[helene_t]

babalu1997, on Jan 4 2009, 12:31 AM, said:

But the best explanation of a bid is:

CUEBID!!!

Yes, or what Harald once came up with: a non-fit non-jump

[barmar]

Explaining a bid as "takeout" or "penalty" is not teaching them general bridge knowledge. Explaining what "takeout" or "penalty" means would be.

[Sadie3]

Explaining what the bid means is the proper way to respond. I was shaking my head for 5 minutes the other day when someone asked me after the hand where my one key was. I had bid 5D in response to a 4NT Ace ask and typed in 0,3 in the alert box. The op insisted I was playing 0314 when it was clear I was explaining what my bid meant. He never did figure it out.

[ehhh]

It appears to me that there is a need for a remedial course in the Principles of Full Disclosure 101. Cascade and blackshoe seem to be the only ones who are on track.

[Elianna]

ehhh, on Jan 5 2009, 10:44 AM, said:

It appears to me that there is a need for a remedial course in the Principles of Full Disclosure 101. Cascade and blackshoe seem to be the only ones who are on track.

Or a remedial course on reading.

[blackshoe]

Sadie3, on Jan 4 2009, 05:37 PM, said:

Explaining what the bid means is the proper way to respond. I was shaking my head for 5 minutes the other day when someone asked me after the hand where my one key was. I had bid 5D in response to a 4NT Ace ask and typed in 0,3 in the alert box. The op insisted I was playing 0314 when it was clear I was explaining what my bid meant. He never did figure it out.

It may have been clear to you. It apparently was not clear to your opponent. In which case it's your obligation to make it clear to him.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Jan 6 2009, 12:00 PM, said:

Sadie3, on Jan 4 2009, 05:37 PM, said:

Explaining what the bid means is the proper way to respond.  I was shaking my head for 5 minutes the other day when someone asked me after the hand where my one key was.  I had bid 5D in response to a 4NT Ace ask and typed in 0,3 in the alert box.  The op insisted I was playing 0314 when it was clear I was explaining what my bid meant.  He never did figure it out.

It may have been clear to you. It apparently was not clear to your opponent. In which case it's your obligation to make it clear to him.

You need to be particularly careful online and especially so when using abbreviations.

Years ago my opponent overcalled 2♦ over my 1NT and explained as "Major" or something similar (I don't 100% recall but I think the explanation was the abbreviation "Maj"). I ended as declarer and needed to find one of the minor suit queens. The queen was actually proven with the partner of the overcaller since the overcaller intended to mean "Both Majors" but I interpreted the explanation as just one Major. I chose to play the overcaller for the values and failed.

I have seen many abbreviations be misinterpreted sometimes as a director even when I think the intention was clear but the opponent nevertheless has still not fully understood.

[Sadie3]

It is difficult to give an explanation when you are not asked until the hand is finished. However, every ACBL tournament I have played here in BBO land clearly has the TD stating that naming the convention is not an explanation. Explaining what the bid means is the correct way to explain.

[Elianna]

Sadie3, on Jan 4 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

Explaining what the bid means is the proper way to respond. I was shaking my head for 5 minutes the other day when someone asked me after the hand where my one key was. I had bid 5D in response to a 4NT Ace ask and typed in 0,3 in the alert box. The op insisted I was playing 0314 when it was clear I was explaining what my bid meant. He never did figure it out.

It may have helped to write "0, 3 keycards". I wonder if "0 or 3 kcs" might have done the trick. That way they don't think that it's a name, and see that it's a description of your bid.

But I understand your frustration: You were attempting to follow the rules on alerting, and your opponent thought that you were doing something you weren't supposed to. This is common though. I have explained the auction (1D)-2D before as "showing five hearts and five spades", giving a description of the point range in the chat message, and some opponents are just not satisfied until I utter the magic words "Michaels".

It's rather frustrating that some opponents do not seem to know when one is following the law and wish one to deviate from it, but it IS one's obligation to explain as clearly as possible to the opponents.

[blackshoe]

Sadie3, on Jan 5 2009, 09:21 PM, said:

It is difficult to give an explanation when you are not asked until the hand is finished. However, every ACBL tournament I have played here in BBO land clearly has the TD stating that naming the convention is not an explanation. Explaining what the bid means is the correct way to explain.

While true, this does not seem to stop people from doing it.

[glen]

blackshoe, on Jan 5 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

Sadie3, on Jan 5 2009, 09:21 PM, said:

It is difficult to give an explanation when you are not asked until the hand is finished.  However, every ACBL tournament I have played here in BBO land clearly has the TD stating that naming the convention is not an explanation.  Explaining what the bid means is the correct way to explain.

While true, this does not seem to stop people from doing it.

Not only that, but for these events, my usual partner's profile states "Does not always know the name of every convention so please explain bids with description - thanks!" (this is quite true, doesn't know what DONT or NMF is, for examples). However it frequently goes 1NT-2♦ overcall:

Sometimes this is not alerted, but turns out is conventional
Sometimes it gets a delayed alert
Sometimes it gets an alert when the bid is made

For the alert, if we are blessed with one at some point, it will very often be CAPP or DONT, instead of MAJS or Ds+MAJ.

Infrequently it will be "1 MAJ", and then we are in the mess of bids not allowed in ACBL tourneys.

[blackshoe]

Failure to alert is MI. Failure to alert in a timely manner is MI. Having an agreement which violates the convention regulations in force is a different kind of infraction. But in all cases, it's the TD's job to sort it out, "mess" or not.