM, said:

Jilly, I would strongly suggest not doing that. No set of regulations that I know of suggests explaining using solely the name of the convention, and the two I know well specifically state that this is unacceptable. People do it anyway, and get away with it, but it has two *major* problems:

1) People don't play the convention the same way. *Especially* the Multi. You are *always* going to get asked about the strong variants if you don't supply them (the list is so wide - including "none"), so you might as well right up. Also, some people play much weaker suits in their weak variants of multi 2D than "normal" 2M, in fact some playing the Multi specifically so that 2M can be sound weak 2.

Same for Flannery, Precision 2D, Polish 1C, Drury, Bergen Raises and about half the conventions on the planet.

If you mean one thing by "bergen raise", for instance, and the opponents play it the other way, you haven't disclosed accurately.

2) There is a distinct embarassment involved with not knowing. Say I open 2D, and alert "Precision". So there are some who will want to know if 4=3=1=5 is possible (case 1), and there are those who won't have a clue what a Precision 2D *is* - and will feel uncomfortable asking because it sounds like I think everybody knows (and frankly, some of the explanations I have got for things like flannery when I ask for full explanations have a severe unspoken edge of ", doesn't everybody know that?" or ", you idiot" to them).

How about opening 2C, with the explanation of "EHAA"? Are you one of the 1% of BBO players (less than that in RL) who has any idea what that means? If you are, are you *sure* that your partner knows - sure enough to be comfortable making a takeout double that partner will easily think is clubs, or worse yet, a Fishbein 2D that partner might pass with 4=4=2=3?

Side note, not directed to jb or anyone in this thread - there has been a lot of griping about explanations of Polish 1C around recently, and someone saying "it's a hard call to explain, and takes a lot of space". my answer is "Tough. My Precision 1D is hard to explain, and takes a lot of space. I do it - every time - and a lot more people know what I've got than know your Polish 1C (which version, by the way? Is it limited to 20 or so, or could you have slam-in-hand? What's your NT range, therefore which balanced hands go in 1C? Do you have something special for 4=4=4=1s or are they lumped into 1C as well?)." End side note.

Which is my worry about this whole thread, really. The multi-er needed to make *sure* that their opponents knew what 2D showed; and missing the capital M and the space was very confusing, and caused a problem. Again:

Part of what goes with the right to play any convention - in particular a multi-meaning, difficult to explain convention - is the responsiblity to be able to explain, *clearly and accurately*, what is going on in your auction to opponents who have never heard of this convention before. That includes inferences they may not immediately get even though they're "obvious" from system logic.

If you can't do that, you don't get to play the convention. If you can, but can't be bothered to do that, you really shouldn't get to play bridge. It's that simple, and it applies equally to Poles playing PC against Americans, Americans playing Natural NT overcalls against Poles, Chinese playing Precision against French, Brits playing 4-card Majors against Chinese, or Canadians playing Drury and DONT against the Scots. It goes double for people playing EHAA, Moscito or Strong Pass against anybody (not pointing any fingers. I have yet to see anyone playing those systems who aren't absolutely and completely forthcoming about their system).

Michael.

You are correct that opponents are entitled to the meaning, not merely the name. Yes, it is preferable to provide a complete and accurate description.

However, it seems better to provide ONLY the name, than to provide the name plus an incomplete or misleading description. Providing the name only invites opponents to ask for more information, without running the same risk of being misleading as a partial/abbreviated explanation might.

For instance, if I alert a transfer bid I generally only explain it as "transfer". If asked, I would of course explain "transfer to X suit" (whatever the suit is). If I alert Stayman, I only explain it as "Stayman". I don't indicate "With a 4-card or better major, partner bids it; with no 4-card or better major, p bids diamonds; with 5-4 in spades and hearts, p...[etc.]. Opponents are entitled to all that information, assuming p and I have a partnership understanding to use Stayman that way, but I don't start off typing lengthy messages to my opponents.

I've seen some opponents alert a bid as "polish club". Of course I ask for more information. I would prefer all information at once. However, I much prefer this sort of alerting to the practice I've seen sometimes of alerting a bid as "polish club" and providing only ONE of the possible bid meanings, as if I'm supposed to know there are others, or giving some sort of jumbled attempt to give all the meanings. And the advantage is, if one alerts "polish club" and opponents know what it means, or don't care, one needn't waste time giving more info.

[coyot]

I think it is generally OK to just specify the name of the convention, unless I am aware that we play a non-standard version - but use this treatment for well-known conventions only.

