Discussion:
director call?
(too old to reply)
dfm
2018-01-23 21:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Club game, matchpoints.

You open 1C, a normal 2/1 GF 1C opening, promising at least 3 clubs. There is no alert or announcement.

LHO nevertheless asks partner about the 1C bid. Partner says it's just a normal 1C bid. LHO continues to question partner, who eventually says something about "it might be short", meaning that it might be just 3 cards, because he's not experienced enough to know that "might be short" means "might be fewer than 3".

LHO eventually bids 2C.

Partner asks RHO what this is, because he's curious and nearly always asks, not because he's thinking of bidding anything. RHO says she's not entirely sure, but she thinks it's Michaels. Partner duly passes.

RHO bids 2S.

You pass.

LHO bids 3C. All pass, even though RHO is 5-5 in the majors opposite what she claims to think was a Michaels bid. She doesn't explicitly say anything about changing her view of the 2C bid, now or later, although that's presumably obvious to everyone.

LHO turns out to have 6 clubs. 3C makes, although you could have set it with better defense. Either 3H or 3S would have been down at least one.

Would you call the director? If so, how should the director rule?
Mick Heins
2018-01-23 22:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by dfm
Club game, matchpoints.
You open 1C, a normal 2/1 GF 1C opening, promising at least 3 clubs. There is no alert or announcement.
LHO nevertheless asks partner about the 1C bid. Partner says it's just a normal 1C bid. LHO continues to question partner, who eventually says something about "it might be short", meaning that it might be just 3 cards, because he's not experienced enough to know that "might be short" means "might be fewer than 3".
LHO eventually bids 2C.
Partner asks RHO what this is, because he's curious and nearly always asks, not because he's thinking of bidding anything. RHO says she's not entirely sure, but she thinks it's Michaels. Partner duly passes.
RHO bids 2S.
You pass.
LHO bids 3C. All pass, even though RHO is 5-5 in the majors opposite what she claims to think was a Michaels bid. She doesn't explicitly say anything about changing her view of the 2C bid, now or later, although that's presumably obvious to everyone.
LHO turns out to have 6 clubs. 3C makes, although you could have set it with better defense. Either 3H or 3S would have been down at least one.
Would you call the director? If so, how should the director rule?
Yes, director should be called. I'd expect them adjust it to 3H down two.
--
Mickey

An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
Charles Brenner
2018-01-23 23:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by dfm
Club game, matchpoints.
You open 1C, a normal 2/1 GF 1C opening, promising at least 3 clubs. There is no alert or announcement.
LHO nevertheless asks partner about the 1C bid. Partner says it's just a normal 1C bid. LHO continues to question partner, who eventually says something about "it might be short", meaning that it might be just 3 cards, because he's not experienced enough to know that "might be short" means "might be fewer than 3".
LHO eventually bids 2C.
Partner asks RHO what this is, because he's curious and nearly always asks, not because he's thinking of bidding anything. RHO says she's not entirely sure, but she thinks it's Michaels. Partner duly passes.
RHO bids 2S.
You pass.
LHO bids 3C. All pass, even though RHO is 5-5 in the majors opposite what she claims to think was a Michaels bid. She doesn't explicitly say anything about changing her view of the 2C bid, now or later, although that's presumably obvious to everyone.
LHO turns out to have 6 clubs. 3C makes, although you could have set it with better defense. Either 3H or 3S would have been down at least one.
Would you call the director? If so, how should the director rule?
Certainly call the director.

Bidding over 2S seems wrong to me, based on UI. However I have sympathy for all concerned.

LHO grilled you about 1C possibly because the meaning of their 2C bid depends on how you answer. That's a bad system on their part because it invites the misunderstanding that actually happened: LHO decided (perhaps partly out of convenience, having 6 clubs) to interpret the answer as "may be 2", whereas RHO acted, & answered your query, mostly the other way.

The answer to the query alerted LHO. We could be generous and say that LHO already knew the situation was murky and RHO's explanation was in effect "murky" hence no information -- and quite possibly LHO would have bid 3C anyway without the action. Or we could be not so generous.

RHO passing 3C is dubious in the same way; could be influenced by the way LHO grilled your side about the 1C bid.

Only one thing is clear-cut: call the director.
Bertel Lund Hansen
2018-01-24 07:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by dfm
Club game, matchpoints.
Have you got the hands?
--
/Bertel
judyorcarl@verizon.net
2018-01-24 13:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by dfm
Club game, matchpoints.
You open 1C, a normal 2/1 GF 1C opening, promising at least 3 clubs. There is no alert or announcement.
LHO nevertheless asks partner about the 1C bid. Partner says it's just a normal 1C bid. LHO continues to question partner, who eventually says something about "it might be short", meaning that it might be just 3 cards, because he's not experienced enough to know that "might be short" means "might be fewer than 3".
LHO eventually bids 2C.
Partner asks RHO what this is, because he's curious and nearly always asks, not because he's thinking of bidding anything. RHO says she's not entirely sure, but she thinks it's Michaels. Partner duly passes.
RHO bids 2S.
You pass.
LHO bids 3C. All pass, even though RHO is 5-5 in the majors opposite what she claims to think was a Michaels bid. She doesn't explicitly say anything about changing her view of the 2C bid, now or later, although that's presumably obvious to everyone.
LHO turns out to have 6 clubs. 3C makes, although you could have set it with better defense. Either 3H or 3S would have been down at least one.
Would you call the director? If so, how should the director rule?
"Normal 1C bid" is not responsive. Maybe things would have been better with "non-forcing, at least 3 clubs," which has only one more syllable.

