[Zelandakh]

It is worse than this barmar. The OP seems to think that the opponents are not entitled to more information than they can get from a completed CC. Hence my post spelling out (hopefully) that they are entitled to know everything that he and his partner know regardless of the form of query raised.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-29, 07:19, said:

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.

Or not. "Could be 0-2" will not convey to all opponents that it really "could be 0-13" unless there are some additional constraints on a hand that is 0-2 (or on a hand that is 3+).

barmar:

Quote

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.

LOL so the answer to the question was not even on the CC!

The ACBL CC seems to take a strange form. Why not check "Natural" or "Conv" and have a space to write in the minimum length - it seems bizarre to have 3 checkboxes for 5 possible answers.

In general I think that the checkboxes are a poor idea anyway, since you will necessarily not be using many of them, so they just waste space that you could use to describe what you are playing. When I used to use this card, I found that the only way to remove the unused boxes was to edit the card in bitmap format, which was a real pain and took ages for each different card. But that was many years ago and I expect that things have changed for the better.

Quote

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.

True, this would be an improvement, and I hope that this is the form our announcements over here would take once(!) they are introduced. In the ACBL further questions might need to be asked, since you cannot play special defenses to 2-card club suits in some cases (as mentioned earlier if 1♣ is 2-cards only when 4=4=3=2). As 2-card club openings are very popular in the ACBL, one would have to ask quite often, and this could get rather tedious.

EDIT: Crossed Zelandakh's post. Best to say that the OP seemed to think. He had the wrong idea about disclosure, but has posted his question here and gotten the correct information.

Most bridge players who don't know what is required of them in terms of disclosure have not posted on this forum and been educated.

[helene_t]

I used to explain the 1♣ opening as "natural, or a balanced hand without four diamonds". I am not sure if that is best since it may be construed as denying four diamonds even with longer clubs, or to allow a balanced hand with a 5cM.

But the reason why I abandoned the practice was that it is too complex/unusual for club players to grasp. It seems to work best to say "could be short" or "we play 5-card majors". Neither of those explanations convey that it actually tends to be natural since most balanced hands without a 5cM and without 4cD will have 4-5 clubs, but opps seem to prefer it so I explain it that way to make them happy. Some more experienced players will ask after the auction and then I can explain how many clubs it can now be infered that opener has, which will often be "4-5" due to failure to bid major suits.

Some like the explanation "could be prepared" which I think is misleading if we play Walsh style, since "prepared" sounds to me like "I am going to show my 4-card major if I have it". But maybe the word "prepared" refers to something else, or maybe it has just gained the meaning "natural or balanced" by semantic erosion.

[Vampyr]

If your club opening promises 2 and your diamond promises 4, then "could be (as) short (as two)" seems fine. "We play 5-card majors" is not.

"Natural or balanced" would definitely include hands with 2 or 3 clubs and four diamonds. In this style a diamond opening promises an unbalanced hand.

[mycroft]

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

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.

Not rude, and not wrong. "Could be short" is the correct Announcement. However, the Announcement is not full disclosure, so your legal responsibility is not over. The Law says that you are entitled to use a Partnership Understanding provided it is disclosed to the opponents in the manner the Regulating Authority (here, the ACBL) requires.

The ACBL requires:
- an Alert of certain partnership understandings (most conventions, and some natural calls), but
- that Alert to be an Announement of a specified format for certain Alertable calls (including a "could be short" 1m opening)

AND:

Quote

When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of
the agreement.

Note:

Quote

I guess all this applies to announcements as well.

This applies to *all* calls, Alertable, Announceable, or no. Yes, in many cases, non-Alertable calls' explanations are "natural, (some range and/or forcing/NF and/or To Play/INV/GF/...)" or "1st or 2nd round control" or "takeout" or minimal things like that. But upon request, the answer must be given, and it must be complete.

Quote

I will still announce "could be short" but will state "0 to 2" if asked how short.

This will (okay, should) generate a TD call. If it doesn't, it will certainly generate a rather nasty "which one is it?" response. "0-2" is completely unacceptable, and I think is the issue you are having in the beginning. It looks like you think that since that's what's on the card, that's the limit of your responsibility to explain. It's not.

