[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-January-26, 18:14, said:

And if the responder to the question has done that, or believes he has done that, what then? Call the director, you say? Okay. The director determines that the responder to the question has met all the requirements of full disclosure, and yet the player is still confused. Now what?

We all know that Directors are human and not perfect. If the player is still (genuinly) confused the next step is an appeal.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2014-January-27, 02:20, said:

We all know that Directors are human and not perfect. If the player is still (genuinly) confused the next step is an appeal.

You're telling me that if a player tells you, after you've said that in you opinion his opponents have met their disclosure obligations, that he still doesn't understand their bidding, that your response is going to be "I've made my ruling; you're welcome to appeal if you like"? That seems awfully arrogant to me.

[mycroft]

 aguahombre, on 2014-January-24, 21:55, said:

IMO, that is different from telling the opponents (and reassuring partner) that you will be bidding a suit for which you would accept you would accept a SSGT or a LSGT and is different from the way Mycroft words the disclosure. If we disclose Blackwood, Stayman, or any bid which asks for information we are not disclosing what the answers will mean. In your case the continuation might actually show the suit asked about or not. You are not saying, "if I bid x, that means I have such and such."

I'm confused about the difference between "asking what suit(s) I would accept a SSGT in" (that you liked) and "She is asking in which suit I would accept a long suit game try." (that you found objectionable) - except of course, that it's long rather than short :-).

I don't see the difference - especially because you don't know we're going to bid the accept suit; after all, in one obvious case, we don't!

[aguahombre]

 mycroft, on 2014-January-27, 13:47, said:

I'm confused about the difference between "asking what suit(s) I would accept a SSGT in" (that you liked) and "She is asking in which suit I would accept a long suit game try." (that you found objectionable) - except of course, that it's long rather than short :-).

I don't see the difference - especially because you don't know we're going to bid the accept suit; after all, in one obvious case, we don't!

I might have lost focus, but somewhere along the line we moved from talking about a generic, non-descript game try --in response to which we might show something in a side suit rather than just accept or decline---and a try which is not generic, but rather is an asking bid of some kind. In the former, we should not go into what we might do; in the latter, we must explain what the bid is asking, but not what the responses might be.

[pran]

 pran, on 2014-January-27, 02:20, said:

We all know that Directors are human and not perfect. If the player is still (genuinly) confused the next step is an appeal.

 blackshoe, on 2014-January-27, 12:36, said:

You're telling me that if a player tells you, after you've said that in you opinion his opponents have met their disclosure obligations, that he still doesn't understand their bidding, that your response is going to be "I've made my ruling; you're welcome to appeal if you like"? That seems awfully arrogant to me.

I don't think any player should argue with the director at the table, he should present his case as best he can, accept the ruling and then submit an appeal afterwards if he feels justified in doing so.

It is of course arrogant and unacceptable behaviour if the director refuses to hear the player through when being presented the case at the table. If a player claims that he is still confused when hearing the director's first comments then the director must resolve this confusion there and then.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2014-January-27, 12:36, said:

You're telling me that if a player tells you, after you've said that in you opinion his opponents have met their disclosure obligations, that he still doesn't understand their bidding, that your response is going to be "I've made my ruling; you're welcome to appeal if you like"? That seems awfully arrogant to me.

If I'm called at some point during the hand, and a player said that he didn't fully understand an explanation, I would ask the explainer to clarify further. Just because the original explanation was adequate, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was perfect; if it can be improved so the opponent understands, we try to do so.

But if I'm called after the hand is over, and the complainant is requesting some kind of adjustment due to the inadequate explanation, it's too late to solve that problem. If I judge, after listening to the opponent's argument, that the original explanation was adequate, I'd rule no damage. If the explainee still disagrees, that's when an appeal becomes necessary.

[PhilKing]

 pran, on 2014-January-25, 11:43, said:

You are aware (I hope) that you contradict yourself?

The general quality of a hand is one (among several possible) particulars of a hand.

So in this case the complete description should include "asking if he has maximum or minimum hand strength"

If "generic game try" is insufficient, would you prefer "a generic bid for a hand too good to pass but not strong enough to bid game."

If only there was a shorter way to state this ...

Oh wait!

[Vampyr]

 PhilKing, on 2014-January-27, 17:02, said:

If "generic game try" is insufficient, would you prefer "a generic bid for a hand too good to pass but not strong enough to bid game."

