[gordontd]

 nige1, on 2013-March-21, 07:26, said:

Gordon, just to make sure that I understand you correctly:

• You hold ♠ - ♥ K Q x x ♦ A x x x ♣ A x x x x and partner partner opens 2♦ showing a weak 5-6 card major.. Some partnerships agree to bid 2♠ (pass/correct) on such hands. The opposing side are certain to have more ♠ than your side. Does the EBU consder 2♠ to be a natural and unalertable?
• At favourable vulnerability, you hold ♠ x x x x ♥ x x x x ♦ x ♣ x x x x. Partner opens a weak no-trump and RHO doubles. Some partnerships agree to bid 2♦ on such hands, intending to redouble if opponents double. Of course they are delighted to play undoubled in 2♦. Does the EBU consider 2♦ to be a natural and unalertable?

Whatever its decision, does the EBU really believe that we simple-minded players will arrive at the same conclusion?

Neither of them is natural and unalertable, but that is not the question under discussion. The question is which doubles of those bids should be alertable, and for those purposes the EBU treats doubles of these may-or-may-not-have bids the same as doubles of natural bids.

[nige1]

 PeterAlan, on 2013-March-21, 03:38, said:

[Alerting doubles that are neither penalty nor take-out] is pointless as it stands: the information content of the alert is zero once a double hasn't been announced.

True, although some jurisdictions insist that you alert artificial calls. The alert does confirm that the double is artificial in some way (and neither penalty nor take-out). Hence, If an opponent is waiting for an announcement, alerting could save time.

[Zelandakh]

duplicate, please delete

[Zelandakh]

Rik, you missed out an important addition to 5E2 which is somewhat relevant:-

In 5E2(a) and 5E2(d) the word ‘show’ is defined as follows:
‘it is natural, or shows willingness, in the context of the auction, to play in the suit, or it is followed by two passes’.

This is the wording that means that 2♠ after the "probable transfer" is treated as natural for the purposes of alerting doubles. This has the strange effect of making the call possibly artificial for the purposes of alerting but natural for the purposes of alerting a double over it. In the clearer case of the (2♦) - P - (2♠) auction that I mentioned before, this does seem to be the case. I agree that this feels a little unnatural but now that I know how it works I cannot see why it would cause a problem if I was playing in the EBU regularly.

[gnasher]

 nige1, on 2013-March-21, 07:26, said:

Gordon, just to make sure that I understand you correctly:

You hadn't.

Quote

Whatever its decision, does the EBU really believe that we simple-minded players will arrive at the same conclusion?

The EBU probably assumes that anyone who wants to understand the rules will start by reading them. Have you done that?

[nige1]

 gnasher, on 2013-March-21, 02:21, said:

I endorse allowing people to play bridge under rules that suit them, rather than having the rules dictated to them by someone who lives on the other side of the world.

A game is its rules. Local jurisdictions have created different versions of "Bridge". I would prefer global rules, so we could play the same game, the world over, with minimal local advantage.

 gnasher, on 2013-March-21, 08:35, said:

The EBU probably assumes that anyone who wants to understand the rules will start by reading them. Have you done that?

I try to keep up with the Orange book. In this and other topics, I admit I find it hard to understand much of it.

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2013-March-21, 09:09, said:

A game is its rules. Local jurisdictions have created different versions of "Bridge". I would prefer global rules, so we could play the same game, the world over, with minimal local advantage.

Perhaps it would be better to recognise the difference between the laws of the game and the local regulations.

The laws stipulate that disclosure will be made and systems can be allowed or disallowed, while the regulations define how.

The content of the regulations depends on the local bridge culture. The allowed systems and alert rules are based upon what the players prefer, and I'm sorry but this is not the same all over the world.

