[campboy]

I know there was an attempt to shorten the Orange Book, and certainly in the past I have assumed that where an example was removed, that did not necessarily mean that it no longer applied (though in at least one case -- IIRC something to do with Walsh -- I have been told by Frances that I was wrong, and the reason it was removed was to change what was alertable).

However, where an example has not been removed, but has been modified in a way that doesn't save any space (look at the BB -- it would easily fit onto one line either way), I can only conclude that the regulation has been changed in an attempt to, well, change the regulation.

[fromageGB]

Isn't it about time we abandoned "unexpected meanings" and had simple, understandable regulations? I quite often seem to fall foul of this one. Announcements solve the problem of UI, and seem to be the way forward. Let partner say "natural/support - weak/invitational/GF" or whatever.

[Vampyr]

fromageGB, on 2015-August-07, 03:33, said:

Isn't it about time we abandoned "unexpected meanings" and had simple, understandable regulations?

It's not so easy. Simple regulations will inevitably result in lots of cases where the most common meaning is alerted. There needs to be a sort of balance between understandable regulations and an efficient, informative alert system.

Quote

I quite often seem to fall foul of this one.

Probably the main reason the Orange Book was transformed into the shorter Blue Book is so that people would actually read it.

Quote

Announcements solve the problem of UI, and seem to be the way forward. Let partner say "natural/support - weak/invitational/GF" or whatever.

I do not think that the world is ready for all the UI that would be created by wholesale announcements.

[TMorris]

I think I am as confused at the end of this thread as I was at the beginning.

[jallerton]

campboy, on 2015-August-07, 01:18, said:

I know there was an attempt to shorten the Orange Book, and certainly in the past I have assumed that where an example was removed, that did not necessarily mean that it no longer applied (though in at least one case -- IIRC something to do with Walsh -- I have been told by Frances that I was wrong, and the reason it was removed was to change what was alertable).

However, where an example has not been removed, but has been modified in a way that doesn't save any space (look at the BB -- it would easily fit onto one line either way), I can only conclude that the regulation has been changed in an attempt to, well, change the regulation.

Your negative inference conclusion is one possibility. But one could equally argue that in the same space there was room to state that the requirement to alert did not apply after an overcall, and draw the opposite negative inference from that.

Or maybe the failure to include this sequence in the examples was deliberate. After all this pre-emptive meaning is arguably "potentially unexpected" at many clubs, but not "potentially unexpected" in the final of a national tournament. This brings us back to one of the questions in the opening post which has not yet been answered: should our decision whether to alert depend on the opponents?

[jallerton]

TMorris, on 2015-August-07, 12:11, said:

I think I am as confused at the end of this thread as I was at the beginning.

Sorry!

As a general rule, if in doubt about whether a call if alertable, I'd suggest that you err on the side of alerting. Then you cannot be accused of giving misinformation: the opponents have been informed that they should ask if they want to know the call's meaning.

[pran]

jallerton, on 2015-August-07, 15:50, said:

Sorry!

As a general rule, if in doubt about whether a call if alertable, I'd suggest that you err on the side of alerting. Then you cannot be accused of giving misinformation: the opponents have been informed that they should ask if they want to know the call's meaning.

That holds good with us in Scandinavia, but I have the impression that certain regions have the curious rule that alerting a call that is not alertable is considered misinformation and subject to penalty?

[Vampyr]

jallerton, on 2015-August-07, 15:38, said:

Your negative inference conclusion is one possibility. But one could equally argue that in the This brings us back to one of the questions in the opening post which has not yet been answered: should our decision whether to alert depend on the opponents?

I don't think so. Even if the opponents know our system as well as we do, they do not k ow whether we have changed anything. Everyone should have the right to assume the non-alert able meaning.

[aguahombre]

fromageGB, on 2015-August-07, 03:33, said:

Isn't it about time we abandoned "unexpected meanings" and had simple, understandable regulations?

Yes. "Unexpected by whom?" is always a problem, IMO. But, people don't seem to like artificial or natural but also containing an inference about some other strain as the criteria -- they look to a 1st round Double of a 1-bid as use it to poo-poo the whole concept.

The answer is not a bunch of rote memory rules without a common theme; the answer is not to announce everything.

I believe artificiality should be the base for alerting, with a very, very few obvious exemptions. But it isn't going to happen in my lifetime.

[jallerton]

pran, on 2015-August-08, 01:13, said:

That holds good with us in Scandinavia, but I have the impression that certain regions have the curious rule that alerting a call that is not alertable is considered misinformation and subject to penalty?

My wording was slighty wrong. I should have said:

jallerton, on 2015-August-07, 15:50, said:

As a general rule, if in doubt about whether a call if alertable, I'd suggest that you err on the side of alerting. Then you cannot be accused of giving causing damage by misinformation: the opponents have been informed that they should ask if they want to know the call's meaning.

People are not giving procedural penalties for alerting in good faith.

[barmar]

fromageGB, on 2015-August-07, 03:33, said:

Isn't it about time we abandoned "unexpected meanings" and had simple, understandable regulations?

Wouldn't this require a document comparable to BWS to list all the "standard" meanings that don't require alerts?

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2015-August-09, 01:56, said:

Wouldn't this require a document comparable to BWS to list all the "standard" meanings that don't require alerts?