Carl
Mick Heins
2018-01-25 12:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by dfm
Club game, matchpoints.
You open 1C, a normal 2/1 GF 1C opening, promising at least 3 clubs. There is no alert or announcement.
LHO nevertheless asks partner about the 1C bid. Partner says it's just a normal 1C bid. LHO continues to question partner, who eventually says something about "it might be short", meaning that it might be just 3 cards, because he's not experienced enough to know that "might be short" means "might be fewer than 3".
LHO eventually bids 2C.
Partner asks RHO what this is, because he's curious and nearly always asks, not because he's thinking of bidding anything. RHO says she's not entirely sure, but she thinks it's Michaels. Partner duly passes.
RHO bids 2S.
You pass.
LHO bids 3C. All pass, even though RHO is 5-5 in the majors opposite what she claims to think was a Michaels bid. She doesn't explicitly say anything about changing her view of the 2C bid, now or later, although that's presumably obvious to everyone.
LHO turns out to have 6 clubs. 3C makes, although you could have set it with better defense. Either 3H or 3S would have been down at least one.
Would you call the director? If so, how should the director rule?
"Normal 1C bid" is not responsive.
I disagree. Any bridge player has encountered the 1C opening innumerable times. If the
card is marked with the 3+ check box, it is a normal 1C bid.
Post by ***@verizon.net
Maybe things would have been better with "non-forcing, at least 3
clubs," which has only one more syllable.
Why don't you add "12-21 high card points"? It is a normal one club opening bid.

Cross-examining LHO about the 1C opening, when it has not been alerted,
and while having a six-card club suit, is egregious behavior. There is
no fault at all on the other side.
--
Mickey

We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters
will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks
to the Internet, we know this is not true. -- Robert Wilensky
Bertel Lund Hansen
2018-01-25 12:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mick Heins
Post by ***@verizon.net
"Normal 1C bid" is not responsive.
I disagree.
I don't. You never know what the opponent considers normal,
strong, long etc. Always be specific. It costs little and helps a
lot to avoid problems.
Post by Mick Heins
Post by ***@verizon.net
Maybe things would have been better with "non-forcing, at least 3
clubs," which has only one more syllable.
Why don't you add "12-21 high card points"?
Exactly.
--
/Bertel
Mick Heins
2018-01-25 13:42:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
Post by ***@verizon.net
"Normal 1C bid" is not responsive.
I disagree.
I don't. You never know what the opponent considers normal,
strong, long etc. Always be specific. It costs little and helps a
lot to avoid problems.
Post by Mick Heins
Post by ***@verizon.net
Maybe things would have been better with "non-forcing, at least 3
clubs," which has only one more syllable.
Why don't you add "12-21 high card points"?
Exactly.
What I disagree with is you raising this issue here, as if the
explanation has anything to do with this case.

Sure, in general, a better explanation is desirable. But being succinct
saves time. You shouldn't spend much time explaining the most common
bid in the game, which 1C is, when it is a standard 1C opening. That
is sufficient explanation.
--
Mickey

Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing.
-- Wernher Von Braun
judyorcarl@verizon.net
2018-01-25 15:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mick Heins
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
Post by ***@verizon.net
"Normal 1C bid" is not responsive.
I disagree.
I don't. You never know what the opponent considers normal,
strong, long etc. Always be specific. It costs little and helps a
lot to avoid problems.
Post by Mick Heins
Post by ***@verizon.net
Maybe things would have been better with "non-forcing, at least 3
clubs," which has only one more syllable.
Why don't you add "12-21 high card points"?
Exactly.
What I disagree with is you raising this issue here, as if the
explanation has anything to do with this case.
Sure, in general, a better explanation is desirable. But being succinct
saves time. You shouldn't spend much time explaining the most common
bid in the game, which 1C is, when it is a standard 1C opening. That
is sufficient explanation.
--
Mickey
Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing.
-- Wernher Von Braun
No it saves only 1 syllable, and wastes time if the inquirer is unsatisfied.

Carl
Barry Margolin
2018-01-25 17:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Mick Heins
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
Post by ***@verizon.net
"Normal 1C bid" is not responsive.
I disagree.
I don't. You never know what the opponent considers normal,
strong, long etc. Always be specific. It costs little and helps a
lot to avoid problems.
Post by Mick Heins
Post by ***@verizon.net
Maybe things would have been better with "non-forcing, at least 3
clubs," which has only one more syllable.
Why don't you add "12-21 high card points"?
Exactly.
What I disagree with is you raising this issue here, as if the
explanation has anything to do with this case.
Sure, in general, a better explanation is desirable. But being succinct
saves time. You shouldn't spend much time explaining the most common
bid in the game, which 1C is, when it is a standard 1C opening. That
is sufficient explanation.
--
Mickey
Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing.
-- Wernher Von Braun
No it saves only 1 syllable, and wastes time if the inquirer is unsatisfied.
And if the opponent asks in the first place, it suggests they're not
sure, so you might as well be as clear as possible.

But what it REALLY suggests, and everyone knows it, is that LHO has
exactly the kind of hand they had. No one would feel the need to ask
about an unalerted 1C bid if they didn't have a bunch of clubs.

Does their side really get a pass on the UI issue if you don't explain
precisely right?
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
judyorcarl@verizon.net
2018-01-25 20:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Mick Heins
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
Post by ***@verizon.net
"Normal 1C bid" is not responsive.
I disagree.
I don't. You never know what the opponent considers normal,
strong, long etc. Always be specific. It costs little and helps a
lot to avoid problems.
Post by Mick Heins
Post by ***@verizon.net
Maybe things would have been better with "non-forcing, at least 3
clubs," which has only one more syllable.
Why don't you add "12-21 high card points"?
Exactly.
What I disagree with is you raising this issue here, as if the
explanation has anything to do with this case.
Sure, in general, a better explanation is desirable. But being succinct
saves time. You shouldn't spend much time explaining the most common
bid in the game, which 1C is, when it is a standard 1C opening. That
is sufficient explanation.
--
Mickey
Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing.
-- Wernher Von Braun
No it saves only 1 syllable, and wastes time if the inquirer is unsatisfied.
And if the opponent asks in the first place, it suggests they're not
sure, so you might as well be as clear as possible.
But what it REALLY suggests, and everyone knows it, is that LHO has
exactly the kind of hand they had. No one would feel the need to ask
about an unalerted 1C bid if they didn't have a bunch of clubs.
Does their side really get a pass on the UI issue if you don't explain
precisely right?
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
Asking is UI. Persisting is more extreme.

