[Bad_Wolf]

I seem to vaguely recall that there is a published minute or commentary discussing the use of HCP as a default for giving explanations both in a CC and at the table.

The issue I have is the pairs who explain, for example "8 losers". Now you and I know what this means (more or less), but many of our club members have no idea, and rather than look foolish they just accept this and continue the auction none the wiser about what is going on.
It seems obvious to me that this pair is not upholding their disclosure obligations.

Is there anything I can point to to "encourage" these pairs to disclose more helpfully?

Thanks

[DavidKok]

If you get an unsatisfactory explanation of the bidding then you can, and should, ask for further clarification. If this is not successful I recommend calling the director, who should be able to explain exactly how much the opponents are mandated to explain (which may or may not be more than they have already explained).

If one or several pairs consistently give explanations which are not understood by a large share of your club players I recommend politely asking them to give a bit more details. As an example "8 losers" can be explained as "a limit raise opposite an opening", regardless of how you feel about the Milton Work count.

[paulg]

The EBU has a regulation that says, "A partnership may define the strength of a hand using any method of hand evaluation that will be understood easily by its opponents (High Card Points (HCP), Playing tricks, Losing Trick Count, etc)."

Clearly what will be easily understood depends on the experience of the opponents.

[nige1]

Bad_Wolf, on 2021-June-11, 16:47, said:

Is there anything I can point to to "encourage" these pairs to disclose more helpfully?

As a preliminary, Directors must start to take some interest in enforcing disclosure regulations.

• Defenders are consistently and notoriously economical with the truth but victims of misinformation rarely benefit from redress. At a Welsh national congress, an opponent said his played card wasn't a signal. Later, I overheard him complain that his card had conventional significance, ignored by his partner. I suggested that the director ask opponents to amend their convention-card to include their actual carding-conventions but nothing happened.
• Players tend to exaggerate their no-trump ranges. In an international match, Charles Outred called the director when an opponent opened an astensible15-17 HCP 1NT with a poor 14 HCP, three times in the same session. Again no penalty, redress, or rectification

Maybe it's too much to expect directors to undertake the hassle of policing disclosure laws, resented so much by law-breakers. In on-line play it could be more effective if computer-software automatically recorded and high-lighted discrepancies with declared methods. However, psyches and such-like further confuse the issue.

[Cyberyeti]

nige1, on 2021-June-12, 06:51, said:

Players tend to exaggerate their no-trump ranges.

Reminds me of an incident from the US where a pair were playing a strong no trump, looked at opps CC, saw their strong and weak NT defences were different and opened a massively understrength 1N, X from the opps unalerted

"What's that ?"
"Penalties"
"But you don't play a penalty double against a strong NT"
"Well you don't play a strong NT"

[Winstonm]

Here in the US I once went to committee over a 2C opening where the convention card was written ‘9 tricks or points’, and our appeal had the director admitting that Axxxxxxxxx and out would be a legal 2C opening. We lost the appeal.

[pescetom]

Winstonm, on 2021-June-12, 10:07, said:

Here in the US I once went to committee over a 2C opening where the convention card was written ‘9 tricks or points’, and had the director admitting that Axxxxxxxxx and out would be a legal 2C opening. We lost the appeal.

Here in WBFland I doubt that card would be accepted in many events. "9 tricks with 10+HCP, or any 22+HCP" would not be a problem.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2021-June-12, 10:07, said:

Here in the US I once went to committee over a 2C opening where the convention card was written ‘9 tricks or points’, and had the director admitting that Axxxxxxxxx and out would be a legal 2C opening. We lost the appeal.

ACBL's policy used to be "strong is whatever the player thinks it is", but their recent revision of the Convention Charts and Alert Procedures have some minimum criteria.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2021-June-14, 06:00, said:

ACBL's policy used to be "strong is whatever the player thinks it is", but their recent revision of the Convention Charts and Alert Procedures have some minimum criteria.

Our appeal would have been around 1982.

[mycroft]

They don't have to give an exact HCP range if they don't have one (unless regulations are involved, to ensure it's legal). They're not allowed to lie.

They are not required to have an agreement based in Milton Work Points (again, legality of the agreement aside).

It is not "helpful" to do something that isn't their agreement.

However, they are required to give an explanation the opponents can understand, which could include "that almost always means ..." with an HCP range. This is *not* something they can be held to - their agreement is their agreement, not the translation.

I am willing to give a quick rundown of LTC for bids in my system that are LTC-based, if they ask. If I think that they don't understand LTC, and would be afraid to ask, I'll prompt in my explanation. Same for ZAR points or whatever.

But there's not much we can do about 1♠-p-3♣ "4 spades, go on a Goren Opener" (or for newer players, Go on a Club Series opener") or 3♦ "4 spades, go only on a supermax for 11-15" (or, for people who know Precision, "go if you would have opened 1♣ if you knew we had a spade fit").

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2021-June-12, 06:51, said:

As a preliminary, Directors must start to take some interest in enforcing disclosure regulations.

