BBO Discussion Forums: Alerting Doubles - BBO Discussion Forums

I have never read any part of the laws of my country. Have you?

No-one (other than TDs) needs to understand the regulations in full. You don't need to know what competitions Polish club is permitted at unless you actually want to play it. You don't need to know whether Lucas twos are alertable unless you want to play them. Even when a player does have a specific question about whether something is permitted/alertable, he doesn't have to read the orange book so long as there is a TD (or other knowledgable person) around to ask. Some players do read the OB for interest but i) they are few and far between ii) the sort of people who do are not likely to be put off by its complexity iii) they tend to end up becoming TDs eventually anyway.

 Trinidad, on 2013-March-21, 12:55, said:

What does this have to do with alerting rules? A double of a transfer completion is not alertable if it is takeout of that suit. Otherwise it is alertable.

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

But who are these people? I think rather more people would be harmed if forced to play under regulations that did not suit their bridge culture.

Robert Heinlein once proposed that Congress should not be allowed to pass laws the average man on the street cannot understand. Strict adherence to that principal would probably eliminate 98% of the laws currently on the books.

As for the OB, "comprehensive and precise" does not preclude "understandable". That does not mean that there can be no controversy — at least over the desirability of a particular regulation. There shouldn't be any over the meaning, though. If there is, the reg should be reworded or the EBU needs to educate better. Same would apply for any other RA, of course.

 Vampyr, on 2013-March-21, 18:42, said:

It is nice that you think that a takeout double of a transfer completion is alertable. That certainly would make sense. But it only is true if the transfer completion shows "willingness to play in the suit" (i.e. 2♠). (OB5E2a, OB5E2d and the second note under 5E2).

Therefore, my post above and the others about "willingness to play in the suit" have everything to do with the EBU alerting rules.

You also stated:

 Vampyr, on 2013-March-21, 07:09, said:

This may be universally accepted as technically good bidding, but the regulations are written in the OB. So the question is whether the OB or the Law book says so.

The OB is dealing with the bid that was actually doubled. (That makes sense too: You can only double the last bid, not the entire auction.) So the question is whether 2♠ (after 1NT-2♥; 2♠) shows willingness to play in spades, not whether the rest of the auction shows willingness to play in spades.

Your example of 1♠-Pass-1NT-Dbl as takeout of spades is even clearer. Of course, it makes perfect sense to say that this takeout double should not be alertable. (It is, IMO, the technically correct way to play the double.) But the question is: What does the OB say?

It says (5E2c):

Quote

(Note that the footnote about willingness doesn't apply to 5E2c.)

Now you would be right if the OB would say something like:
"A takeout double is not alertable if:
it is for takeout of a suit bid when the opposing partnership has shown willingness to play in that suit or -if the bid that was doubled doesn't show a suit or was in NT- it is for takeout of a suit previously bid (or shown) by the opposing partnership."

But the OB doesn't say anything like that. It requires the 2♠ bid to show willingness to play in spades in the context of the auction. And 2♠ doesn't show willingness to play in spades. It either shows nothing or it shows "I'd rather not." (whereas any bid other than 2♠ sets spades as the trump suit).

Rik

 Trinidad, on 2013-March-22, 02:10, said:

It's unlike you to repeatedly troll.

I play in EBUland, and nobody I've ever spoken to has argued that completing a transfer didn't show willingness to play in that suit. The whole philosophy here, at least amongst ordinary players, is that opening 1NT means you are willing to play wherever partner chooses.

As for the OB, if I play something new, I am much happier having a reference where I can find out which bids are or are not alertable, rather than muddling through and waiting for an ambiguous situation to create unhappy opponents and director calls.

If you don't play in a jurisdiction, and do not understand how ordinary players play bridge in that jurisdiction, then making adverse comments on how that jurisdiction is regulated is futile.

 Trinidad, on 2013-March-21, 12:55, said:

It seems to me that you're confusing "willingness" with "eagerness".

If you make a call with the expectation that partner is likely to pass it, and that will be the final contract, then you should be willing to play there. Completing a transfer fits that description.

I agree with Rik that the wording doesn't work very well.

"Shows willingness, in the context of the auction, to play in the suit" doesn't necessarily convey the intended meaning. Completing a transfer shows an expectation, but it's neutral about willingness.

I know what it means, but that's partly because I know that at the same time as this was added, two examples were also added: double of a completion of a transfer, and double of a pass-or-correct bid. You can tell that these are contemporaneous with the regulation because they're all in green, meaning that they were added in the last revision. However, in future this clue won't exist.

It also seem unnecessarily convoluted to use the word "show", then redefine it to mean something different from its normal English meaning.