Could it be 0? If so, say so. Be prepared for "under what circumstances would it be 0?" question, because this is odd. If not,
Could it be 1? It's probably only 1 in very limited cases, and I'd probably say something like "could be 1 if exactly 4=4=4=1" or whatever applies.
Could it never be less than 2? If so, say so. What are you trying to hide? (Please note, I hope the answer is "nothing, I just don't understand", and if not the answer is "I won't be doing it any more". Any positive answer to that question is a severe breach of the Proprieties).

One final comment: if it is 1♣ and the minimum is 2, know whether the only shape that will be 2 is 4=4=3=2 or not. Since earlier this year, different defences are allowed against "artificial" could be short openings than "natural" 4=4=3=2 1♣ openings - and some people play them. In fact, I could see the following scenario play out:

"Director, they bid 2♦ 'either major' after our 1♣ opening. Is that legal?"
"Well, he told us that 1♣ could be short, and when we asked how short, he said "0-2". So obviously, it's not the protected type, so we play our short minor defence."
"But it can only be 2 if we're 4=4=3=2"
"Then explain it that way. They used an illegal system against you, but only because of your misinformation. Play on."

I'm sorry if this is sounding pedantic and curt; I tend to go into "teacher mode" when it becomes clear there's a low-level misunderstanding. My fault.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-29, 09:41, said:

The ACBL CC seems to take a strange form. Why not check "Natural" or "Conv" and have a space to write in the minimum length - it seems bizarre to have 3 checkboxes for 5 possible answers.

I often wonder whether the person(s) who designed the ACBL CC have any clue how to play bridge. They were certainly not well versed in forms design.

Vampyr, on 2012-November-29, 09:41, said:

In general I think that the checkboxes are a poor idea anyway, since you will necessarily not be using many of them, so they just waste space that you could use to describe what you are playing. When I used to use this card, I found that the only way to remove the unused boxes was to edit the card in bitmap format, which was a real pain and took ages for each different card. But that was many years ago and I expect that things have changed for the better.

Yes and no. The available dedicated editors still suck in the same way. Many people use a spreadsheet, and once you get a template set up, editing is much easier than using a dedicated program.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-29, 13:14, said:

Yes and no. The available dedicated editors still suck in the same way. Many people use a spreadsheet, and once you get a template set up, editing is much easier than using a dedicated program.

Do you know of anyone who has made their template available for others' use?

[blackshoe]

No, I don't - and I don't have one. I know a player here who has a pretty good one. When he gets back from SF, I can ask him for a copy.

[Trinidad]

When I played in the USA in the '90s, I had my CC in MS Word. It's not that hard to make one and edit it whenever needed.

Rik

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2012-November-29, 12:54, said:

I'm sorry if this is sounding pedantic and curt; I tend to go into "teacher mode" when it becomes clear there's a low-level misunderstanding. My fault.

But you might have taken a chill pill instead. The OP was in search of information, and came on here to ask for it. He had received the information he needed in previous posts.

Yes, the 0-2 thing was a bit weird, but I think that the OP was really trying to get it right, and was brave enough to come on again, knowing that if he was wrong, better-informed people would set him straight.

When people are in search of education, giving them a rebuke instead will only discourage them and others from seeking help.

[mycroft]

If it came across that badly, then I really need to watch this. Thank you, Vampyr, for pointing it out.

It wasn't intended to be angry; it was intended to be "okay, we've all been saying things assuming you actually understood Full Disclosure. It's clear that that assumption was wrong. Let me phrase it as elementary as possible, so I don't miss anything else. Unfortunately, when I do that, sometimes it sounds over the top, so sorry if it does."

It seems that even after that attempt at explanation, it sounded OTT. That was not my intent, and I sincerely apologize.

What I should have said was "when you're asked how short, tell them. It has to be a specific number, not a range. If you don't know how short your suit could possibly be, please work that out so you can answer the question."

