[Hanoi5]

A pair playing precision (the only pair in the tournament playing that system, in a club where 2/1 or SAYC are the only systems played), arrives at a table and the first hand is opened 2♣. Opener's partner alerts and the next player asks (playfully) 'Is it weak?'. Responder answers, 'No. it's constructive'. After two passes the next player is surprised and calls the Director. What's the ruling?

[blackshoe]

So, a 2♣ opening, alerted and described as "constructive", so clearly not the game forcing opening of SAYC or 2/1. And fourth seat is surprised that responder passed?

If second seat found "constructive" confusing or surprising, he could have asked for more information. So, for that matter, could fourth seat. Why didn't they?

OTOH, some jurisdictions' regulations (the ACBL's, for example) say that any question should trigger a full "data dump". Something like "natural, 6+ clubs, 11-15 HCP".

OTGH, in some jurisdictions, asking a leading question, playfully or otherwise, will not garner much sympathy if the answer only speaks directly to the question, as here.

Bottom line is the ruling depends on what the players say to the TD, and the regulations in force.

[mrdct]

We need a copy of the Venezuelan alerting regulations. In some places the pair playing precision would be required to pre-alert the meaning of the 2♣ opening.

The term "constructive" no doubt means different things to different people. For someone who has never seen precision before they may well thing "constructive" is akin to "strong" or GF.

I generally rule on the basis that it is the responsibility of the person explaining a bid to make sure they do so clearly and unambiguously. In this case the precision pair know they are playing unfamiliar methods, so I think they owe an even greater duty of care to ensure that their opponents know exactly what's going on.

I'm going to wind the auction back to the 2♣ bidder's LHO and let him have his bid back. In the event that LHO takes an action other than "pass", I'll inform opener that his partner's previous pass is UI.

I will caution non-precision pair to in future ask what bids mean, not whether they show X or Y.

[bluejak]

Since we can do that I suppose we shall, but I have very little sympathy for a player who thinks the word "constructive" means strong, forcing and artificial.

[barmar]

If the question had been "Is it strong?", then it would be clear that "no, constructive" implies that it's NOT strong (since everything else is obviously weaker than what the questioner was asking about). But since the question was "Is it weak?", the implication of a "no" answer is less clear, and I think the answerer should try to be as clear as possible.

I've never encountered a Precision player who didn't describe their natural suit openings as "11-15". I know some players hate talking in HCP, because it doesn't take hand evaluation into account, but this is the standard language that everyone understands. And "constructive" isn't really any less ambiguous, since your idea of a constructive opening or raise may be different from mine.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2011-August-01, 07:58, said:

I've never encountered a Precision player who didn't describe their natural suit openings as "11-15".

But the opponent asked a yes/no question. I would consider, regulations permitting, that "no" was a satisfactory answer.

[mrdct]

Vampyr, on 2011-August-01, 13:18, said:

But the opponent asked a yes/no question. I would consider, regulations permitting, that "no" was a satisfactory answer.

In this case, the precision player chose to add to his "no" response the additional information that it is "constructive". Once he chose to elaborate on his "no" response, he is surely obliged to fully explain what 2♣ means. Similar to the ACBL, in my country after any enquiry about a bid a "full explanation" must be given even if it wasn't explicitly requested which I think is a good regulation^*. This is not, however, a requirement under WBF regulations (which I guess are the de facto regulations for the Venezuelan NBO) so the precision player might get away with just saying "no" but would certainly not be OK once he starts giving an incomplete description of the bid.

Notwithstanding the possible absence of explicit guidance as to how thoroughly one must explain one's bid, Law 40B deals with "Special Partnership Understandings" which "may not be readily understood and anticipated by significant number of players in the tournament" and provides the remedy of an adjusted score where "a side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents’ failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play".

So whether this event is played in Caracas, New York, Paris or Timbuktu the explanation of "no it's constructive" is inadequate disclosure and as the TD I would be making it very clear to the precison pair that if they want to play an unfamiliar system they need to be particularly careful to be accurate and thorough with their alerts and explanations.

^*A big advantage is that it reduce potential UI from a questioner asking specific questions about sub-features of the bid which may convey to partner that he is not interested in some other features of the bid.

[Vampyr]

mrdct, on 2011-August-01, 19:22, said:

Once he chose to elaborate on his "no" response, he is surely obliged to fully explain what 2♣ means.

OK, I can agree with that.

[helene_t]

Hanoi5, on 2011-July-30, 19:13, said:

After two passes the next player is surprised and calls the Director. What's the ruling?

Why did he call the director? It is still his turn and he can ask if he wants more information. So far it seems that nobody has asked the TD to take any action.

[bluejak]

In practice, players often make incomplete explanations. What happens in about 98+% of cases is one of two things:

• the enquirer considers this explanation adequate, and does not feel misinformed
  
• the enquirer asks a supplementary question

For example, if a player bids 2♣ over an opponent's 1NT, his partner is asked and says "Asptro", this is technically MI. But in practice it is not really MI since the person who hears this either has a fair idea of what they are playing or asks again.

Now, I fail to understand how anyone, told that a 2♣ opening is "constructive", believes that means strong, artificial and forcing: in fact I think that, unless the opponents are beginners, they are not telling the truth.

