[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2015-July-22, 11:03, said:

Calls based on any bidding system fall outside of the realm of GBK.

Are there any calls that are NOT based on bidding system?

[mycroft]

I've always been comfortable with describing partner's strength based on what they expect me to do (as opposed to telling the table what my responses are), provided it's easier than describing their hand:

"Partner expects me to bid game if I would have opened a strong club if I knew in advance partner had 4-card support" (as opposed to "Partner expects me to bid game with a good hand for my 1♠ opener")

"To play opposite the weak version, invitational opposite the strong."

Now that I think about it, most of the time I use this construction is for "mild invites" - the kind where "hey, if your eyes light up hearing this info, go. If you're just happy, don't."

Sometimes we get Walruses. I'm sorry, but that is our agreement, deal with it. We had one in the Red Ribbons (not a really prestigious event, but you do have to prove you know how to play), where she didn't care about the hand, she just wanted the point range. As it was one of these "mild invites", she got "usually good 11-13 or so, could be less with the right shape" after "If I have a really good opener, not just a good one, I'm allowed to go to game", and then asked "what's the absolute minimum points she could hold?" She didn't like my answer (which, I must admit, was a little snarky, but not wrong(*)), and the world came to an end: "they shouldn't be allowed to play this if they can't explain it" was just the tip of the iceberg.

(*)

Spoiler

"well, with 6-card support and a void in your suit, I guess it could be 7." Yeah, for my part in the annoyance, I will take the blame.

But "why should I have to do the arithmetic for them" just doesn't fly, even for me. You know your system, they don't; it will take them twice as long to work out everything as it would for you to just tell them, and using that to your advantage is not Proper. I usually use my Moscito example for this:

"He's shown hearts, and diamonds, and longer diamonds, and the most common shape, low shortness; 5 AKQ points, one but not all top honours in the longest and second longest suits, and none or all in the third. I have a strong hand, and want to play 6♦." All true, all absolutely correct, and nowhere near full disclosure - because if I describe it that way, I'm hoping you won't bother to work it out.

Yes, if you play an unusual system, I'm going to be harder on you than if you play the system everybody else plays and give the same level of incomplete answers (please note: I play "Calgary normal" perhaps one game in 20, so I'm hard on me, too). I grumble about it in standard, but the field are going to be able to work it out with minimal effort. In our systems, not so much.

[mycroft]

 barmar, on 2015-July-23, 09:37, said:

Are there any calls that are NOT based on bidding system?

"It takes 25 or so HCP, or complimentary shape, to make game." "After finding out about aces, if I do something that forces to 6, I'm looking for 7." "Third seat openers may lie."

Relying on GBK, or deciding if it's GBK or style, is on par with "am I going to get away with this call suggested by the UI" rather than "is there any other sane call". Not saying something because it's so obvious everybody should know it, and when being called on it (because this "everybody" didn't, because they're three "can't play" levels below (or above) you) having the TD rule GBK, is not.

I'm still hard on players who try to use the Laws and regulations to try to minimize disclosure, because either they're lazy, or they're trying for an advantage (or they're complaining that "everybody else does this, why am I getting ruled against/have to follow the Law?" - and they have a point, and I feel for them, even when I rule against them. But I've seen what happens when you crack down overly hard on ethical issues: you get a beautiful, ethical A game, and a 199er game - and instead of moving into B, the 199ers who graduate stop playing. Perhaps there's a better way. I'm sure there's a better way. I'm not the person to coordinate it.

And Barry: I am not suggesting you are any of the people discussed here; I'm just riffing off your question.

[avoscill]

 mycroft, on 2015-July-23, 11:18, said:

But "why should I have to do the arithmetic for them" just doesn't fly, even for me. You know your system, they don't; it will take them twice as long to work out everything as it would for you to just tell them, and using that to your advantage is not Proper. I usually use my Moscito example...

Your Moscito example is not appropriate here. We also use (rarely) some relay sequences to find out specific high cards in partner's hand, which he shows in a codified manner, but it never occurred to me to explain to the opponents just the rules he uses. Of course I name to them whatever aces, kings and queens I found partner holds. But when an experienced player asks me to calculate the results of simple subtractions like 25 - 11 or 25 - 5, well, I find this is not Proper. As I said, it is a question of principle...

