[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2013-March-20, 16:59, said:

If I weren't willing to play there [in spades], I'd have to bid something else.

I am confused. Could you please tell me what "something else" would be the bid in your system to show that you aren't willing to play in spades (after 1NT-(pass)-2♥-(Pass); ??) ?

Rik

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-21, 00:46, said:

I am confused. Could you please tell me what "something else" would be the bid in your system to show that you aren't willing to play in spades (after 1NT-(pass)-2♥-(Pass); ??) ?

Rik

I don't need to bid something else, because in the context of the auction I always will be willing to play in spades.

In contrast, if I broke the transfer and bid 3D to show that I liked spades, in the context of that auction my bid of diamonds would not be showing a willingness to play in diamonds.

[Zelandakh]

Can you clarify something for me please Gordon. When I was last in England, pass/correct bids, such as a 2M response to a Multi 2♦ opening, were considered artificial and required an alert. From my understanding of your recent posts it sounds like this has now changed to be natural - willingness to play in the denomination named. Is this correct? If it is then I am not sure it is a step forward, even if it would make the alerting rules on doubles in that context more logical for the opponents. Having said that, perhaps I should just look up the current OB and end this (slightly silly) part of the discussion.

Edit: I see from 5G5d that pass/correct bids are indeed now considered natural. It seems to me that the auction 2♦ - 2♠, showing hearts, would be a potentially unexpected meaning for any players unfamiliar with Paradox responses...but what do I know? I am sure the EBU defined things this way for a good reason. The examples make it very clear that takeout is the non-alertable meaning in both cases being addressed here.

[gordontd]

Zelandakh, on 2013-March-21, 01:40, said:

Can you clarify something for me please Gordon. When I was last in England, pass/correct bids, such as a 2M response to a Multi 2♦ opening, were considered artificial and required an alert. From my understanding of your recent posts it sounds like this has now changed to be natural - willingness to play in the denomination named. Is this correct? If it is then I am not sure it is a step forward, even if it would make the alerting rules on doubles in that context more logical for the opponents. Having said that, perhaps I should just look up the current OB and end this (slightly silly) part of the discussion.

For the purpose of alerting there was a desire to formulate something simple that covered the difficult cases: when the last bid showed nothing new about the hand, as in completing a transfer; when preference is shown which might not indicate much length in the suit; when it was a pass/correct call and the bidder may or may not have length in the suit; and when an artificial bid is passed by the bidder's partner, presumably indicating length in that suit by passing.

The formulation adopted, which was suggested by a member, seems to cover everything so that everyone (or almost everyone) knows where they are with which doubles to alert.

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2013-March-20, 18:13, said:

IMO, you are allowed to express an opinion even if you aren't an EBU member.

Nobody suggested that you should be disallowed from expressing your opinion. But in considering your opinion, we are allowed to take into account the relevance of your views.

Quote

Local System-card and Disclosure regulation is harmful to the game. Thus, Australian LOLs enjoy playing multi and so on although other legislatures seem to adopt a chauvinistic spoil-sport attitude.

Earlier in this thread I said that nobody would ever accuse you of being sloppy. I'm reconsidering that opinion. How on earth does the second sentence follow from the first?

Quote

(But EBU members like Gnasher and Vampyr endorse such protectionist policies)

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.

[PeterAlan]

nige1, on 2013-March-20, 17:19, said:

Broken record:

• Alert non-penalty doubles OR
• Announce doubles that are penalty or take-out. Alert others.

Such regulations are short, simple, easy to understand, easy to obey, and easy to enforce. They are likely to achieve the intended efficacious effect, efficiently.

2. is pointless as it stands: the information content of the alert is zero once a double hasn't been announced.

[WellSpyder]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-20, 13:46, said:

To me, and most other players, accepting a Jacoby transfer to spades does not show willingness to play in spades, and it certainly doesn't when the context of the auction comes into play.

Although there are obviously semantic arguments that can be made (not unreasonably), the fact remains that everyone who plays in England seems to have understood the regulations consistently, and the semantic complications suggested do not cause confusion in practice.

[helene_t]

If I make a 2H bid that usually shows spades but could be other things, and opps now double partner's 2S bid, I wouldn't make any inference from the lack of an alert. Our agreement is sufficiently unusual that I wouldn't assume opps know what their agreement is, let alone if it is alertable .
This isn't a problem.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2013-March-20, 18:13, said:

The Having none rule flouts the principle that communication between partners be confined to calls and plays.

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".

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-21, 00:46, said:

I am confused. Could you please tell me what "something else" would be the bid in your system to show that you aren't willing to play in spades (after 1NT-(pass)-2♥-(Pass); ??) ?

I think Gordon would need a few more details about this "transfer-or-not" method before he can answer any questions about it!

