[barmar]

NemoJames, on 2025-August-03, 14:50, said:

It is interesting that my question has still not been answered. The closest was "If someone means HCPs then that is what they say, except in rare cases," but that is an opinion and not a rule. In my opinion the vast majority of club players assume 12 points means 12 HCPs on an opening bid when a suit has not been agreed.

One point you're missing is that no matter what definition they use, you have to take it with a grain of salt. Players are allowed to use judgement when evaluating their hands, they're not automatons who blindly apply simple rules that can be enumerated.

For instance, honors are more valuable in long suits than short suits and in combination with other honors. So competent players will upgrade a hand with AQxx in one suit compared to a hand with Ax and Qx in separate suits. It's simply not practical to distinguish these when answering "how many points are they showing?"

As another example, I open most hands with 12 HCP, and some with 11. But I don't usually open a 12-point hand with 4333 shape, unless the points are 3 aces, there are good spot cards, or maybe if I'm in 3rd seat. State of the match could influence me, too.

It's simply hard to disclose all this. We do the best we can.

[NemoJames]

That is my whole point. Rules that are vague, leave room for interpretation, in which case you are not breaking the rules. If a rule says points must be HCP then it is solid and if someone breaks them they can be challenged.

The other unanswered question I asked was the rules say if your partner has given wrong information during the bidding and your are defenders, you don't have to say anything until the hand is finished and the tricks counted. Then What ? In the history of bridge has that ever happened ? Why not say something at the end of the auction while something can still be done about it?

blackshoe, on 2025-August-03, 19:05, said:

Whatever rules you make, some will ignore them, some will break them, some will be certain they know better than the rule-makers what the rule should be. And a small proportion of players will attempt to follow them, with varying degrees of success.

[jillybean]

NemoJames, on 2025-August-05, 03:14, said:

The other unanswered question I asked was the rules say if your partner has given wrong information during the bidding and your are defenders, you don't have to say anything until the hand is finished and the tricks counted. Then What ? In the history of bridge has that ever happened ? Why not say something at the end of the auction while something can still be done about it?

"You don't have to say anything until the end of the hand" - you must not say anything until the end of the hand.
Then what - call the Director. Yes, I've done it when it has occured.
Why not say something at the end of the auction? Correcting defenders misinformation before the end of the play may benefit the defenders. Partner alerted and described my bid as hearts and a minor, our agreement is it shows only clubs. If I correct the error at the end of auction he will know to lead clubs.

This is how the rules say we should play.

[mycroft]

You're stuck with "the only way to explain your agreement is Walrus Points, anything else is vague and unfair."

You, and the Walrus, are not unique in that belief, but it is unworkable.

Partner opens 2♥, explained as "6-12 HCP, at least 5 hearts, no longer suit than hearts". Your partner passes, and I bid 3♥, Alerted and explained as "invitational, usually around 14-17 points." That explains that it could be 3 hearts and a random 16 HCP, 4 hearts to the JT, three aces and a singleton, or ♠-- ♥Axxxxx ♦Qxxxxx ♣x, all of which will make game opposite a good preempt (say ♠KQx ♥KQxxxx ♦x ♣xxx) and not opposite a bad preempt (say ♠Qxx ♥98xxx ♦JTx ♣KQ).(*)

Which is more valid, precise, or "misinformation": the explanation given, or "6-18 HCP, invitational"?

And the same applies to other hands - as I've said repeatedly, ♠AKQJxx and a singleton is not a 10 count, no matter what you or the Walrus think. QJx QJxx KQJ QJ probably isn't 15, despite Milton Work (though most would open it a 15-17 NT, because "nobody downgrades". Again, something you're expected to understand).

And what do you think of my old partnership agreement for limit raises of our 11-15 1♠ opener (which, yes, could be AKQJxx and out, or other 10-counts that "looked like 11") - "Go on a Goren Opener" (and if the opponents didn't know Goren, "go on a decent 13")? I haven't even given a point-range, never mind HCP - but you have our agreement, it is exact, complete, and accurate.

Or what about a lebensohl 2NT: "She either wants to play 3 of her suit, or has a gameforce with a spade stopper"? Do you really think "0-25 HCP" is at all relevant here, or isn't straight up misinformation?

"HCP" is a count of honours. "Points" is an analysis of the offensive potential of a hand in the context of the auction, showing a hand equivalent in playing strength to "an average x HCP hand". If you did not understand that, now you do. Explaining a "12+point hand" in terms of "10+HCP" *would be* misinformation, if you expected them not to have an exceptional (in length or AK vs QJ or "in- vs out- honours" or anything else that makes a hand better than Work count) 10 but an average one.