Do you believe that UI is binary?

Carl
judyorcarl@verizon.net
2018-01-25 20:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Mick Heins
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
Post by ***@verizon.net
"Normal 1C bid" is not responsive.
I disagree.
I don't. You never know what the opponent considers normal,
strong, long etc. Always be specific. It costs little and helps a
lot to avoid problems.
Post by Mick Heins
Post by ***@verizon.net
Maybe things would have been better with "non-forcing, at least 3
clubs," which has only one more syllable.
Why don't you add "12-21 high card points"?
Exactly.
What I disagree with is you raising this issue here, as if the
explanation has anything to do with this case.
Sure, in general, a better explanation is desirable. But being succinct
saves time. You shouldn't spend much time explaining the most common
bid in the game, which 1C is, when it is a standard 1C opening. That
is sufficient explanation.
--
Mickey
Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing.
-- Wernher Von Braun
No it saves only 1 syllable, and wastes time if the inquirer is unsatisfied.
And if the opponent asks in the first place, it suggests they're not
sure, so you might as well be as clear as possible.
But what it REALLY suggests, and everyone knows it, is that LHO has
exactly the kind of hand they had. No one would feel the need to ask
about an unalerted 1C bid if they didn't have a bunch of clubs.
Does their side really get a pass on the UI issue if you don't explain
precisely right?
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
What I neglected to say is: Answers like "normal [whatever]" are minor infractions, but major oneupmanships. Like making a claim without stating a line of play. Directors should discourage oneupmanship in all its forms.

Carl
Player
2018-01-26 02:05:53 UTC
Permalink
I agree with the OP here. The question and the following bidding was cheating; that is the only way it can be described.
"RHO is 5-5 in the majors opposite what she claims to think was a Michaels bid."
Having failed to bid 4M over 2C surely you must bid 4M when partner now makes what must know be the strong Michael's variant when 3C is bid. I would rule 4M down whatever.
Bertel Lund Hansen
2018-01-26 08:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry Margolin
Does their side really get a pass on the UI issue if you don't explain
precisely right?
No, not where I am working. They are two separate issues, and one
doesn't influence the other.
--
/Bertel
Mick Heins
2018-01-26 17:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Barry Margolin
Does their side really get a pass on the UI issue if you don't explain
precisely right?
No, not where I am working. They are two separate issues, and one
doesn't influence the other.
And besides, "normal 1C opening" as explanation is precisely right in the
United States.
--
Mickey

The problem with Internet quotations is that many of them
are not genuine. -- Abraham Lincoln
Bertel Lund Hansen
2018-01-26 17:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mick Heins
And besides, "normal 1C opening" as explanation is precisely right in the
United States.
Even if 99 % of the players agree on the meaning of 1C - why not
take the minimal extra trouble to avoid forcing 1 % of the
players to ask again?

Apart from that I doubt (with no specific knowledge) that the
percentage is so high. The American language comes in many
flavours. Why shouldn't bidding?
--
/Bertel
Travis Crump
2018-01-26 21:09:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
And besides, "normal 1C opening" as explanation is precisely right in the
United States.
Even if 99 % of the players agree on the meaning of 1C - why not
take the minimal extra trouble to avoid forcing 1 % of the
players to ask again?
Apart from that I doubt (with no specific knowledge) that the
percentage is so high. The American language comes in many
flavours. Why shouldn't bidding?
There is also the issue that most people, especially with an
inexperienced parter, don't extensively discuss 1C. If you play with
someone once every other month, have you discussed what to open with KJx
QTxx AKx xxx? If you disagree with the opponent over what a normal 1C
is, there may be a good chance that partner agrees with the opponent and
not you. '3+, non-forcing' sounds a lot more vague to me than 'normal 1C
opening'.
judyorcarl@verizon.net
2018-01-26 21:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travis Crump
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
And besides, "normal 1C opening" as explanation is precisely right in the
United States.
Even if 99 % of the players agree on the meaning of 1C - why not
take the minimal extra trouble to avoid forcing 1 % of the
players to ask again?
Apart from that I doubt (with no specific knowledge) that the
percentage is so high. The American language comes in many
flavours. Why shouldn't bidding?
There is also the issue that most people, especially with an
inexperienced parter, don't extensively discuss 1C. If you play with
someone once every other month, have you discussed what to open with KJx
QTxx AKx xxx? If you disagree with the opponent over what a normal 1C
is, there may be a good chance that partner agrees with the opponent and
not you. '3+, non-forcing' sounds a lot more vague to me than 'normal 1C
opening'.
That is bizarre
Travis Crump
2018-01-27 02:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
And besides, "normal 1C opening" as explanation is precisely right in the
United States.
Even if 99 % of the players agree on the meaning of 1C - why not
take the minimal extra trouble to avoid forcing 1 % of the
players to ask again?
Apart from that I doubt (with no specific knowledge) that the
percentage is so high. The American language comes in many
flavours. Why shouldn't bidding?
There is also the issue that most people, especially with an
inexperienced parter, don't extensively discuss 1C. If you play with
someone once every other month, have you discussed what to open with KJx
QTxx AKx xxx? If you disagree with the opponent over what a normal 1C
is, there may be a good chance that partner agrees with the opponent and
not you. '3+, non-forcing' sounds a lot more vague to me than 'normal 1C
opening'.
That is bizarre
Put another way. "normal 1C opening" is a polite way of saying 'I didn't
alert, did I'. The non-alertable/non-announceable meaning[in the ACBL]
is 3+, non-forcing.
Mick Heins
2018-01-27 12:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travis Crump
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
And besides, "normal 1C opening" as explanation is precisely right in the
United States.
Even if 99 % of the players agree on the meaning of 1C - why not
take the minimal extra trouble to avoid forcing 1 % of the
players to ask again?
Apart from that I doubt (with no specific knowledge) that the
percentage is so high. The American language comes in many
flavours. Why shouldn't bidding?
There is also the issue that most people, especially with an
inexperienced parter, don't extensively discuss 1C. If you play with
someone once every other month, have you discussed what to open with KJx
QTxx AKx xxx? If you disagree with the opponent over what a normal 1C
is, there may be a good chance that partner agrees with the opponent and
not you. '3+, non-forcing' sounds a lot more vague to me than 'normal 1C
opening'.
That is bizarre
Put another way. "normal 1C opening" is a polite way of saying 'I didn't
alert, did I'. The non-alertable/non-announceable meaning[in the ACBL]
is 3+, non-forcing.
This.