[Vampyr]

 avoscill, on 2015-July-25, 10:12, said:

But when an experienced player asks me to calculate the results of simple subtractions like 25 - 11 or 25 - 5, well, I find this is not Proper. As I said, it is a question of principle...

Under what circumstances would they ask that?

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2015-July-25, 10:32, said:

 avoscill, on 2015-July-25, 10:12, said:

But when an experienced player asks me to calculate the results of simple subtractions like 25 - 11 or 25 - 5, well, I find this is not Proper. As I said, it is a question of principle...

Under what circumstances would they ask that?

The start of the OP:

 avoscill, on 2015-July-15, 05:20, said:

We play an unusual system where responder is able to quickly delimit his hand, on which opener often gives a signoff or an invitation. When the opponents ask me, as reponder, to explain opener's bid, I simply answer that his bid is to play (or invitational, depending on the auction), but a few players, at our local tournements, are not satisfied with that answer. They insist that I should tell them exactly how many points has the opener shown. Now, it is true that I may infer, from what I have shown to him, the strength range he should have for his bid, but so can they.

So, opener opens. Responder shows in an artificial way, say (what do I know?), 7-9 points and .. well.. 6 spades. (All explained nicely.) Opener rebids, say 4♠, which is explained as "to play".

Now, opponents are not happy with the explanation of "to play". They want to hear: "At least 25-7 = At least 18 points".

Personally, I don't get that. "To play" is a much better description than "18+ points". After all, it could be 12 HCPs with 4 card support and a void, or 22 HCPs in a 2344 hand with 2 spades. And who knows? Perhaps the opponents count only 3 points for a void?!? Are they supposed to evaluate the hands like I do?

Like many partnership agreements, the agreement is not defined in terms of HCPs. It is defined in terms of "purpose". Though logically that means that it is a hand that this player somehow evaluates as worth about at least 18 points (or at most 5 losers or whatever).

Once, when I was kibitzing Meckwell, their bridge wasn't going great but they were having a good time. Rodwell opens 1NT, and Meckstroth immediately announces "10-12". In a flash it goes pass-3NT and Rodwell announces, jokingly, "9-19". Again, like lightning, this is followed by three passes, the ♣2 is lead and the opponent announces "two of clubs". Laughter all around.

It illustrates how silly (or funny) it can be to assign point count ranges to bids that are not (and should not be) defined in point count ranges.

Rik

[barmar]

To paraphrase Through the Looking Glass:

“When I make abid,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make bids mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

[mycroft]

That was my issue, though. It's not "25-5", it's explaining something as "to play", when it's "to play opposite the weak version of partner's hand, which is 0-5, although you may have forgotten it or not asked. Opposite the strong version, of course, we will continue, and I may even have a game force. Also, we play other calls that limit which kinds of hands would make this call, and they make sense in the context of our system, but the 2/1 herd would never think of it."

There's a local pair that plays Montreal Relay. 1♣!-1♦! is "denies a 5-card major". That's the full explanation they give, and they think it's all good. They, of course, know an awful lot more about the hand than that, and it's somewhat obvious in the context of their system - but I, and 90% of their opponents, don't play their system.

That's why I'm saying things like "to play opposite the 0-5, could still have game opposite the invitational hand". I agree with the OP's basic premise that I shouldn't have to do math; but I disagree that "to play" is sufficient, and after the invitational hand is shown, some explanation as to how ZAR invitations are accepted would be helpful. "A point range", of course, is Pure Walrus; but the goal is Full Disclosure, and there's a difference between "do the math" and "I'm not going to give you the information to do the math because I already have, or I'm only going to give you what I can get away with."

Note: the 1♦-(1NT)-p; 3♦ auction I don't really have a problem with. I would want to know the strength (strong 2♣ ish? Preemptive with 4+♠ and a longer minor? Just heavy two-suiter? Invitational? What's the difference betweene 2♦ here and 3♦?) but here, the responses to 1NT are standard, and you can explain that we bid like everyone else after a 1NT overcall.