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-29, 09:41, said:

The ACBL CC seems to take a strange form. Why not check "Natural" or "Conv" and have a space to write in the minimum length - it seems bizarre to have 3 checkboxes for 5 possible answers.

In general I think that the checkboxes are a poor idea anyway, since you will necessarily not be using many of them, so they just waste space that you could use to describe what you are playing. When I used to use this card, I found that the only way to remove the unused boxes was to edit the card in bitmap format, which was a real pain and took ages for each different card. But that was many years ago and I expect that things have changed for the better.

I think the intent was to have checkboxes for the most common cases, to make them easy to see. A written number is not as easy to recognize at a glance. Also, the checkboxes allow them to do the appropriate color coding, to indicate which cases are alertable or announceable.

With more space, the 0-2 and Conv checkboxes could be followed by a "Details" text field that would get more specific. The design of a one-sided CC is a series of compromises.

[paua]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-29, 07:19, said:

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.

Bravo !

[paua]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-29, 13:30, said:

Do you know of anyone who has made their template available for others' use?

I have mine as a blank spreadsheet, based on the New Zealand simple CC.
I find Word a pain in the ass for this sort of thing.

[paua]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-29, 17:59, said:

When people are in search of education, giving them a rebuke instead will only discourage them and others from seeking help.

Agree entirely. Don't assume that everyone posting or reading this forum is a qualified and experienced director. That is not who the forum is for, surely, although I get the feeling that some here consider that the plebs shouldn't be allowed to speak.
And careful with the abbreviations please.

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-29, 17:59, said:

When people are in search of education, giving them a rebuke instead will only discourage them and others from seeking help.

But, OP seemed proud of his "it's on the convention card" response, and deserved to be slapped up-side the head for it.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-26, 21:53, said:

Nonsense. If the information required is on the card, it's perfectly acceptable to refer an opponent to that card. If he refuses to look at it, then fine, give him a verbal answer — but then he's the one in the wrong, not you. Especially if he's rude about his refusal, as (IME) many players are.

I am not at all happy about this. I have a right to not just ask a question, but to get a verbal answer. I think you are the one who is rude and in the wrong by not answering.

Of course, it depends on how it is done. If someone says "It is a bit complicated, but it is quite clear on the card" or "I am not sure: safer if you look at the card" then that is fine, of course.

But just referring someone to the card is just rude. Apart from anything else, with rare exceptions, stuff on the card is less detailed than a verbal explanation.

Another point is that there are a number of basic means of disclosure. One is via SCs: one is by question and answer. If I choose question and answer, I expect an answer.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-November-30, 12:06, said:

The design of a one-sided CC is a series of compromises.

Frankly, I think that designing a CC on one side of an 8 1/2 by 9 1/2" piece of paper is a serious error, not just a series of compromises.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-30, 17:53, said:

Frankly, I think that designing a CC on one side of an 8 1/2 by 9 1/2" piece of paper is a serious error, not just a series of compromises.

Probably. That in itself was probably a compromise -- they wanted to combine the CC and personal score. I've never really understood why, and I've complained to ACBL about it. Team game score sheets use both sides for scores, I don't understand why pair game score sheets don't. Maybe because there are lots more single-session pair games (e.g. all club games) than team games. But most people in established partnerships don't fill out a new CC each time, so that side of the score sheet gets wasted.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-November-30, 17:59, said:

Probably. That in itself was probably a compromise -- they wanted to combine the CC and personal score. I've never really understood why, and I've complained to ACBL about it. Team game score sheets use both sides for scores, I don't understand why pair game score sheets don't. Maybe because there are lots more single-session pair games (e.g. all club games) than team games. But most people in established partnerships don't fill out a new CC each time, so that side of the score sheet gets wasted.

Back in 1956, I think it was, when Alex Groner wrote "Duplicate Direction" he said "and you can even write your conventions on the back of your score card!" Which leads me to believe that the score card came first, and the ACBL stuck the CC on the back of it.

It's always amused me that you can buy "score sheets" with no CC on the other side, but that rather than print another score sheet there, the ACBL (or Baron-Barclay now, I guess) just leaves it blank. And they're more expensive than the score sheet/CC combination.