I've played bridge in Poland. The idea that you'd have to say
"Forcing, one of three hand types, balanced 12-14, or long clubs with
14-17, or strong 17+" when someone asked about 1C is ridiculous. 95%
of Poles play the Polish Club -- it's a normal Polish 1C.
--
Mickey

Give me a young man in whom there is something of the old,
and an old man with something of the young. -- Cicero
judyorcarl@verizon.net
2018-01-27 14:03:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travis Crump
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
And besides, "normal 1C opening" as explanation is precisely right in the
United States.
Even if 99 % of the players agree on the meaning of 1C - why not
take the minimal extra trouble to avoid forcing 1 % of the
players to ask again?
Apart from that I doubt (with no specific knowledge) that the
percentage is so high. The American language comes in many
flavours. Why shouldn't bidding?
There is also the issue that most people, especially with an
inexperienced parter, don't extensively discuss 1C. If you play with
someone once every other month, have you discussed what to open with KJx
QTxx AKx xxx? If you disagree with the opponent over what a normal 1C
is, there may be a good chance that partner agrees with the opponent and
not you. '3+, non-forcing' sounds a lot more vague to me than 'normal 1C
opening'.
That is bizarre
Put another way. "normal 1C opening" is a polite way of saying 'I didn't
alert, did I'. The non-alertable/non-announceable meaning[in the ACBL]
is 3+, non-forcing.
It is MORE polite than "I didn't ...." It is just as much oneupmanship.

Carl
dfm
2018-01-28 03:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
And besides, "normal 1C opening" as explanation is precisely right in the
United States.
Even if 99 % of the players agree on the meaning of 1C - why not
take the minimal extra trouble to avoid forcing 1 % of the
players to ask again?
Apart from that I doubt (with no specific knowledge) that the
percentage is so high. The American language comes in many
flavours. Why shouldn't bidding?
There is also the issue that most people, especially with an
inexperienced parter, don't extensively discuss 1C. If you play with
someone once every other month, have you discussed what to open with KJx
QTxx AKx xxx? If you disagree with the opponent over what a normal 1C
is, there may be a good chance that partner agrees with the opponent and
not you. '3+, non-forcing' sounds a lot more vague to me than 'normal 1C
opening'.
That is bizarre
Put another way. "normal 1C opening" is a polite way of saying 'I didn't
alert, did I'. The non-alertable/non-announceable meaning[in the ACBL]
is 3+, non-forcing.
It is MORE polite than "I didn't ...." It is just as much oneupmanship.
Carl
I genuinely don't understand why you think it's oneupmanship. Please explain.

It seems to me that "normal", in the context of a club game where nearly everyone is playing 1C the same way, is much more descriptive than "3+ clubs, non-forcing" because it implies not only that but also all the usual other stuff like no 5-card major, not longer diamonds, not 15-17 balanced, etc.
Dave Flower
2018-01-28 17:03:49 UTC
Permalink
We are not told under what jurisdiction this incident occurred..

I am assuming that either the pair in question should have a properly filled convention card, or a 'short' club should be announced (or both). I assume that no convention card was available, and the explanation was insufficient.

Under these circumstances, the 2C bidder was seriously disadvantaged.

Dave Flower
Post by dfm
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
And besides, "normal 1C opening" as explanation is precisely right in the
United States.
Even if 99 % of the players agree on the meaning of 1C - why not
take the minimal extra trouble to avoid forcing 1 % of the
players to ask again?
Apart from that I doubt (with no specific knowledge) that the
percentage is so high. The American language comes in many
flavours. Why shouldn't bidding?
There is also the issue that most people, especially with an
inexperienced parter, don't extensively discuss 1C. If you play with
someone once every other month, have you discussed what to open with KJx
QTxx AKx xxx? If you disagree with the opponent over what a normal 1C
is, there may be a good chance that partner agrees with the opponent and
not you. '3+, non-forcing' sounds a lot more vague to me than 'normal 1C
opening'.
That is bizarre
Put another way. "normal 1C opening" is a polite way of saying 'I didn't
alert, did I'. The non-alertable/non-announceable meaning[in the ACBL]
is 3+, non-forcing.
It is MORE polite than "I didn't ...." It is just as much oneupmanship.
Carl
I genuinely don't understand why you think it's oneupmanship. Please explain.
It seems to me that "normal", in the context of a club game where nearly everyone is playing 1C the same way, is much more descriptive than "3+ clubs, non-forcing" because it implies not only that but also all the usual other stuff like no 5-card major, not longer diamonds, not 15-17 balanced, etc.
Mick Heins
2018-01-28 18:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Flower
We are not told under what jurisdiction this incident occurred..
I am assuming that either the pair in question should have a properly filled convention card, or a 'short' club should be announced (or both). I assume that no convention card was available, and the explanation was insufficient.
Under these circumstances, the 2C bidder was seriously disadvantaged.
Huh? Here is the original statement:

Club game, matchpoints.

