Valid bid explanations?
I've picked up on a few strange bid explanations in the last few weeks. Would the more experienced TD's/players care to comment if they're acceptable, or insufficient? (Noting that opponents can ask.) To me they feel like half-answers and thus potentially could intimidate weaker players into not asking further.
Assume club bridge, convention cards exist, but used as coffee-mats, laws knowledge is by experience only.
1C: Announce: "Could be as short as 1 card". Does this also need comment on why it's made, e.g. playing 5-card majors? Or should that have been done as the table sits down?
2D: Alert: Explained as "That's out strongest bid" ... and also 2C as "That's out second strongest bid". (Benji)
2D over 2C: Alert: Explained as "Relay". Surely it needs qualifying as to whether it's forced or denying certain stronger hands.
Comments
Re 1 Club opening: EBU requirements are to announce it as "could be short" - The assumption being that opponents should know enough about the game to ask.
Re 2D opening: Almost certainly that is not their strongest bid: Their strongest bid is probably 7NT! (I had to call my partner out on this very thing). They should be saying something like "Game forcing or 23+ points" or something equivalent, or "21-22 points or 8 playing tricks in an unspecified suit with a strong hand"
Re: 2D over 2C: "Forced response" - assuming it is. If it isn't then whatever the bid means "Denies 10 points or an Ace and a King or a five card suit to two of the three top honours"
Basically these explanations are slovenly - and, what is worse, opponents may feel hampered in asking for further clarification due to the risk of imparting UI to their partner.
onnies
My understanding of "relay" is that it shows nothing about the hand (i.e. weejonnie's "forced response") and I would rule against anyone calling it a relay if there were alternative calls available.
Do others have different understandings?
No. That wording is almost exactly what's required by the regulation. It should be enough to prompt further questions if the opponents want to know why it could be so short.
I always say "strong, artificial and forcing". I find it irritating when people describe it as you have reported, but perhaps I shouldn't!
To me, relay means an artificial bid asking for more information and not giving any meaningful information itself. So I think it's fine to say relay as long as it is not a negative, even if there are some rare hands that would choose not to relay.
I used to have a small bugbear about people not pre-announcing 5-card majors but I've learned to adapt. "Could be short" is fine but I still think it would be nicer to have a heads-up beforehand. Similarly, whenever someone is playing a system other than Acol, I think a pre-announce would be a good thing.
Assuming I'm not playing Precision, I usually describe an opening 2C as Acol-2C, strong and game forcing or 23+ semi-balanced.
The 2D over an Acol-2C gets described simply as "asking for more information". With one partner, I play 2H as a bust but I don't bother to mention that we have the 2H bid option when partner bids 2D. Maybe I should mention that we have alternative bids available to describe certain types of hands, should partner both remember and care to use them. As it is, partner has simply asked me to describe my hand further.
Why? We have no pre-announcement process in the EBU, and in what way would anyone need to discuss
special understandings when playing against five-card majors?
Simply because they knew something about partner's hand that we didn't, which could become relevant in the card-play or even when making a decision in the bidding. As I said, I got over it.
I played a strong club, five-card majors system with one partner and viewed it as courtesy to let opponents know. These days, I ask before we start playing or take a look at their card, if they have one.