No. Simple, understandable alert regulations (by definition) would be simple and understandable because they would not require a player to know what is "standard" in any particular jurisdiction, locale, or Bridge level. The document would be very short.

1) It would define "artificial".
2) It would require an alert of calls which are artificial, but provide one or two exemptions.
3) A call which shows willingness to play in the strain bid or doubled --- but also implies something about one's holding in another strain would be alertable.
4) There could be announcements of nt range and forcing nt responses.

"Standard" or "expected" sucks as a concept. Even a raw beginner can grasp whether their bid means something other than a willingness to play in what they bid; but that same beginner would likely have no idea that their 2/1 or freebid with no values is highly unexpected by the majority. If we want bids with lower value expectations to be alerted, we must spell out the values, but that wouldn't require a multi-page work of art.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2015-August-09, 05:34, said:

2) It would require an alert of calls which are artificial, but provide one or two exemptions.

Isn't that essentially the old EBU alert system, which they replaced a few years ago because it required alerting several common conventions like Stayman and takeout doubles? Are those the "one or two exemptions" you were talking about?

The purpose of the alert system is to warn the opponents that something they probably don't understand is happening in the auction. Alerting "standard" bids is not consistent with that goal.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2015-August-09, 18:30, said:

Isn't that essentially the old EBU alert system, which they replaced a few years ago because it required alerting several common conventions like Stayman and takeout doubles? Are those the "one or two exemptions" you were talking about?

Stayman and takeout Doubles of opening suit bids would be exemptions; they are the examples people so proudly bring up to ridicule the concept. But, like I said...this approach will never happen in my lifetime. Heck, we can't even get them to agree that there is any other kind of double than takeout.

[helene_t]

I used to think that "alert if and only if artificial" would be the solution. Obviously it is nice to know that opps' alert actually means something other than "I thought you might be a beginner who doesn't know that a new suit by responder is forcing". And for the directors it would be nice to have a rule to enforce. I wouldn't like to punish players for a lack of mind-reading skills without having a more substantial rule to refer to.

But I have stepped down from it, at least partially. It may well depend on the local culture. In a country like Germany where lots of radically different natural systems are popular it is probably the most practical solution to have such a mechanistic rule. But in a country like USA or UK where almost everybody play approach-forcing longer-first systems with wide-ranging 1-level openings, I think it makes sense that you alert very unusual meanings even if natural. In my opinion too many natural bids are alertable in the UK (Lebensohlers alert 1NT-(2M)-3m because it is forcing, for example), but I suppose the comittee has had this discussion and that they have their reasons.

Btw, it is not trivial to define "artificial". For suit bids you could make a rule like "3+m, 4+M or 6+ fit" (for exmaple) but for other calls it becomes murky.

[gordontd]

aguahombre, on 2015-August-09, 23:06, said:

Stayman and takeout Doubles of opening suit bids would be exemptions; they are the examples people so proudly bring up to ridicule the concept. But, like I said...this approach will never happen in my lifetime. Heck, we can't even get them to agree that there is any other kind of double than takeout.

I wanted to up vote Barry's post. When we talk of alerting takeout doubles, that includes alerting negative doubles, which we did used to do.

[fromageGB]

helene_t, on 2015-August-10, 00:56, said:

In my opinion too many natural bids are alertable in the UK (Lebensohlers alert 1NT-(2M)-3m because it is forcing, for example), but I suppose the comittee has had this discussion and that they have their reasons.

This is one of the bids that causes me problems, too. I am now used to having to alert a natural GF 2/1, as instructed by the blue book, but in some cases, whether a bid is forcing or not depends on how the partnership chooses to play it. I find it peculiar that I am required to make an assumption on whether my opponents will find it unexpected or not.

It seems wrong, too, that you should be required to learn the intricacies of a system/method you don't play so that you can alert anything which is not in accordance with that. Better to have a specific "mechanistic" approach that can be followed, that has internal logic, and should be simple. Even if it means alerting takeout doubles.

[Vampyr]

fromageGB, on 2015-August-10, 07:27, said:

This is one of the bids that causes me problems, too. I am now used to having to alert a natural GF 2/1, as instructed by the blue book, but in some cases, whether a bid is forcing or not depends on how the partnership chooses to play it. I find it peculiar that I am required to make an assumption on whether my opponents will find it unexpected or not.

It seems wrong, too, that you should be required to learn the intricacies of a system/method you don't play so that you can alert anything which is not in accordance with that. Better to have a specific "mechanistic" approach that can be followed, that has internal logic, and should be simple. Even if it means alerting takeout doubles.

Alerting takeout doubles would make bridge a lot less fun for a lot of people. Even when it was just negative doubles (and some others) it was kind of a pain. Did you prefer that, really?

You don't have to learn a different system. Just read the Blue Book and apply the relevant sections to your system.

Natural bids that have "different" strengths can be difficult for people not familiar with "traditional" bidding. The best strategy would be to lobby the BB editors to include more examples.

[FrancesHinden]

Quote

The best strategy would be to lobby the BB editors to include more examples.

Well you can try, but your lobbying will be ranked against the lobbying from people who want the regulation to be shorter and to have fewer examples because there are so many people won't read them all.

[RMB1]

Or even (FYP),

FrancesHinden, on 2015-August-10, 15:24, said:

... and to have fewer examples because there are so many people won't read them at all.