[lamford]

The obligation to explain methods clearly is absolute. North infracted. RR was misled. One adjusts to what would have happened without the infraction.

[lamford]

D

[lamford]

T

[blackshoe]

pilowsky, on 2022-May-19, 17:45, said:

Que?

Queue.

[pescetom]

Evies Dad, on 2022-May-19, 16:14, said:

As someone who reads without pronouncing the words in my head I would not equate Q and cue.

What would non English speakers make of it ?

Just feels lazy to me.

Many non English speakers use the term cuebid here, but would never guess that Q might be intended as equivalent.

Nor would they necessarily assume that cuebid promises first level control, as it seems is the agreement here: if one assumes that the opponents know the precise agreement then it seems pointless to name it in the first place.

Supply an explanation, not a name, is always a sound principle.

[pran]

A very common phrace in French is: Qu'est-ce que c'est meaning (depending upon the context) something like 'WHAT?', so I guess 'Q' would be completely meaningless to a french-speaking player?

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2022-May-20, 14:25, said:

A very common phrace in French is: Qu'est-ce que c'est meaning (depending upon the context) something like 'WHAT?', so I guess 'Q' would be completely meaningless to a french-speaking player?

or Quoi - What

[pilowsky]

Quote

...and RR was playing with SB who tested positive for Covid and had to play online

Which of these players has COVID, is non-english speaking and had to play online?
Or is the implication that Kevin and Enid, playing in Sydney, doesn't understand English?

It seems that possible that SB is the one with English problems (and difficulty with anger management) since he identifies Enid from Sydney - playing North - as male -

Quote

"I thought about it", responded RR, "but North showed the queen with his 4D bid, as he announced,

.

OTOH - many people have difficulty with English.
Given that there is no comprehensive list of acceptable statements laid down in the laws to inform opponents about the meaning of bids and calls, doesn't this imply that a player is entitled to make an explanation that believe is sufficient to convey meaning and that if the opponent still believes there is room for doubt that the onus is on them to seek clarification?

It is very easy to make post hoc statements along the lines "If only they had told me that (insert rationalisation here) then I would obviously have done (insert beneficial action here).
In this case the situation is even more bizarre because the plaintiff is saying, post hoc, that if a particular statement was made (in response to their question) then another person would have taken an action that is more to their liking.
In fact it seems that SB clearly understood the meaning of Q since he asserted to RR that "I would have...".

Is RR the only Qless person here.

[Lovera]

However I continue to find that it is strange: 1) that you can make a cue-bid at the fourth level that indicates a Queen if it is not foreseen by the system in use by the pair and also that none of the other pair asks for an explanation immediately; 2) if the bidding was not understood as a cue but as Queen, why was an immediate explanation not requested?; 3) in the case of complete misunderstanding (= Q was not understood as either Q or as a cue-bid) why no explanation was asked for the bid that was not clear? The fact of doing this in the post-mortem after the slam had been made and even requesting this vehemently suggests that some other way of getting a correction to a negative result can perhaps was desired.

[barmar]

pilowsky, on 2022-May-17, 14:33, said:

Q for cue is standard.

This is probably only true in the English-speaking parts of the world, since it comes from the similar pronunciation of the letter and the word.

[barmar]

pran, on 2022-May-17, 16:20, said:

To be a 'standard' it must have been defined as such in publication(s) generally known to anybody who must be expected to encounter this term.
Where can we find the definition that 'Q' is short for 'cue'???

That's true for de jure standards, not for de facto standards. The latter arise organically through popular use.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2022-May-20, 14:03, said:

Nor would they necessarily assume that cuebid promises first level control, as it seems is the agreement here: if one assumes that the opponents know the precise agreement then it seems pointless to name it in the first place.

There are basically just two common cue-bidding styles: 1) (traditional) show 1st-round controls first, then show 2nd-round controls, and 2) (Italian-style) cue-bids show 1st or 2nd round controls.