If only there was a shorter way to state this ...

Oh wait!

What I wonder is whether the explanation should include some reference to what game tries this "generic game try" is not.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2014-January-27, 16:57, said:

If I'm called at some point during the hand, and a player said that he didn't fully understand an explanation, I would ask the explainer to clarify further. Just because the original explanation was adequate, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was perfect; if it can be improved so the opponent understands, we try to do so.

But if I'm called after the hand is over, and the complainant is requesting some kind of adjustment due to the inadequate explanation, it's too late to solve that problem. If I judge, after listening to the opponent's argument, that the original explanation was adequate, I'd rule no damage. If the explainee still disagrees, that's when an appeal becomes necessary.

We are in agreement. I was talking about your first scenario.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2014-January-27, 12:36, said:

You're telling me that if a player tells you, after you've said that in you opinion his opponents have met their disclosure obligations, that he still doesn't understand their bidding, that your response is going to be "I've made my ruling; you're welcome to appeal if you like"? That seems awfully arrogant to me.

Not necessarily. Sometimes the TD has nowhere else to go with it. Case on point from a Regional A/X --not a Lamford porky:

1NT (announced) 15-17- 2C (Stayman ACBL no alert)
2S-3D (no alert)...

At this point, the VUL and heretofore silent LHO starts in:

LHO: "I don't understand the auction".
T: "which part?"
LHO: "All of it."
ME: "Her 1NT was 15-17 like I announced."
T: "2C was Stayman".
Me: "2S showed 4 or 5 Spades and denied 4 hearts."
T: "3D showed long Diamonds and by inference 4 Hearts, forcing to game or slam."
LHO: How do you know He has 4 hearts?"
T: "Because he used Stayman and has now denied a Spade fit. With just long Diamonds and slam interest he would have made a false transfer to Hearts and then shown it (Walsh Relay)."
LHO: "You can't transfer to Hearts without hearts."

At this point the TD is called. We have reached the point of distraction and harrassment, IMO. The TD gets a verbatim account of what occurred, gives his opinion that enough disclosure has gone on, then gets an objection from LHO. He states he has made his ruling and they can ask more about this auction after it is concluded. He further states that LHO should stop now and they can appeal his ruling if they wish. Not arrogant.

[barmar]

 aguahombre, on 2014-January-27, 18:55, said:

T: "Because he used Stayman and has now denied a Spade fit. With just long Diamonds and slam interest he would have made a false transfer to Hearts and then shown it (Walsh Relay)."
LHO: "You can't transfer to Hearts without hearts."

I'd just say "We have a different way of showing a hand with just long Diamonds and slam interest." Don't mention the specific sequence, as it's not usually relevant and can (as above) just lead to more confusion. If the opponent really thinks he needs to know the alternate sequence, the Law permits him to ask about alternative bids that were not made.

[bixby]

 Bbradley62, on 2014-January-24, 22:42, said:

I think "generic game try" is a completely sufficient explanation.

OP: If you didn't think "generic game try" meant "game try without saying anything about the second-mentioned suit", what did you think it meant?

I thought "generic" meant "normal." I didn't understand that it meant "artificial."

As I see the case (putting aside the fact that there was no damage), the issue is whether it was my responsibility to understand the term "generic," or whether it was my opponent's responsibility to use a term that I would know. Several of you have suggested that "generic" means "artificial" in bridge lingo, and I'm ready to accept your wisdom, but I have to say I've never heard the term in bridge even though I've played tournament bridge for decades.

Given the ACBL regs ("When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient. . . . The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. . . . Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically."), it seems to me that the explaining side should have a duty to use terms that the great majority of players would understand.

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2014-January-27, 19:12, said:

I'd just say "We have a different way of showing a hand with just long Diamonds and slam interest." Don't mention the specific sequence, as it's not usually relevant and can (as above) just lead to more confusion. If the opponent really thinks he needs to know the alternate sequence, the Law permits him to ask about alternative bids that were not made.

I could have embellished by putting in that step. Terry attempted to avoid more inquiry by preemptively stating what that "different way" would have been so the harrasser wouldn't have anything more to ask ---no such luck.

[blackshoe]

 bixby, on 2014-January-27, 21:35, said:

I thought "generic" meant "normal." I didn't understand that it meant "artificial."