Transfers are OK without description, so is Stayman (if it systematically promises at least one major 4card). I alert my Stayman as it can be also weak, willing to any response.

I don't really care about people who're not willing to ask what Precision means. I don't feel embarrassed asking for a system I don't know. For this reason, I am happy when opponents just say Precision, because my knowledge of this system is sufficient to know roughly what's going on...

If the opponents ask what does that convention, I will, of course, provide full disclosure.

There are cases when a simple description drives me mad.
1♣-1♠-2♦-2♠.

When they alert and I ask, about 50% players here say "Fourth suit", to which my usual response is "Oh, thank you, I wouldn't figure that out ), these numbers are so complicated".

It's always the problem of a person living in "one system" environment for the whole life - they never realize that other people might play FSF differently

[jillybean]

"I think it is generally OK to just specify the name of the convention, unless I am aware that we play a non-standard version - but use this treatment for well-known conventions only."

For this multi system, multi skill environment specifying "well know conventions" does not work.

In live bridge is the alert and explanation one action or does a player simply ‘alert’ their partners bid and provide an explanation if asked?
Is it an online habit of both alerting the bid and providing the convention name because we are too lazy to fully disclose and so to speed up the auction?

Most players alert like this - that is how I (and I bet all other beginners) thought it should be done.

jb

[helene_t]

The problem with just mentioning a convention name is not full disclosure. If I explain partner's call as "The Famous Dutch Curly Cabbage Convention", then the opps know that we have some weired agreement and they can ask if they bother.

The problem is that opps can take it as an expression of arrogance. Something like "are you really such a beginner who doesn't even know that convention?".

For that reason, you should try to explain what it means rather than what you call it. Also because there may be a risk that somebody might interpret it differently. For example, "Pubbet Stayman" and "Multi" have very specific meanings according to some books and slightly different specific meanings according to other books.

But multi is a quite complex convention and it's difficult to explain on a single line of text. So just saying "multi" is ok, at least if you have reason to expect that opps are experienced enough to know that there are many versions of multi so they should not assume a specific version.

[mpefritz]

Maybe alert with a name "Multi" and add a character/button (uday/fred??) which means "ask for more info if needed". This will perhaps make it less intimidating to ask about the "FDCCC" helne_t mentions. Certainly those with hot keys or prepared text do not have much problem, but those are few and far between.

Please do not quote laws about full disclosure. I know short matches/long matches/known opponents/tournaments/Main Bridge Club all have different needs in alerting and explaining.

On the original question, I felt the explainer probably meant to type 6M or 22-24 as someone else mentioned. Unfortunately 2 typos showed, "m" for "M" and no space.

fritz

[jillybean]

mpefritz, on Aug 3 2005, 06:56 AM, said:

Please do not quote laws about full disclosure. I know short matches/long matches/known opponents/tournaments/Main Bridge Club all have different needs in alerting and explaining.

Different needs, same rules ? I don't understand this comment. If there is MI and the players think it needs to be brought to the attention of the TD what does it matter how long the match is or where it is played? Games between friends in the MBC are not going to appear here!

[mycroft]

One side note; in most cases, the name of the convention, while not appropriate, is sufficient. One case where it isn't is...

Multi 2D. "Multi-Meaning" is right.

The WBF, the EBU, and the ACBL define the Multi as "A two level opening bid in a minor showing a weak two in either major, whether with or without the option of strong hand types" (and the EBU restrict it more if "without").

So one describes:

"weak 2 in either major, no strong types"
"weak 2 in major, or 22-27 bal"
"weak 2 in major, or 20-21 bal, or 17-24 4441"
"weak 2 in major, or GF hearts, or GF 5-5 minors"
...
as Multi. And as I said before, many people play 2D weak 2s much more aggressively than 2M natural weak 2s (some even play the mini-Multi (no strong types) just so their natural 2Ms are "constructive weak").

The opponents will *always* want to know the strong types, and there is *no* standard, so you might as well tell them straight up.

Michael.

[helene_t]

mycroft, on Aug 4 2005, 08:07 PM, said:

The opponents will *always* want to know the strong types, and there is *no* standard, so you might as well tell them straight up.

I disagree. Our 2♦ opening has one weak and six strong variants. I allways explain it as "weak with 4+/5+ majors or various strong variants". I've played this for two years and I've never had someone ask about the strong variants except when the strong rebid occurs, and even then most will only ask questions after the auction.

Talking about stong variants that
1) rarely come up, and
2) are irrelevant to opp's defence
is just adding noise.