[nige1]

barmar, on 2013-September-05, 09:39, said:

Must all explanations be dumbed down to cater to the lowest common denominator?

The law does not seem to require this but IMO it should. We're often fooled by opponents who fob us off with "just Bridge" or "Normal" and later we discover that they have some agreement unfamiliar to us. IMO, the laws should stipulate that a player simply tells his opponents what his partners calls reveal about his partner's hand. This might save stress and time compared with the usual prevarications.

barmar, on 2013-September-05, 09:39, said:

At the club this week, we had the auction 1♣ (1♥) 3♣ (4♣) Pass. 3♣ was alerted. At this point, the 1♥ bidder (a weak player) asked for an explanation of my 3♣ bid, was told "preemptive", and then asked me for an explanation of opener's 1♣ bid. I was having a hard time with this, since it's just an ordinary, standard 1♣ opening. I said this, and eventually added "he opens 1♣ if he has 3-3 minors; if he's 4-4 in the minors, he may decide to open 1♣ or 1♦, his criteria is a mystery to me." He took this all in, and then passed, despite holding 3 clubs of his own (his explanation: "I knew 4♣ wasn't natural, but I didn't know what to do."). How much of that explanation was really required?

As Paul Gipson points out, not everybody expects a minor opening on a short suit. Also, jump-bids are pre-emptive by their very nature. Hence, a more helpful explanation of 3♣ might have been A weak hand with at least 4 ♣ (or at least 5 ♣ if that is your agreement). For some partnerships, 3♣ woud normally deny a 4-card or longer major. IMO, If that is your agreement then you should divulge that too.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2013-September-05, 15:37, said:

The law does not seem to require this but IMO it should. We're often fooled by opponents who fob us off with "just Bridge" or "Normal" and later we discover that they have some agreement unfamiliar to us. IMO, the laws should stipulate that a player simply tells his opponents what his partners calls reveal about his partner's hand. This might save stress and time compared with the usual prevarications. As Paul Gipson points out, not everybody expects a minor opening on a short suit. Also, jump-bids are pre-emptive by their very nature. Hence, a more helpful explanation of 3♣ might have been A weak hand with at least 4 ♣ (or at least 5 ♣ if that is your agreement). For some partnerships, 3♣ woud normally deny a 4-card or longer major. IMO, If that is your agreement then you should divulge that too.

In ACBL (where I am), opening 1♣ on 3-card suits is as standard as it gets.

My partner doesn't like describing bids as "weak", he thinks that's vague and that "preemptive" means "the primary purpose of the bid is to show length in the suit and raise the level" (as opposed to constructive, invitational, or game forcing bids), so it's a better way to describe these bids. He doesn't like using a point count in the explanation -- we don't have specific agreements, it's a judgement call.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-September-05, 20:07, said:

In ACBL (where I am), opening 1♣ on 3-card suits is as standard as it gets.

My partner doesn't like describing bids as "weak", he thinks that's vague and that "preemptive" means "the primary purpose of the bid is to show length in the suit and raise the level" (as opposed to constructive, invitational, or game forcing bids), so it's a better way to describe these bids. He doesn't like using a point count in the explanation -- we don't have specific agreements, it's a judgement call.

Then he needs to explain the basis of the judgement.

[gnasher]

Describing a bid as "preemptive" is like describing a 1NT opening as "constructive".

If you're asked what a bid shows, it's not a sufficient answer to state the bidder's objectives, unless that's genuinely all that you know. Once you have seen a few of your partner's "preemptive" raises, you know something about the hands that he might have for it. This knowledge is a partnership understanding, and it is disclosable.

[mycroft]

"we don't really put a point count on it"
"Okay, what's the maximum it could be? Not point count, but what do you need to think to make a stronger bid?"

for one thing, your version of constructive and my version of constructive could be different - especially if you're playing a limited opener system. If I explained 2♥-p-3♥ as "constructive, looking for game if partner has a maximum", would you know what you expect? Would you expect a strong NT with 3 hearts? Because that's probably what partner has. Oh, did I mention we're playing EHAA, and 2♥ could easily be 9-fifth and a 6-count? Sorry about that.

I have no issues with not having a fixed Walrus Count. I do have issues with using judgement, and not explaining the systemic (as opposed to the good judgement) bases for that judgement, or agreed definitions of words. For instance, I play DONT over a strong NT, and explain it as "X and higher, trying to get in the way." If they ask further, I'll explain it as very wide ranging, that we don't have an invitational bid, and it could be much more aggressive than people not playing DONT would expect. It's "preemptive" by your partner's definition, but that doesn't mean I haven't done it with a 15-count.