• Defenders are consistently and notoriously economical with the truth but victims of misinformation rarely benefit from redress. At a Welsh national congress, an opponent said his played card wasn't a signal. Later, I overheard him complain that his card had conventional significance, ignored by his partner. I suggested that the director ask opponents to amend their convention-card to include their actual carding-conventions but nothing happened.
• Players tend to exaggerate their no-trump ranges. In an international match, Charles Outred called the director when an opponent opened an astensible15-17 HCP 1NT with a poor 14 HCP, three times in the same session. Again no penalty, redress, or rectification

Maybe it's too much to expect directors to undertake the hassle of policing disclosure laws, resented so much by law-breakers. In on-line play it could be more effective if computer-software automatically recorded and high-lighted discrepancies with declared methods. However, psyches and such-like further confuse the issue.

"My card is not a signal". "My card has conventional significance". What kind of card play has conventional significance but is not a signal? This guy lied to his opponents; he should have been awarded a nice juicy PP, and if he did it again he should find himself facing an ethics committee.

If directors won't enforce the rules, then there are no rules. And we wonder why the game is dying.

[blackshoe]

DavidKok, on 2021-June-12, 04:12, said:

As an example "8 losers" can be explained as "a limit raise opposite an opening", regardless of how you feel about the Milton Work count.

It can be explained as "a hay wagon" with just about equal validity. Not all eight loser hands are limit raises.

[DavidKok]

blackshoe, on 2021-June-17, 18:51, said:

It can be explained as "a hay wagon" with just about equal validity. Not all eight loser hands are limit raises.

Thank you for clarifying the issue.

[mycroft]

But if they play 1♠-3♠ as an 8 loser hand, what else is it but a "limit raise"?

Of course, not all 8-loser hands should be (or are, in this theoretical partnership) limit raises, but neither are all 10-12 point hands, but you don't have any problems with "10-12, 4-card support", do you?

And what does that matter to the people who don't understand LTC, and need a "close enough" explanation of what 1♠-3♠ shows? They know they're getting a "close enough" explanation - same as "go on a Goren opener" is probably closer to 11-13, but doesn't promise 11-13, it promises a good play for game opposite 13 or 12-with-QT.

Everybody's explanations of their agreements will be approximations, and no pair will evaluate all hands the same way - or even with the same methods. The intent is to explain as well as practicable, while keeping in the regulator's pocket "if you can't explain your evaluation scheme well enough for opponents to defend against it, then you can't play it until you can."

"usually 11+, but with high cards in long suits, can be as low as Ro17" - no way you can play ZAR point openers from that explanation, but you know what they have.

[blackshoe]

I don't see "limit raise" anywhere in "10-12, 4 card support". I don't have any problems with the latter, since in general I would expect it to be full disclosure, where "limit raise" probably isn't.

"Go on a Goren opener" is probably fine for the dwindling batch of players who played bridge in the fifties and remember the Goren system. I expect an ever increasing proportion of players today will have no idea what "a Goren opener" is.

Quote

Everybody's explanations of their agreements will be approximations, and no pair will evaluate all hands the same way - or even with the same methods. The intent is to explain as well as practicable, while keeping in the regulator's pocket "if you can't explain your evaluation scheme well enough for opponents to defend against it, then you can't play it until you can."

Agreed, mostly. Some regulators have a regulation something like what you say in your last sentence. ACBL doesn't, although many directors will tell you that if an opponent complains.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2021-June-21, 12:52, said:

I don't see "limit raise" anywhere in "10-12, 4 card support". I don't have any problems with the latter, since in general I would expect it to be full disclosure, where "limit raise" probably isn't.

I've never had a problem with "limit raise". It's the next range below "game-forcing raise", and opener is expected to bid game if he has extra strength or shape beyond a normal opening hand.

It might be helpful to know whether they show 4+ card support with their limit raises, but I think this is rarely going to be needed by opponents during the auction. You'll find out soon enough when dummy comes down.

[StevenG]

barmar, on 2021-June-22, 21:25, said:

I've never had a problem with "limit raise". It's the next range below "game-forcing raise", and opener is expected to bid game if he has extra strength or shape beyond a normal opening hand.

"Limit raise" might be fine in the US, but I don't think it's worldwide. It's not used in any of my Acol books, and I've never heard a club player use the term. "Limit bid" is in my old books, but there are multiple limit bids with different meanings. What you call a limit raise is just one of them.

[johnu]

mycroft, on 2021-June-18, 08:52, said:

But if they play 1♠-3♠ as an 8 loser hand, what else is it but a "limit raise"?

Yep, 8 losers is 8 losers. I will make a limit raise with this 8 loser hand

---

and with this 8 loser hand

---

Partner will know what to do because I have shown an 8 loser hand.

[DavidKok]

I'm sure that there is some deeper point here, but showing either of these hands as an '8 loser hand' is crazy. The first would be worth a game force at an ace less, the second is entirely preemptive.

[pescetom]

StevenG, on 2021-June-23, 01:23, said:

"Limit raise" might be fine in the US, but I don't think it's worldwide. It's not used in any of my Acol books, and I've never heard a club player use the term. "Limit bid" is in my old books, but there are multiple limit bids with different meanings. What you call a limit raise is just one of them.

'Limit raise' mystified me when I first read it, there are multiple raises which limit.
The Italian equivalent means 'invitational raise', which seems clear enough.