You open 1C, a normal 2/1 GF 1C opening, promising at least 3
clubs. There is no alert or announcement.

This is almost assuredly the U.S., with a filled-out convention card.
It is a normal 1C opening.

It could be that they are simply inexperienced, but the 2C bidder is
not in the least disadvantaged, they are an egregious passer of
unauthorized information. They should have been given an adjusted
score and if they are receptive, instructed as to why this happened.
--
Mickey

People who would hamper free speech always assume that they're designing
a world in which only their enemies will have to shut up.
--Nicholas Christakis
judyorcarl@verizon.net
2018-01-28 19:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by dfm
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
And besides, "normal 1C opening" as explanation is precisely right in the
United States.
Even if 99 % of the players agree on the meaning of 1C - why not
take the minimal extra trouble to avoid forcing 1 % of the
players to ask again?
Apart from that I doubt (with no specific knowledge) that the
percentage is so high. The American language comes in many
flavours. Why shouldn't bidding?
There is also the issue that most people, especially with an
inexperienced parter, don't extensively discuss 1C. If you play with
someone once every other month, have you discussed what to open with KJx
QTxx AKx xxx? If you disagree with the opponent over what a normal 1C
is, there may be a good chance that partner agrees with the opponent and
not you. '3+, non-forcing' sounds a lot more vague to me than 'normal 1C
opening'.
That is bizarre
Put another way. "normal 1C opening" is a polite way of saying 'I didn't
alert, did I'. The non-alertable/non-announceable meaning[in the ACBL]
is 3+, non-forcing.
It is MORE polite than "I didn't ...." It is just as much oneupmanship.
Carl
I genuinely don't understand why you think it's oneupmanship. Please explain.
It seems to me that "normal", in the context of a club game where nearly everyone is playing 1C the same way, is much more descriptive than "3+ clubs, non-forcing" because it implies not only that but also all the usual other stuff like no 5-card major, not longer diamonds, not 15-17 balanced, etc.
"You are supposed to know what a normal 1C bid is."

"We aren't here to teach basic bidding."

"Your inquiry reveals your ignorance."

If you think those are not what is conveyed, think again.

Carl
Mick Heins
2018-01-28 21:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by dfm
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
And besides, "normal 1C opening" as explanation is precisely right in the
United States.
Even if 99 % of the players agree on the meaning of 1C - why not
take the minimal extra trouble to avoid forcing 1 % of the
players to ask again?
Apart from that I doubt (with no specific knowledge) that the
percentage is so high. The American language comes in many
flavours. Why shouldn't bidding?
There is also the issue that most people, especially with an
inexperienced parter, don't extensively discuss 1C. If you play with
someone once every other month, have you discussed what to open with KJx
QTxx AKx xxx? If you disagree with the opponent over what a normal 1C
is, there may be a good chance that partner agrees with the opponent and
not you. '3+, non-forcing' sounds a lot more vague to me than 'normal 1C
opening'.
That is bizarre
Put another way. "normal 1C opening" is a polite way of saying 'I didn't
alert, did I'. The non-alertable/non-announceable meaning[in the ACBL]
is 3+, non-forcing.
It is MORE polite than "I didn't ...." It is just as much oneupmanship.
Carl
I genuinely don't understand why you think it's oneupmanship. Please explain.
It seems to me that "normal", in the context of a club game where nearly everyone is playing 1C the same way, is much more descriptive than "3+ clubs, non-forcing" because it implies not only that but also all the usual other stuff like no 5-card major, not longer diamonds, not 15-17 balanced, etc.
"You are supposed to know what a normal 1C bid is."
"We aren't here to teach basic bidding."
"Your inquiry reveals your ignorance."
If you think those are not what is conveyed, think again.
Are you trolling us? Are you suggesting this is the first time the
player had encountered a one club opening, the most common in bridge?
--
Mickey

The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and
dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if
it had nothing else in the universe to do. -- Galileo
Dave Flower
2018-01-28 22:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mick Heins
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by dfm
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
And besides, "normal 1C opening" as explanation is precisely right in the
United States.
Even if 99 % of the players agree on the meaning of 1C - why not
take the minimal extra trouble to avoid forcing 1 % of the
players to ask again?
Apart from that I doubt (with no specific knowledge) that the
percentage is so high. The American language comes in many
flavours. Why shouldn't bidding?
There is also the issue that most people, especially with an
inexperienced parter, don't extensively discuss 1C. If you play with
someone once every other month, have you discussed what to open with KJx
QTxx AKx xxx? If you disagree with the opponent over what a normal 1C
is, there may be a good chance that partner agrees with the opponent and
not you. '3+, non-forcing' sounds a lot more vague to me than 'normal 1C
opening'.
That is bizarre
Put another way. "normal 1C opening" is a polite way of saying 'I didn't
alert, did I'. The non-alertable/non-announceable meaning[in the ACBL]
is 3+, non-forcing.
It is MORE polite than "I didn't ...." It is just as much oneupmanship.
Carl
I genuinely don't understand why you think it's oneupmanship. Please explain.
It seems to me that "normal", in the context of a club game where nearly everyone is playing 1C the same way, is much more descriptive than "3+ clubs, non-forcing" because it implies not only that but also all the usual other stuff like no 5-card major, not longer diamonds, not 15-17 balanced, etc.
"You are supposed to know what a normal 1C bid is."
"We aren't here to teach basic bidding."
"Your inquiry reveals your ignorance."
If you think those are not what is conveyed, think again.
Are you trolling us? Are you suggesting this is the first time the
player had encountered a one club opening, the most common in bridge?
--
Mickey
The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and
dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if
it had nothing else in the universe to do. -- Galileo
No. Nobody has answered as to whether a required convention card was missing.