But there's essentially no system where one would immediately start showing queens. That only becomes possible after other bids that confirm most of the 1st- and 2nd-round controls, or in response to specific asking bids (e.g. the trump queen ask in RKCB). A beginner might not realize this, but anyone who has been as unlucky as RR for as long as he has should realize it.

[pran]

pran, on 2022-May-17, 16:20, said:

To be a 'standard' it must have been defined as such in publication(s) generally known to anybody who must be expected to encounter this term.
Where can we find the definition that 'Q' is short for 'cue'???

barmar, on 2022-May-26, 09:18, said:

That's true for de jure standards, not for de facto standards. The latter arise organically through popular use.

Quite so - and de facto standards only exist (as 'standards') when part of everybody's fundamental knowledge, not just as part of 'somebody's own experience.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2022-May-26, 09:27, said:

There are basically just two common cue-bidding styles: 1) (traditional) show 1st-round controls first, then show 2nd-round controls, and 2) (Italian-style) cue-bids show 1st or 2nd round controls.

Agreed (more or less), but that is my point: "control bid" (let alone "cue bid") has no single automatic meaning and is not a legitimate explanation of the agreement.
Why not explain "1st level control" or "1st or 2nd level control" and specify the inference that it denies the same in the suit that was skipped ?
Both are obligations of Law.

barmar, on 2022-May-26, 09:27, said:

But there's essentially no system where one would immediately start showing queens. That only becomes possible after other bids that confirm most of the 1st- and 2nd-round controls, or in response to specific asking bids (e.g. the trump queen ask in RKCB). A beginner might not realize this, but anyone who has been as unlucky as RR for as long as he has should realize it.

Agreed by almost everyone here, including me.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2022-May-26, 15:22, said:

Agreed (more or less), but that is my point: "control bid" (let alone "cue bid") has no single automatic meaning and is not a legitimate explanation of the agreement.
Why not explain "1st level control" or "1st or 2nd level control" and specify the inference that it denies the same in the suit that was skipped ?
Both are obligations of Law.

It's my understanding that "control" without any qualification means 1st or 2nd round control. If I explain a bid as showing "a heart control", it could be any of Ace, King, singleton, or void in hearts.

What differs among bidding agreements is whether a control cue bid shows any control or shows a specific control in the designated suit. The latter case is the one where you need to be specific, although I prefer to be explicit in both cases to avoid any confusion.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2022-May-31, 11:01, said:

It's my understanding that "control" without any qualification means 1st or 2nd round control. If I explain a bid as showing "a heart control", it could be any of Ace, King, singleton, or void in hearts.

What differs among bidding agreements is whether a control cue bid shows any control or shows a specific control in the designated suit. The latter case is the one where you need to be specific, although I prefer to be explicit in both cases to avoid any confusion.

That would be a reasonable Regulation, but it's not an understanding I think one is entitled to, even in Italy where the undifferentiated 1st/2nd style originated. I meet plenty of pairs who show 1st level first, or even only Aces.

There are also inferences from bids that were not made which are often unpredictable and should be disclosed: for instance, if trumps are hearts and my partner bids 3♠ showing 1st or 2nd round control, then my 4♣ shows the same in clubs but also denies the same in spades.

[blackshoe]

IME, if you leave any ambiguity at all in your explanation, your opponent will make a wrong assumption about your partnership understanding. And sometimes they'll do that even if you don't leave any ambiguity.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2022-May-31, 21:44, said:

IME, if you leave any ambiguity at all in your explanation, your opponent will make a wrong assumption about your partnership understanding. And sometimes they'll do that even if you don't leave any ambiguity.

Even partner will usually misread any ambiguity, let alone opponent.
But giving a micrometric explanation is rarely going to be appropriate either: I think one of the skills of a good bridge player is balancing between brevity and intuition of what the opponents really need to know at this moment.
It helps to have some idea of what they understand (or not) about your system.
It helps (them and bridge, not your score) to desire effective disclosure, the rest is a consequence.

[pilowsky]

What does IME mean?

[blackshoe]

In my experience.