Let us say that in Poland Polish Club is very common and is not alerted (I have no idea whether this is true, but it is just an example). In England Polish Club is alertable, and in the US it is not permitted except at high levels at which most players don't have the opportunity to play. If these three regulations were randomly switched around, who would be happy? No one. Because the writers of the regulations took the players' wishes into accounts when writing the regulations. I know that it doesn't always seem that way, but in general terms regulations are appropriate to the populations for whom they are intended.

Maybe people should be forced beyond their comfort levels? Sure, if we want the majority of players to abandon clubs and tournaments and play at home instead; or just find some other form of enjoyment.

People who frequently play in different countries (or in jurisdictions such as the EBL and WBF) are almost always the more experienced players, who can handle any sets of regulations and are motivated to find out which ones apply.

Nigel, you have never specified who is being harmed by the different regulations in different NBOs.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2013-March-21, 04:41, said:

Something sensible -- well done. I think that the EBU dropped the ball on this one -- ince apparently they were powerless in influencing the new laws, they could simply have introduced a regulation that made this question an automatic PP.

Thankfully, where I play the practice hasn't caught on, and it is only dummies who say "having none".

Interesting suggestion. However, I think such a regulation would be illegal. See Law 80B2(f).

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2013-March-21, 10:49, said:

Interesting suggestion. However, I think such a regulation would be illegal. See Law 80B2(f).

I think it woud be entiely legal. Something like: "Under Law 61B3, defenders may not ask each other whether they have any cards left of the suit led."

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2013-March-21, 10:49, said:

Interesting suggestion. However, I think such a regulation would be illegal. See Law 80B2(f).

I don't see the problem. If the regulatory prohibits the practice, presumably they can attach any penalty they wish.

I also don't know what was wrong with the old law.

[gnasher]

 Vampyr, on 2013-March-21, 11:20, said:

I also don't know what was wrong with the old law.

Under the old law, more scores included a revoke penalty. That made the game slightly more a test of mechanical and observational skills, and slightly less a test of analytical skills.

Of course, the change in the laws had a disadvantage in that it increased the transmission of UI, and I agree that this disadvantage probably outweighs the advantages.

[Trinidad]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-March-21, 08:23, said:

Rik, you missed out an important addition to 5E2 which is somewhat relevant:-

In 5E2(a) and 5E2(d) the word ‘show’ is defined as follows:
‘it is natural, or shows willingness, in the context of the auction, to play in the suit, or it is followed by two passes’.

No, I didn't miss that. I have read it several times.

 Zelandakh, on 2013-March-21, 08:23, said:

This is the wording that means that 2♠ after the "probable transfer" is treated as natural for the purposes of alerting doubles.

The point is that, in my version of English, this addition doesn't mean that at all. A completion of a transfer doesn't show willingness to play in the suit. It either shows nothing at all, or it shows that one is not willing to play in this suit, but partner wants to play in the suit.

The partnership may be willing to play in the suit. But the partnership doesn't bid 2♠. There is only one individual player who bids 2♠. And this individual player shows his opinion, based on his hand, by bidding 2♠. And the question is whether this 2♠ bid in the context of the auction shows willingness to play in spades. It doesn't. If it says anything it is: "I have to play in spades but I'd rather not.".

Think of the face of a four year old when he is eating brussels sprouts. A good parent will make sure that these sprouts get eaten -just like responder will make sure that opener will rebid 2♠ after the transfer- but the kid's face does not show willingness to eat brussels sprouts and neither does the 2♠ bid show willingness to play in spades.

Rik

[aguahombre]

I guess it is important to define whether an opening bid which shows a balanced hand indicates willingness to play in any strain ---and whether doing what partner asks you to do shows a willingness to do what partner asks you to do.

I hope you folks get that resolved.