To describe any bid as 'normal' is unacceptable. Would you be happy if a 1NT opening bid were so described ?

David Flower
Fred.
2018-01-28 23:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mick Heins
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by dfm
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
And besides, "normal 1C opening" as explanation is precisely right in the
United States.
Even if 99 % of the players agree on the meaning of 1C - why not
take the minimal extra trouble to avoid forcing 1 % of the
players to ask again?
Apart from that I doubt (with no specific knowledge) that the
percentage is so high. The American language comes in many
flavours. Why shouldn't bidding?
There is also the issue that most people, especially with an
inexperienced parter, don't extensively discuss 1C. If you play with
someone once every other month, have you discussed what to open with KJx
QTxx AKx xxx? If you disagree with the opponent over what a normal 1C
is, there may be a good chance that partner agrees with the opponent and
not you. '3+, non-forcing' sounds a lot more vague to me than 'normal 1C
opening'.
That is bizarre
Put another way. "normal 1C opening" is a polite way of saying 'I didn't
alert, did I'. The non-alertable/non-announceable meaning[in the ACBL]
is 3+, non-forcing.
It is MORE polite than "I didn't ...." It is just as much oneupmanship.
Carl
I genuinely don't understand why you think it's oneupmanship. Please explain.
It seems to me that "normal", in the context of a club game where nearly everyone is playing 1C the same way, is much more descriptive than "3+ clubs, non-forcing" because it implies not only that but also all the usual other stuff like no 5-card major, not longer diamonds, not 15-17 balanced, etc.
"You are supposed to know what a normal 1C bid is."
"We aren't here to teach basic bidding."
"Your inquiry reveals your ignorance."
If you think those are not what is conveyed, think again.
Are you trolling us? Are you suggesting this is the first time the
player had encountered a one club opening, the most common in bridge?
--
Mickey
The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and
dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if
it had nothing else in the universe to do. -- Galileo
I'm with Carl and Dave. If someone tells me a bid is "normal"
I'll ask exactly what that means. It they try to go one up on
me by telling me that I should know, I go one up on them by asking
the director over to explain the rules of the game to them.

Just because someone thinks their bidding is "normal" or "standard"
doesn't mean that it is.

Fred.

Fred.
dfm
2018-01-29 02:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred.
Post by Mick Heins
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by dfm
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
And besides, "normal 1C opening" as explanation is precisely right in the
United States.
Even if 99 % of the players agree on the meaning of 1C - why not
take the minimal extra trouble to avoid forcing 1 % of the
players to ask again?
Apart from that I doubt (with no specific knowledge) that the
percentage is so high. The American language comes in many
flavours. Why shouldn't bidding?
There is also the issue that most people, especially with an
inexperienced parter, don't extensively discuss 1C. If you play with
someone once every other month, have you discussed what to open with KJx
QTxx AKx xxx? If you disagree with the opponent over what a normal 1C
is, there may be a good chance that partner agrees with the opponent and
not you. '3+, non-forcing' sounds a lot more vague to me than 'normal 1C
opening'.
That is bizarre
Put another way. "normal 1C opening" is a polite way of saying 'I didn't
alert, did I'. The non-alertable/non-announceable meaning[in the ACBL]
is 3+, non-forcing.
It is MORE polite than "I didn't ...." It is just as much oneupmanship.
Carl
I genuinely don't understand why you think it's oneupmanship. Please explain.
It seems to me that "normal", in the context of a club game where nearly everyone is playing 1C the same way, is much more descriptive than "3+ clubs, non-forcing" because it implies not only that but also all the usual other stuff like no 5-card major, not longer diamonds, not 15-17 balanced, etc.
"You are supposed to know what a normal 1C bid is."
"We aren't here to teach basic bidding."
"Your inquiry reveals your ignorance."
If you think those are not what is conveyed, think again.
Are you trolling us? Are you suggesting this is the first time the
player had encountered a one club opening, the most common in bridge?
--
Mickey
The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and
dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if
it had nothing else in the universe to do. -- Galileo
I'm with Carl and Dave. If someone tells me a bid is "normal"
I'll ask exactly what that means. It they try to go one up on
me by telling me that I should know, I go one up on them by asking
the director over to explain the rules of the game to them.
Just because someone thinks their bidding is "normal" or "standard"
doesn't mean that it is.
Fred.
Fred.
This was ACBL. Yes, we both had properly filled out convention cards. Next to 1C under "Minor Openings", the box for "expected minimum length 3" was checked. The box for "conventional" was not checked. As I said in the OP, partner is relatively inexperienced. I'd be willing to bet that in all the times he's opened 1C, he's never previously been asked about it, and he simply wasn't sure what to say. Given that the opps are more experienced than he is, I can't imagine that he intended to convey the one-up subtexts that Carl suggests. In fact, I suspect he would be appalled at the idea that the opps might take it that way.
Dave Flower
2018-01-29 14:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by dfm
Post by Fred.
Post by Mick Heins
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by dfm
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
And besides, "normal 1C opening" as explanation is precisely right in the
United States.
Even if 99 % of the players agree on the meaning of 1C - why not
take the minimal extra trouble to avoid forcing 1 % of the
players to ask again?
Apart from that I doubt (with no specific knowledge) that the
percentage is so high. The American language comes in many
flavours. Why shouldn't bidding?
There is also the issue that most people, especially with an
inexperienced parter, don't extensively discuss 1C. If you play with
someone once every other month, have you discussed what to open with KJx
QTxx AKx xxx? If you disagree with the opponent over what a normal 1C
is, there may be a good chance that partner agrees with the opponent and
not you. '3+, non-forcing' sounds a lot more vague to me than 'normal 1C
opening'.
That is bizarre
Put another way. "normal 1C opening" is a polite way of saying 'I didn't
alert, did I'. The non-alertable/non-announceable meaning[in the ACBL]
is 3+, non-forcing.
It is MORE polite than "I didn't ...." It is just as much oneupmanship.
Carl
I genuinely don't understand why you think it's oneupmanship. Please explain.
It seems to me that "normal", in the context of a club game where nearly everyone is playing 1C the same way, is much more descriptive than "3+ clubs, non-forcing" because it implies not only that but also all the usual other stuff like no 5-card major, not longer diamonds, not 15-17 balanced, etc.
"You are supposed to know what a normal 1C bid is."
"We aren't here to teach basic bidding."
"Your inquiry reveals your ignorance."
If you think those are not what is conveyed, think again.
Are you trolling us? Are you suggesting this is the first time the
player had encountered a one club opening, the most common in bridge?
--
Mickey
The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and
dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if
it had nothing else in the universe to do. -- Galileo
I'm with Carl and Dave. If someone tells me a bid is "normal"
I'll ask exactly what that means. It they try to go one up on
me by telling me that I should know, I go one up on them by asking
the director over to explain the rules of the game to them.
Just because someone thinks their bidding is "normal" or "standard"
doesn't mean that it is.
Fred.
Fred.
This was ACBL. Yes, we both had properly filled out convention cards. Next to 1C under "Minor Openings", the box for "expected minimum length 3" was checked. The box for "conventional" was not checked. As I said in the OP, partner is relatively inexperienced. I'd be willing to bet that in all the times he's opened 1C, he's never previously been asked about it, and he simply wasn't sure what to say. Given that the opps are more experienced than he is, I can't imagine that he intended to convey the one-up subtexts that Carl suggests. In fact, I suspect he would be appalled at the idea that the opps might take it that way.
Given the details on the convention card, I would rule against the (partner of) the 2C bidder.