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2013-March-21, 01:40, said:

Edit: I see from 5G5d that pass/correct bids are indeed now considered natural. It seems to me that the auction 2♦ - 2♠, showing hearts, would be a potentially unexpected meaning for any players unfamiliar with Paradox responses...but what do I know? I am sure the EBU defined things this way for a good reason. The examples make it very clear that takeout is the non-alertable meaning in both cases being addressed here.

My understanding is that pass-or-correct bids are still alertable; it is the double of such a bid that is not alertable if the meaning is takeout of the suit that was bid.

I don't know what Paradox responses are, but a 2♠ bid (as commonly played over here) over a Multi is artificial, so the unalerted meaning of the double would show spades. Is this correct, Gordon?

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-21, 06:18, said:

My understanding is that pass-or-correct bids are still alertable; it is the double of such a bid that is not alertable if the meaning is takeout of the suit that was bid.

I don't know what Paradox responses are, but a 2♠ bid (as commonly played over here) over a Multi is artificial, so the unalerted meaning of the double would show spades. Is this correct, Gordon?

I'm going to give Trinidad some ammunition by saying that a takeout double of Multi-pass-2♠ is not alertable, and a spade-showing double is alertable.

As I understand it, "Paradox" is a synonym for "pass or correct".

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2013-March-21, 06:38, said:

I'm going to give Trinidad some ammunition by saying that a takeout double of Multi-pass-2♠ is not alertable, and a spade-showing double is alertable.

As I understand it, "Paradox" is a synonym for "pass or correct".

Is this correct, as 2♠ is not a true pass/correct in that it's pass/correct or show your strong hand. It actually says "I have short spades and longer hearts and I'll grudgingly play in 2♠ if you have 6 of them" for many people.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-20, 17:01, said:

You still misunderstand. The 2♥ bid "usually" showed spades, so you treat 2♠ as a normal completion of a transfer for the purposes of alerting. If, however, you have decided that your double will be something besides takeout of spades, you alert.

In short: double=takeout of spades, no alert; double=anything else, alert.

Good that we have that misunderstanding out of the way.

Out of interest, I looked this situation up in the Orange Book. To me, this seems to be a clear case of 5E2(d):

Quote

Suit bids that do not show the suit bid.
Double of these bids is not alertable if showing the suit doubled; alertable otherwise.

The OB is not dealing with bids that "usually" show spades. It deals with bids that "show" spades and bids that "do not show" spades (meaning, of course, that they could have spades, but don't have to). That means that "usually showing spades" must fall under "not showing spades" (but not denying them either).

Conclusion:

Vampyr, on 2013-March-20, 17:01, said:

In short: double=takeout of showing spades, no alert; double=anything else, alert.

I can't help it, I didn't write this regulation, but it says so pretty clearly.

Of course, it makes perfect sense to treat bids that "usually" show spades as if they are showing spades. So it would seem to make sense to write an exception to the rule 5E2(d), let's call it 5E2(d){2}.

The problem is that the whole regulation is filled with detailed rules and exceptions. The more detailed rules you get, the more exceptions there are and there will be exceptions to the exceptions.

A regulation is like a sieve: No matter how detailed you make the regulation, it will have holes. The only thing that you can control is the number and size of the holes: If the regulation is detailed, the holes are small, but there are many of them. If the regulation is coarse, the holes are big, but there are few of them.

The OB philosophy is that all holes in a sieve can be plugged if we fill them all with new sieves. But that is an illusion: You will only end up with more, smaller holes and a forest through which nobody can see the trees.

I prefer a regulation with one big hole. Everybody knows that this hole exists. It is in plane view and not in a corner of page 26 of an OB. This hole can be plugged by adding one rule: "When in doubt: alert." and the general awareness that the perfect regulation doesnot exist.

Rik

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2013-March-21, 01:04, said:

I don't need to bid something else, because in the context of the auction I always will be willing to play in spades.

Exactly. So how does the 2♠ bid show willingness to play in spades? It doesn't have anything to do with your willingness to play in spades. (And if it does have something to do with willingness to play spades, it shows reluctance, rather than eagerness.)

My skin color is white. It has been white since I was born. Last Summer I went on vacation in India. My skin color is still white. Does the fact that I went on vacation in India make my skin any whiter than it was when I was born? It doesn't. My vacation in India has nothing to do with my whiteness.

I opened 1NT (showing 2-5 spades). Partner transfers and I bid 2♠ (showing 2-5 spades or 2-3 spades). Does the 2♠ bid show any willingness to play in spades over the willingness that I have already shown by opening 1NT? It doesn't. The 2♠ bid has nothing to do with my willingness to play spades.

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-21, 06:47, said:

Good that we have that misunderstanding out of the way.

Out of interest, I looked this situation up in the Orange Book. To me, this seems to be a clear case of 5E2(d):

The OB is not dealing with bids that "usually" show spades.

Correct. These methods are not popular in England, so the omission is understandable.