[nige1]

 Vampyr, on 2013-March-21, 10:08, said:

Perhaps it would be better to recognise the difference between the laws of the game and the local regulations. The laws stipulate that disclosure will be made and systems can be allowed or disallowed, while the regulations define how. The content of the regulations depends on the local bridge culture. The allowed systems and alert rules are based upon what the players prefer, and I'm sorry but this is not the same all over the world. Let us say that in Poland Polish Club is very common and is not alerted (I have no idea whether this is true, but it is just an example). In England Polish Club is alertable, and in the US it is not permitted except at high levels at which most players don't have the opportunity to play. If these three regulations were randomly switched around, who would be happy? No one. Because the writers of the regulations took the players' wishes into accounts when writing the regulations. I know that it doesn't always seem that way, but in general terms regulations are appropriate to the populations for whom they are intended. Maybe people should be forced beyond their comfort levels? Sure, if we want the majority of players to abandon clubs and tournaments and play at home instead; or just find some other form of enjoyment.

Bridge thrives in less restrictive jurisdictions with simpler rules.

 Vampyr, on 2013-March-21, 10:08, said:

. People who frequently play in different countries (or in jurisdictions such as the EBL and WBF) are almost always the more experienced players, who can handle any sets of regulations and are motivated to find out which ones apply. Nigel, you have never specified who is being harmed by the different regulations in different NBOs.

I hope I have specified that local regulation fragments the game and harms players who would prefer a level playing field. I have little new to say on this issue. Bridge is a great game. IMO it would be better if the rules were universal, comprehensive, simpler, and clearer. Bridge regulators seem reluctant to poll members on such topics -- The opinion of younger players may differ from that of the establishment.

[mycroft]

One Note: in the US (well, and Canada; ACBL here), Polish Club is just fine. There are a couple of calls that may need a bit of tweaking to be GCC legal in the basic system, but a multi-meaning 1♣ with natural other openings is okay.

What isn't okay - even at the highest levels of ACBL play - is the Wilkosz 2♦ showing 5-5, any two suits except both minors. Whether you're playing it in a Polish Club or K/S framework, or even (hush) 2/1.

[Edit: I reread what you said, Vampyr, and it was a theoretical, which is fine; but there are way too many people around my area who *do* think that PC is not GCC legal. I'd rather not make any more converts, even with a theoretical.]

[gnasher]

 nige1, on 2013-March-21, 13:48, said:

I have little new to say on this issue.

It's hard to argue with that.

[blackshoe]

 blackshoe, on 2013-March-21, 10:49, said:

Interesting suggestion. However, I think such a regulation would be illegal. See Law 80B2(f).

 gnasher, on 2013-March-21, 11:18, said:

I think it woud be entiely legal. Something like: "Under Law 61B3, defenders may not ask each other whether they have any cards left of the suit led."

You're right. I had forgotten that 61B3 allows the RA to prohibit it.

[Trinidad]

 nige1, on 2013-March-21, 09:09, said:

I try to keep up with the Orange book. In this and other topics, I admit I find it hard to understand much of it.

This.

The OB is not the kind of document that will make the game of bridge more popular. The mere fact that a Tangerine book (of 13+10=23 pages!) has been written as its simplified version shows that the OB is not the easiest to understand.

Let's keep in mind that the Orange Book is supposed to be a communication to the players in the EBU on how the game of bridge is supposed to be played there. Communications to the players should be clear and easy to understand for all players, who are people of all skills and trades. It's clear that the OB doesn't meet that standard.

Rik

[campboy]

 Trinidad, on 2013-March-21, 15:24, said:

Let's keep in mind that the Orange Book is supposed to be a communication to the players in the EBU on how the game of bridge is supposed to be played there. Communications to the players should be clear and easy to understand for all players, who are people of all skills and trades. It's clear that the OB doesn't meet that standard.

What on earth gives you the idea that the OB is supposed to be a communication to players? It is supposed to be a set of regulations, and as such it needs to be comprehensive and precise.

[aguahombre]

 campboy, on 2013-March-21, 17:07, said:

What on earth gives you the idea that the OB is supposed to be a communication to players? It is supposed to be a set of regulations, and as such it needs to be comprehensive and precise.

That is an interesting viewpoint on regulations players are supposed to be able to understand and follow.