(*) And to make clear that this isn't just you, this got me into some heated water when in the national Red Ribbon Pairs (limited to non-experts, but you have to have done something to qualify, so not "nobodies"), I tried explaining the invitation. And yes, she wanted an "absolute HCP minimum". My response reflected my frustration (and bore a good deal of resemblance to that last example) and triggered a director call, but wasn't, you know, *wrong*. The director helped as an outside observer to explain the agreement in such a way that the opponents were comfortable, for which I am grateful.

[blackshoe]

Jilly is right that yoiu must call the Director at the appropriate time and in the Director's presence correct partner's presumed misexplanation.

Law 20F5.
(a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75B) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is:

(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.
(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

If you're the one who misexplained, a different law applies:

Law 20F4.
(a) If a player realizes during the auction that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must summon the Director before the end of the Clarification Period and correct the misexplanation. He may elect to call the Director sooner, but he is under no obligation to do so. (For a correction during the play period, see Law 75B2.)

(b) The Director when summoned applies Law 21B or Law 40B3.


Law 75B. Mistaken Explanation

1. When the partnership agreement is different from the explanation given, the explanation is an infraction of Law. When this infraction results in damage to the non-offending side, the Director shall award an adjusted score.

2. If a player becomes aware of his own mistake, he must summon the Director before the opening lead is faced (or during the play, if discovered later), and then provide a correction. The player is also permitted to call the Director before the auction ends, but he is under no obligation to do so (see Law 20F4).

3. The player’s partner must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues and if he subsequently becomes a defender, he must call the Director and correct the explanation only after play ends. If the player’s partner is to be declarer or dummy, he must, after the final pass, call the Director and then provide a correction.

The reason for defenders usually being required to wait until play ends to provide a correction is to avoid UI during the play. Note however that Law 75B2 says if you discover your own mistake during the play, you call the Director right away.

[mycroft]

...as the UI has already been given, so there's no more "help" to give partner (who should be bidding and playing as if you said the right thing the first time, so knowing that you finally get it *shouldn't* be useful information).

Not intending to get on top of blackshoe's post - very good correct and useful - just stating the unspoken in his last, as I've learned it *isn't* obvious.

[blackshoe]

There is the tale of the... math, I think... professor who wrote an equation on the board, said "and obviously, from this we get..." and wrote another equation. A hand shot up: "Professor, are you sure that's obvious?" Professor left the room. Half an hour later, he comes back, says "yes, it's obvious" and continues on from there.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2025-August-09, 17:43, said:

There is the tale of the... math, I think... professor who wrote an equation on the board, said "and obviously, from this we get..." and wrote another equation. A hand shot up: "Professor, are you sure that's obvious?" Professor left the room. Half an hour later, he comes back, says "yes, it's obvious" and continues on from there.

That half an hour is one of the few advantages a TD has over an SB

[awm]

To me it seems a bit dishonest to quote a number of points that includes distribution that the bid also promises. For example, if I say that my partner's 2♥ opening is "6-11 points and 6♥" when in fact she always has 4-9 HCP and then adds two "points" for the fifth and sixth hearts, that would seem like an attempt to confuse the opponents more than accurate disclosure. Similarly if partner's 2♦ bid is explained as "4+♠, 5+♥, 12-15 points" it would be surprising to see a 4531 hand with 9 HCP that counted three "points" for the singleton.

Of course, if you really do have extra shape beyond what the bid promised, it's normal to upgrade a bit; I wouldn't be surprised if 2♥ showing "6-11 points" and 6♥ was 5 HCP and 6-4 in hearts and a minor (for example), or if the aforementioned 2♦ bid was 9 HCP on a 5-6 majors hand.

[pescetom]

awm, on 2025-August-11, 09:22, said:

To me it seems a bit dishonest to quote a number of points that includes distribution that the bid also promises. For example, if I say that my partner's 2♥ opening is "6-11 points and 6♥" when in fact she always has 4-9 HCP and then adds two "points" for the fifth and sixth hearts, that would seem like an attempt to confuse the opponents more than accurate disclosure. Similarly if partner's 2♦ bid is explained as "4+♠, 5+♥, 12-15 points" it would be surprising to see a 4531 hand with 9 HCP that counted three "points" for the singleton.

I agree but would put it slightly differently: the description of a distributional bid should always be in terms of HCP and distribution (plus specific Honour requirements, if present), not length-adjusted points.
"4-9 HCP and 6 cards" or "4-9 HCP and 6 cards, at least one of AK at this vulnerability" would be accurate disclosure here.

