Article 129244 of rec.games.bridge:
From: "Alex Martelli" <alex@magenta.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: short-names for agreements (was Re: Director's decision...?)
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 00:21:08 +0200

Gord Murray <murraygw@home.com> wrote in message
8ZUR4.9379$55.154057@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> As you say, one risks long-windedness in a full description, while one
risks
> conveying no information at all when using a single word.
> I'll bet that with a little practice, one can explain an alert completely
> for just about anything in under ten seconds.
> Ten seconds is not a long time, IMHO.
> Please forward the text for the alerts that you use that take longer.

Consider Gazilli, for example, in the specific case:
    1H    1NT
    2C

1H is normally 5+ cards (some few specific 4-good-cards hands
are included, but they'd pass 1NT); 1NT is "semiforcing", up
to 11-bad 12, denies good biddable spades.

2C is an artificial, forcing bid; it can cover:

1. 14 HCP or a good 13 with 5332, 4=5=2=2 (rare), 2=5=2=4;
2. 11-14 HCP with 1=5=3=4, 3=5=1=4, 4=5=1=3, or 5H and 5C
    (we don't open 65 hands in this point range 1H, using
    instead a certain set of high conventional openings);
    sometimes 6-4 with bad hearts, strong clubs, too;
3. most 15-17 hands, but not ones suitable for rebids of:
    3H (good 6+ cards, treated as 1-suiter), 2D (OK with
    15-bad 16 and biddable diamonds), 2S (OK with good15-
    16up and good biddable spades, or 17 even with bad
    spades)
4. 18-20 unsuited for: 2S (which is not quite forcing),
    2NT (which suggests 5332 or treated as equivalent),
    3C/3D (game-forcing, normally 5-5), 3S (0-5-4-4),
    3NT (contract-proposal with solid suit + side stuff
    in 6322 or equivalent), 4C/D (void in strong 1-suiter
    with self-sufficient suit), 4H (self-sufficient
    suit, no side Aces or Voids, exactly 8-8.5 tricks'
    worth).

I could summarize this as "artificial, forcing, 11-20,
any shape", but that would omit some crucial info.  As
I try to explain the crucial parts, particularly those
most relevant to my RHO that might need to decide on
a double or bid right now, I find it hard to stay within
10 seconds, except by saying "Gazilli".

I generally find myself being more verbose, a la:
"Gazilli, that is, any of several possible hands: if
minimum, up to 14, naturalish clubs, but could often
be 3 cards, or rarely 2 with 4 spades or 5332, if he
has good13-14 [he'd pass with less if flat]; if strong,
15 up, basically any good hand unsuited for our other
specialized rebids; 1-round forcing since artificial".

Guess that might be less than 10 seconds for a fast
speaker of English, but Italian has more syllables,
and I tend to articulate carefully:-).

Also, with 8 boards/hour the mandated pace, 10 secs
is over 2% of the whole time allotment for the
board; bread-and-butter auctions such as
    1H    1NT
    2C    2D [relay-ish -- want the full expl?-)]
    2H    2S [ditto, suggests C fit, no S stop, good]
    3C
with 2H indicating a hand in the set of minimal
ones, and 3C a normally unbalanced minimum with
preference for play in clubs over NT (5-5, or 5-4
but no S stopper, typically), might easily take
at least half a minute worth of explanations.
"Gazilli" covers it all -- if the opps know that
convention, of course, which is somewhat well
known locally, it seems.

Yes, FIGB does allow this convention for normal
tournaments (but then, ACBL allows Cole, doesn't
it?-).


> As for your Stayman comment, I'll bid it with no points. If it is alerted
as
> an "artificial positive response, initially asking for a four card major",
> then if 1NT opener's 2H bid is passed out, I believe I'm entitled to an
> adjustment if I had a 2S balancing bid and dummy comes down with less a
> positive response.
> If 2C does promise, in all cases, a positive response, I'd like to hear
> that. Not so incredible, isit?

Of course, "Stayman" has many nuances; it's so widespread
and has been around so long that it would be surprising
if it hadn't.  Around here, I make it a point to alert 2C
and explain "normally Stayman, but might be bid with weak
hands as an escape maneuver", since around here it seems
the "Stayman" monicker DOES convey implications of positive
strength to most listeners (I believe the original convention
was employed with extremely weak hands if and only if
responder had long clubs, since opener without majors
would rebid 2NT if maximum, and only a 3C rebid by
responder would now be a sign-off; I don't know anybody
who employs that specific "original" variant, though).

Alex