Dave Flower
Mick Heins
2018-01-29 03:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred.
Post by Mick Heins
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by dfm
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
And besides, "normal 1C opening" as explanation is precisely right in the
United States.
Even if 99 % of the players agree on the meaning of 1C - why not
take the minimal extra trouble to avoid forcing 1 % of the
players to ask again?
Apart from that I doubt (with no specific knowledge) that the
percentage is so high. The American language comes in many
flavours. Why shouldn't bidding?
There is also the issue that most people, especially with an
inexperienced parter, don't extensively discuss 1C. If you play with
someone once every other month, have you discussed what to open with KJx
QTxx AKx xxx? If you disagree with the opponent over what a normal 1C
is, there may be a good chance that partner agrees with the opponent and
not you. '3+, non-forcing' sounds a lot more vague to me than 'normal 1C
opening'.
That is bizarre
Put another way. "normal 1C opening" is a polite way of saying 'I didn't
alert, did I'. The non-alertable/non-announceable meaning[in the ACBL]
is 3+, non-forcing.
It is MORE polite than "I didn't ...." It is just as much oneupmanship.
Carl
I genuinely don't understand why you think it's oneupmanship. Please explain.
It seems to me that "normal", in the context of a club game where nearly everyone is playing 1C the same way, is much more descriptive than "3+ clubs, non-forcing" because it implies not only that but also all the usual other stuff like no 5-card major, not longer diamonds, not 15-17 balanced, etc.
"You are supposed to know what a normal 1C bid is."
"We aren't here to teach basic bidding."
"Your inquiry reveals your ignorance."
If you think those are not what is conveyed, think again.
Are you trolling us? Are you suggesting this is the first time the
player had encountered a one club opening, the most common in bridge?
I'm with Carl and Dave. If someone tells me a bid is "normal"
I'll ask exactly what that means. It they try to go one up on
me by telling me that I should know, I go one up on them by asking
the director over to explain the rules of the game to them.
Just because someone thinks their bidding is "normal" or "standard"
doesn't mean that it is.
So are you saying you ask about every one club opening, or only when you have
6 clubs?
--
Mickey

Whatever you are, be a good one.
-- Abraham Lincoln
Fred.
2018-01-29 15:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mick Heins
Post by Fred.
Post by Mick Heins
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by dfm
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by ***@verizon.net
Post by Travis Crump
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Post by Mick Heins
And besides, "normal 1C opening" as explanation is precisely right in the
United States.
Even if 99 % of the players agree on the meaning of 1C - why not
take the minimal extra trouble to avoid forcing 1 % of the
players to ask again?
Apart from that I doubt (with no specific knowledge) that the
percentage is so high. The American language comes in many
flavours. Why shouldn't bidding?
There is also the issue that most people, especially with an
inexperienced parter, don't extensively discuss 1C. If you play with
someone once every other month, have you discussed what to open with KJx
QTxx AKx xxx? If you disagree with the opponent over what a normal 1C
is, there may be a good chance that partner agrees with the opponent and
not you. '3+, non-forcing' sounds a lot more vague to me than 'normal 1C
opening'.
That is bizarre
Put another way. "normal 1C opening" is a polite way of saying 'I didn't
alert, did I'. The non-alertable/non-announceable meaning[in the ACBL]
is 3+, non-forcing.
It is MORE polite than "I didn't ...." It is just as much oneupmanship.
Carl
I genuinely don't understand why you think it's oneupmanship. Please explain.
It seems to me that "normal", in the context of a club game where nearly everyone is playing 1C the same way, is much more descriptive than "3+ clubs, non-forcing" because it implies not only that but also all the usual other stuff like no 5-card major, not longer diamonds, not 15-17 balanced, etc.
"You are supposed to know what a normal 1C bid is."
"We aren't here to teach basic bidding."
"Your inquiry reveals your ignorance."
If you think those are not what is conveyed, think again.
Are you trolling us? Are you suggesting this is the first time the
player had encountered a one club opening, the most common in bridge?
I'm with Carl and Dave. If someone tells me a bid is "normal"
I'll ask exactly what that means. It they try to go one up on
me by telling me that I should know, I go one up on them by asking
the director over to explain the rules of the game to them.
Just because someone thinks their bidding is "normal" or "standard"
doesn't mean that it is.
So are you saying you ask about every one club opening, or only when you have
6 clubs?
--
Mickey
Whatever you are, be a good one.
-- Abraham Lincoln
The only time I've ever had to ask was when my opponents hadn't
completed a card. LHO refused to answer on the grounds that the
partnership wasn't playing a "System" and wasn't required to explain
their bids. I called the TD, but I would also have done so if LHO
had said "normal one club" and refused to explain further, at least
giving the general approach in which their 1C was "normal".