[barmar]

awm, on 2025-August-11, 09:22, said:

To me it seems a bit dishonest to quote a number of points that includes distribution that the bid also promises. For example, if I say that my partner's 2♥ opening is "6-11 points and 6♥" when in fact she always has 4-9 HCP and then adds two "points" for the fifth and sixth hearts, that would seem like an attempt to confuse the opponents more than accurate disclosure. Similarly if partner's 2♦ bid is explained as "4+♠, 5+♥, 12-15 points" it would be surprising to see a 4531 hand with 9 HCP that counted three "points" for the singleton.

It seems almost obvious to me that if a particular distribution is part of the meaning of a bid, you wouldn't include that distribution when calculating the "points" shown by that bid -- you're essentially counting the distribution twice. Distribution points are added for distribution beyond that required by the bid in the first place.

E.g. a limit raise of a major requires 4-card support and about 10-11 HCP. If you have a fifth trump, that compensates for a little less HCP.

[blackshoe]

IMO the fact that someone describes a hand as "6-12 points and a six card suit" but then counts two points for the fifth and sixth card in his suit is not being disingenuous or deliberately obfuscatory. He just doesn't know any better.

Currently, my description of my (pretty conservative especially NV IMO) weak two bid is "about 5 to 11 points including distribution and suit quality, usually 6 cards, sometimes 5". Is that not adequate disclosure?

2♠-(p)-2NT!

"Please explain your auction".

For 2♠, see above. For 2NT "asks for further description, usually with game or slam interest". Responder might get tricky, I suppose, with less than invitational values and long spades, but as far as I can remember neither my partner nor I have ever done that, nor have we discussed the possibility. If either of us ever did do it, an opponent who claims MI would be pulling that claim out of his butt. And yes, it will stink. Now if we repeat it in some reasonable length of time, we would perhaps have an implicit understanding, so we would change the description of 2NT accordingly. However, once is not enough, nor is say twice in a year. Twice in a quarter is getting there.

BTW, we play Ogust. My partner would describe my 3♣ rebid as "bad hand, bad suit" because that's all she knows to do. If I were describing my own bid I would say "bad hand, so 8 losers (a good hand would have 7), bad suit, so 1 of the top 3 honors and probably the Jack". 3♦ would change the second part to "good suit, so 2 of the top 3 honors".

We aren't playing for blood, and partner, at least, is not interested in the kind of detailed discussions I would insist on if we were playing for blood.

[barmar]

And there's other room for personal judgement. I've had a number of occasions where I tabled my hand after an Ogust auction, and partner disagreed with my assessment. Last week I said bad suit for KJTxxx -- my rule of thumb for "good suit" is "2 of the top 3" (on the theory that partner can assume the suit will run if he has the missing honor), he said "3 of the top 5" is enough. "good hand" is even harder to define -- if I'm in the middle of the range, I look at distributional features and spot cards.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2025-August-14, 12:02, said:

And there's other room for personal judgement. I've had a number of occasions where I tabled my hand after an Ogust auction, and partner disagreed with my assessment. Last week I said bad suit for KJTxxx -- my rule of thumb for "good suit" is "2 of the top 3" (on the theory that partner can assume the suit will run if he has the missing honor), he said "3 of the top 5" is enough. "good hand" is even harder to define -- if I'm in the middle of the range, I look at distributional features and spot cards.

What is your rule of thumb for "bad partner" ?

[mycroft]

pescetom, on 2025-August-14, 16:17, said:

What is your rule of thumb for "bad partner" ?

"We play feature ask" :-)

Spoiler

Not that I think "feature ask" is a sign of a bad partner - my strongest partner and I play feature (because we play very conservative preempts; she thinks we can beat the field without pushing them around, so we maximize our "bid game". Now we also play "3NT says I have a feature"...) But I'm not playing Ogust with a partner who I don't think can determine if their opening is a good or a bad suit, even if their opinion is different from mine (that can be discussed).

[jillybean]

So much of this game relies on judgement.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-August-14, 16:45, said:

So much of this game relies on judgement.

Judgement essentially means "probability that is too complex to calculate". But you still need to be able to go close, and your partner must be able too. It's a question of ability, not opinion.

Agreements/style is another matter, but judgement should not be a substitute for agreement, as happens when "good suit" is undiscussed. I wouldn't play Ogust without that discussion and I wouldn't accept the proposal "3 of top 5" either (it looks unplayable to me, the suit might run opposite xxx or not run opposite Hx).

[jillybean]

You’re right of course, IME not much time is spent away from the table discussing these details and so judgement replaces agreements in anything other than serious partnerships.