In other words, it may be a small technical [and very common] infraction to describe it as "constructive", but it is difficult to imagine damage.

[helene_t]

Dunno about Venezuela or about this particular tourney, but here I wouldn't assume the opponents at the club or even some minor tournament would know what the word "constructive" means in this context.

What I often see happen is that someone makes a jump overcall, opp asks what it means, and get a completely non-informative answer like "natural" or "jump overcall".

Of course, opps should ask again in that situation and I am not sure why they usually don't. I can imagine the following reasons (but it is quite possible that the real reason usually is something I haven't thought about):
- opps feel intimidated by the vague answer, perceiving it as "you are not that illiterate that you need me to spell it out, are you?"
- opps aren't interested in the answer. maybe they asked out of a general policy of asking about jump overcalls
- opps perceive "jump overcall" as actually meaning something, for example "intermediate jump overcall"
- opps take the vague answer as effectively meaning "no agreement"

So it wouldn't surprise me if they took "no, it is {some concept they don't quite understand, in this case "constructive"}" as meaning "no, it is not weak (hence, it is strong)".

Then again, LHO asked the question "playfully" and then RHO called the director so it sounds like there is not issue. LHO doesn't care, RHO probably does but he still has time to ask.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-August-02, 07:03, said:

Now, I fail to understand how anyone, told that a 2♣ opening is "constructive", believes that means strong, artificial and forcing: in fact I think that, unless the opponents are beginners, they are not telling the truth.

The meaning of the term "constructive" came up in a contentious ruling at the recent APBF Championships, albeit in the Ladies Series, where there were profound differences in opinion as to what "constructive" meant.

Bridge World defines it as "(of a bid) indicating definite values".

Bridge Guys define it as "a description applied to a bid that suggests game prospects but is not forcing. The partner will take further action more often than not".

Personally, I've always interpreted constructive as meaning, "I have some values and a hand which may well be suitable for game and is definately interested in competing strongly if we have a fit and which is not suitable to take a preemptive action at this point".

We have already been told that this was a club game where SAYC and 2/1 are the only systems played, so a precision-style 2♣ would be entirely unfamiliar to just about everyone, so a vague explanation of "constructive" is manifestly inadequate and probably misleading.

[ahydra]

I'm not convinced I'd rewind the auction here - if the Director was told by the player who passed over 2C that he thought "constructive" meant "forcing" or the like, as the TD I'd kindly inform him of the definition of "constructive", but that's the player's mistake so I don't think he deserves a chance to change his call.

After that I'd kindly inform the 2C opener that he needs to explain the bid in full, then remind the other side that they have the right to ask for this full explanation, and that they should ask neutral questions to elicit such responses - "what does that bid mean" rather than "is it weak".

ahydra

[barmar]

Another problem with "constructive" is that its meaning is context-sensitive. A constructive opening or overcall is very different from a constructive raise, although they both follow from the generic definitions given above and bridge logic.

Of course, this isn't the only word that's like this. "Invitational" is similar -- it's different depending on whether you're opener or responder, and whether partner opened 1 of a suit, weak NT, or strong NT.

[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2011-August-03, 18:05, said:

Another problem with "constructive" is that its meaning is context-sensitive. A constructive opening or overcall is very different from a constructive raise, although they both follow from the generic definitions given above and bridge logic.

A fair point, and in the context of the OP I would accept that "constructive" is potentially misleading. Suppose the opening bid had been two of a major, which had been followed by the question "is that weak?" and the answer "no, constructive". I, for one, would then have expected a hand with around 8-12 points, rather than perhaps 5-9. I don't really see why the position is any different for an opening bid of two of a minor. So if "constructive" is misleading in the current context it is because it suggests a hand that is weaker than the actual Precision agreement of c10-15 rather than one that is stronger, and it is hard to see any damage during the auction.

[semeai]

Nobody is mentioning what seems obvious (or at least likely) to me. The "weak" comment was playful, in a setting where everyone plays 2C strong. The "constructive" comment was taken as playful understatement, again in this setting where everyone plays 2C strong.

I'm not suggesting that necessarily means they are owed redress, but at least it's a question: if your explanation is misunderstood as being playful when it was literal, whose fault is that?

[mrdct]

semeai, on 2011-August-04, 01:47, said:

Nobody is mentioning what seems obvious (or at least likely) to me. The "weak" comment was playful, in a setting where everyone plays 2C strong. The "constructive" comment was taken as playful understatement, again in this setting where everyone plays 2C strong.

I'm not suggesting that necessarily means they are owed redress, but at least it's a question: if your explanation is misunderstood as being playful when it was literal, whose fault is that?

For a person who has only ever seen SAYC and 2/1, in their mind only two types of twos exist: "weak" and "strong".

[semeai]

mrdct, on 2011-August-04, 16:27, said:

For a person who has only ever seen SAYC and 2/1, in their mind only two types of twos exist: "weak" and "strong".

Indeed, which is why I suspect "constructive" was taken as a cute way of saying "strong."

[mgoetze]

semeai, on 2011-August-04, 16:40, said:

Indeed, which is why I suspect "constructive" was taken as a cute way of saying "strong."

Time for someone to learn that showing or not showing the alert card is not a matter of whether someone is feeling cute, then.