Quote

It deals with bids that "show" spades and bids that "do not show" spades (meaning, of course, that they could have spades, but don't have to). That means that "usually showing spades" must fall under "not showing spades" (but not denying them either).

...

Of course, it makes perfect sense to treat bids that "usually" show spades as if they are showing spades. So it would seem to make sense to write an exception to the rule 5E2(d), let's call it 5E2(d){2}.

I don't know that an exception is actually needed; I think that people would treat a bid that "usually" shows spades as showing spades. Especially since they will not be aware of the opponents' agreement until it comes up. Without discussion, there seems no other course than to go with the frequencies.

Quote

The problem is that the whole regulation is filled with detailed rules and exceptions. The more detailed rules you get, the more exceptions there are and there will be exceptions to the exceptions.

There aren't exceptions, just examples and clarifications.

Quote

A regulation is like a sieve: No matter how detailed you make the regulation, it will have holes. The only thing that you can control is the number and size of the holes: If the regulation is detailed, the holes are small, but there are many of them. If the regulation is coarse, the holes are big, but there are few of them.

The OB philosophy is that all holes in a sieve can be plugged if we fill them all with new sieves. But that is an illusion: You will only end up with more, smaller holes and a forest through which nobody can see the trees.

I prefer a regulation with one big hole. Everybody knows that this hole exists. It is in plane view and not in a corner of page 26 of an OB. This hole can be plugged by adding one rule: "When in doubt: alert." and the general awareness that the perfect regulation doesnot exist.

These exact words don't appear in the Orange Book, but the idea that one should, when in doubt, alert, is clearly contained in the regulations. Therefore all holes in the regulation are plugged, agreed? So are there further grounds for discussion?

[Trinidad]

WellSpyder, on 2013-March-21, 03:50, said:

Although there are obviously semantic arguments that can be made (not unreasonably), the fact remains that everyone who plays in England seems to have understood the regulations consistently, and the semantic complications suggested do not cause confusion in practice.

My point precisely. If you realize that it is impossible to get the semantics correct, why would you strive for increasingly correct (but also increasingly complicated) regulations.

Accept from the start that the perfect regulation doesn't exist and don't make it worse by making it imperfect as well as lengthy, detailed and complicated.

Suppose now that somebody who alerts the way everybody in England consistently understands the regulations meets somebody who understands the alert regulation as it is written. Misinformation is alledged and the TD needs to rule. Does he rule as everybody in England consistently understands the regulations or does he rule according to the regulation as it is written?

The point is that you simply shouldn't want to go there. One should realize that the more one writes, the more one writes wrong.

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-21, 07:00, said:

Exactly. So how does the 2♠ bid show willingness to play in spades? It doesn't have anything to do with your willingness to play in spades. (And if it does have something to do with willingness to play spades, it shows reluctance, rather than eagerness.)

My skin color is white. It has been white since I was born. Last Summer I went on vacation in India. My skin color is still white. Does the fact that I went on vacation in India make my skin any whiter than it was when I was born? It doesn't. My vacation in India has nothing to do with my whiteness.

I opened 1NT (showing 2-5 spades). Partner transfers and I bid 2♠ (showing 2-5 spades or 2-3 spades). Does the 2♠ bid show any willingness to play in spades over the willingness that I have already shown by opening 1NT? It doesn't. The 2♠ bid has nothing to do with my willingness to play spades.

In England it is very popular to play that over (1♠)-P-(1NT) double is takeout of spades. This treatment will no doubt seem bizarre to you, because the 1NT bid (normally not forcing, so it doesn't conceal a raise) does not express the desire to play in spades at all. Th hand may have a singleton or void in spades. But the principle of doubling for takeout a suit the opponents' partnership have shown is universally accepted. So this informs our actions over acceptances of transfers and similar.

Obviously you do not play this way, and where you play such doubles would not be for takeout. Hopefully this brief explanation can help you to understand why the regulations under discussion are appropriate for the bridge environment for which they are intended.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-21, 07:08, said:

The point is that you simply shouldn't want to go there. One should realize that the more one writes, the more one writes wrong.

Then stop already!

Yes, you could remove the examples and the alert-of-doubles regulation will be one sentence, and people will almost always get it right. Those of us who play under the OB regulations are happy that the examples offer guidance, should we wish to avail ourselves of it, in cases where there might be double due to the meaning of the opponents' bids. Why do you have a problem with this?

And what is your local regulation that is so much better (sorry if you've quoted it before)?

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2013-March-21, 02:00, said:

For the purpose of alerting there was a desire to formulate something simple that covered the difficult cases: when the last bid showed nothing new about the hand, as in completing a transfer; when preference is shown which might not indicate much length in the suit; when it was a pass/correct call and the bidder may or may not have length in the suit; and when an artificial bid is passed by the bidder's partner, presumably indicating length in that suit by passing. The formulation adopted, which was suggested by a member, seems to cover everything so that everyone (or almost everyone) knows where they are with which doubles to alert.

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 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?