As I see the case (putting aside the fact that there was no damage), the issue is whether it was my responsibility to understand the term "generic," or whether it was my opponent's responsibility to use a term that I would know. Several of you have suggested that "generic" means "artificial" in bridge lingo, and I'm ready to accept your wisdom, but I have to say I've never heard the term in bridge even though I've played tournament bridge for decades.

Given the ACBL regs ("When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient. . . . The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. . . . Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically."), it seems to me that the explaining side should have a duty to use terms that the great majority of players would understand.

"Generic" is a perfectly good English word. It doesn't mean "normal", it means "not specific", as somebody mentioned upthread. It is not a word I've ever heard in a bridge context, although I can understand that someone might use it. As for it meaning "artificial", I can't speak for others, but I didn't say that, I said that one can infer from "not specific" that the bid is artificial in the bridge sense of "artificial", but that it's a subtle inference. So I would not expect someone to make it at the table, particularly if he's taken by surprise by the use of a word with which he is unfamiliar.

It's not up to players to know how extensive their opponents' vocabulary is. We try, in both partnerships at the table, to describe things as best we can. Sometimes we aren't perfect. While I agree that players should try to make sure their explanations are understood, I think as the recipient of an explanation we should remember that's not always so easy. After all, at some point we're going to be on the other side of this problem.

This is the kind of situation where a good supplementary question would be "what other game tries could he have made?" If it were me, I'd just try to remember next time that supplementary questions can help, and that I am allowed to ask them.

[PhilKing]

 Vampyr, on 2014-January-27, 17:54, said:

What I wonder is whether the explanation should include some reference to what game tries this "generic game try" is not.

If there are other game tries, then it is not a generic game try by my understanding of the word. Several top UK pair play that step 1 is the only game try, the reason being that you do not want to tip off declarer's hand.

Sequences such as 1♠-2♠-3♥ are natural slam tries. It may sound silly, but this should have got us a swing in in the Olympiad Final in Beijing, but time heals most wounds.

[jallerton]

 PhilKing, on 2014-January-28, 06:12, said:

If there are other game tries, then it is not a generic game try by my understanding of the word. Several top UK pair play that step 1 is the only game try, the reason being that you do not want to tip off declarer's hand.

Sequences such as 1♠-2♠-3♥ are natural slam tries. It may sound silly, but this should have got us a swing in in the Olympiad Final in Beijing, but time heals most wounds.

I seem to recall that the pair in question was playing 4-card majors. I think you'd need to be opening 1m on all (17)18-19 balanced hands to make this work.

[PhilKing]

 jallerton, on 2014-January-30, 17:23, said:

I seem to recall that the pair in question was playing 4-card majors. I think you'd need to be opening 1m on all (17)18-19 balanced hands to make this work.

More than one of the pairs was playing a "generic" game try - it works within Polish Club as well.

[aguahombre]

 PhilKing, on 2014-January-28, 06:12, said:

If there are other game tries, then it is not a generic game try by my understanding of the word. Several top UK pair play that step 1 is the only game try, the reason being that you do not want to tip off declarer's hand.

I have a different understanding. If step 1 is the only game try, we could describe it as "our only game try"; if steps 2, 3, 4 are conventional asking or telling, but step one is a nondescript game try "generic" would apply --and imply that other bids have more specificity than step 1.

My prescription drugs are name brand or generic. Our bids are descriptive, or asking, or generic noises. If Last Train says nothing one way or another about the suit bid, but is merely a last train attempt to offer (game or slam) -- it is generic.

[mycroft]

Given that nobody who doesn't play Last Train understands Last Train, using an - accurate, but not terribly descriptive? - phrase like "generic slam try" for it is, in my opinion, at best useless.

Given that at least a minority of people in this thread took "generic game try" in the OP case as "game try in spades, could be short or long" - unless we're the only thick ones, it seems like another one of those explanations like 2♦ "11-15, 4=4=1=5 minus a card" that are much more helpful to the explaining side than the asking one.

(note, as I said before, I play both of these, and *use* these descriptions - internally.)

[blackshoe]

I actually like the "4=4=1=5 minus a card" explanation, though I agree that most people wouldn't get it. The problem, I think, is that most people wouldn't immediately recognize that "4=4=1=5" is 14 cards. Easier just to give them "one of 4=3=1=5, 3=4=1=5, 4=4=1=4, or 4=4=0=5". Not as elegant, but it gets the information across.