I once had a Standard American pair explain opener's 1NT rebid as
"normal". It turned out that their agreement was 10-12 HCP with strength
in the unbid suits. It still remains a mystery to me what they did
with 13-14 HCP balanced.

Fred.
Peter Smulders
2018-01-27 01:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by dfm
Club game, matchpoints.
You open 1C, a normal 2/1 GF 1C opening, promising at least 3 clubs. There is no alert or announcement.
LHO nevertheless asks partner about the 1C bid. Partner says it's just a normal 1C bid. LHO continues to question partner, who eventually says something about "it might be short", meaning that it might be just 3 cards, because he's not experienced enough to know that "might be short" means "might be fewer than 3".
LHO eventually bids 2C.
Partner asks RHO what this is, because he's curious and nearly always asks, not because he's thinking of bidding anything. RHO says she's not entirely sure, but she thinks it's Michaels. Partner duly passes.
RHO bids 2S.
You pass.
LHO bids 3C. All pass, even though RHO is 5-5 in the majors opposite what she claims to think was a Michaels bid. She doesn't explicitly say anything about changing her view of the 2C bid, now or later, although that's presumably obvious to everyone.
LHO turns out to have 6 clubs. 3C makes, although you could have set it with better defense. Either 3H or 3S would have been down at least one.
Would you call the director? If so, how should the director rule?
The TD should find out what the actual agreement on 2C is in these
circumstances. Maybe it depends on the club length in the 1C opening.
That would explain why LHO is so curious. Just explaining 1C as "normal"
without saying whether it promises 2, 3, or 4 clubs, is certainly
insufficient. However there seems to be no well established agreement on
the 2C. The remark of RHO she is not sure what 2C means points that way.
Anyways her remarks are unauthorized information for LHO, so he must
consider 2S as a proposal to play in spades rather than clubs. The 3C
bid thus is based on UI. If an assigned score is appropriate depends on
the distribution of the cards which we don't know.

-
Steve Willner
2018-02-01 02:50:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by dfm
Club game, matchpoints.
You open 1C, a normal 2/1 GF 1C opening, promising at least 3 clubs.
There is no alert or announcement.
LHO nevertheless asks partner about the 1C bid. Partner says it's
just a normal 1C bid.
As Carl wrote, this is less than an ideal response, but it isn't the
main problem here.
Post by dfm
LHO continues to question partner, who
eventually says something about "it might be short", meaning that it
might be just 3 cards, because he's not experienced enough to know
that "might be short" means "might be fewer than 3".
This is a perfect example of an "informatory question." Everyone at the
table knows LHO has a club suit. This is, of course, flagrantly illegal
(Law 73B1). Aside from the usual UI rules, any advantage gained should
be taken away via L12A1.
Post by dfm
LHO eventually bids 2C.
Partner asks RHO what this is, because he's curious and nearly always
asks, not because he's thinking of bidding anything. RHO says she's
not entirely sure, but she thinks it's Michaels. Partner duly
passes.
RHO bids 2S.
You pass.
LHO bids 3C. All pass, even though RHO is 5-5 in the majors opposite
what she claims to think was a Michaels bid.
One would have to see the whole deal, but the pass is very likely
illegal because of UI. That is separate from the L73 infraction.
Post by dfm
Would you call the director?
If the Director is competent, of course yes. I'd probably have called
during initial questioning of the 1C bid. I'd just explain what
happened with no interpretation. That's the Director's job.

If this is the ACBL, you may well have an incompetent Director. I'd
probably call even in that case, but it might be futile.
Post by dfm
If so, how should the director rule?
Offenders should get the worse of the possible adjusted scores under L16
and L73. One would have to see the whole deal and ask some questions,
but 3Mx-2 or something worse is likely.

The Director should also explain the proper way to answer questions, but
that didn't cause the problem here.
Lorne
2018-02-04 14:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by dfm
Club game, matchpoints.
You open 1C, a normal 2/1 GF 1C opening, promising at least 3 clubs. There is no alert or announcement.
LHO nevertheless asks partner about the 1C bid. Partner says it's just a normal 1C bid. LHO continues to question partner, who eventually says something about "it might be short", meaning that it might be just 3 cards, because he's not experienced enough to know that "might be short" means "might be fewer than 3".
I once got questioned in a similar way, the fourth question being "so
how many clubs does your partner have". I replied "he obviously does
not have as many as you but he should have at least 4". As in your case
my RHO had 6 of them and to ask questions like this is not proper. In
my case the director was called before a bid was made (RHO did not like
my reply !) and he told the player they had passed UI to partner which
would result in lead penalties if we won the auction and bidding
constraints if they bid.

As to your later question you should call the director and I would
expect him/her to find out the agreement on 2C. If they play michaels
and the other hand really does contain 5-5 in the majors then 4H doubled
- 3 is a possible ruling but we need to see the hands to make a sensible
judgement.
Jean Pierre Fontenille
2018-02-12 10:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Normal 1c ils clear if u use a classicisme système published ans documenter as sayc 2/1 string 1c ans son on.
Jean Pierre Fontenille
2018-03-19 03:14:43 UTC
Permalink
To call director ils always allowed and never forbidden. It's juste because u nées an advice from somebody knowing thé law.
Loading...