Having said that, it's quite hard to get the wording of this regulation right. I assume that the L&EC wanted it to cover preferences, transfer completions and pass-or-correct bids, but not sequences like
where responder may be intending to pass 2♦, but there's no great expectation that he will do so.

I think it should say something like

Gnasher has said it all. And he said it very well, much better than I could have done.

Rik

 campboy, on 2013-March-21, 18:15, said:

If you play Bridge seriously, you need to know the rules. Especially if directors get a ruling wrong and you're considering an appeal. In Campboy's examples, you may be damaged when unaware that opponents are using an illegal method. AFAIR, a recent World Championship in America was played under an ACBL influenced version of WBF rules. Multi-players had to provide two copies of the ACBL-approved Multi-defences, which opponents were allowed to consult at the table. Opponents also had the option of consulting their own home grown defence, even if it was a 1000 page tome. Players ignorant of this rule suffered but some players, who were aware of it, were able to to use it to considerable effect.

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

I think it should be both. Players are expected to follow the rules. You can't follow the rules unless you know what they are, so they should be accessible to the players. For exactly the same reason, the rules should also be comprehensive and precise.

I'm generally happy with the part of the Orange Book that deals with alerting, except for the bit that started this thread, and the confusing habit of redefining using terminology whose use is well established then redefining it to suit their purposes.

 nige1, on 2013-March-22, 04:41, said:

Why is it relevant that the rules were influenced by the ACBL? They were also influenced by the EBL and every other zonal bridge organisation. Likewise, the SBU influences the EBL's policy, and the members of the SBU influence the SBU's policy. It would be just as valid to describe these rules as "Nigel-influenced rules".

Quote

Can you name any pair who used this rule "to considerable effect", or any pair who "suffered" as a result of their ignorance?

Not that I would have much synpathy with the latter. As you said yourself, "If you play Bridge seriously, you need to know the rules." You can't expect the rules to enter your head by telepathy, so in order to know the rules you have to read them. The WBF's system policy is short, reasonably lucid, and easy to find. If somebody suffered because they entered a World Championship without bothering to find out what the rules were, whose fault is that?

[Edited to make it more of a rant]

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-March-22, 04:56

 Vampyr, on 2013-March-21, 18:43, said:

I don't think Bridge-culture is as parochial as Vampyr implies. Vampyr knows few who would prefer Bridge rules to be global, but EBU members in my circle, even EBU directors and officials complain about the Orange book regulations. (Both their lack of clarity and their adverse effects). Other BBO topics contain ACBL members' complaints about ACBL regulations. Australian regulations are fewer and more liberal so Australian players seem happier with them and less critical about them. Regulators could conduct polls on such fundamental issues.

 gnasher, on 2013-March-22, 03:14, said:

This us too complex. A regulation worded like this would be a mistake if for no other reason than it will put people off.

Better IMO to rely on the concept articulated by StevenG above, that a 1NT opening shows "willingness" to play in responder's long suit.

 nige1, on 2013-March-22, 05:04, said:

Whereas, of course, no-one complains about or has difficulty understanding the global rules we do have - the Laws of Bridge.

 Vampyr, on 2013-March-22, 05:03, said:

Perhaps part of the trouble is that the examples aren't closely associated with the rules. If either wording were immediately followed by "For example, a preference, a transfer completion or a pass-or-correct response to a Multi", nobody would be in any doubt as to the meaning.

Personally I find it quite obvious that a double of a transfer accept is considered a natural call for this purpose, regardless of the technical definition of "natural". I don't need to read anything specific about transfer accepts to come to this conclusion. As for puppets and pass-or-correct bids, it is not quite so obvious for me. Same with nebolous minor suit openings and responses. (In parts of England, nebolous minor suit openings are uncommon, so ordinary players cannot be expected to know what defense they play, let alone whether their defense is alertable).

I recall opps having alerted penalty doubles twice in the appr. 700 sesions of bridge I have played in EBU. It might have happened three or four times, but in any case it is safe to say that the true positive rate for alertable penalty doubles is less than 10% in the environment I play in. While most of it is middle or low level club bridge, I have played some green point tournaments also plus a large number of minor tournaments and local league team matches.

Does this mean that the regulation doesn't work? I am not sure. As long as opps alert exotic things like Lionel doubles it rarely causes harms, as long as one is aware that if one really needs to know, one should ask rather than assume. The German/Scotish rule (never alert any double) is simpler but even when that rule was in force in the Netherlands, many players alerted some doubles and a few even complained when opps failed to alert. On the other hand, BBF posters who play at a serious level in the EBU say that the regulation works fine at their level. I think it is fair to say that no matter what the regulation says, it will work at a serious level and it won't work at club level. OK, in Germany they work at club level also, but I would attribute that more to the diciplined character of the German people than to easy-to-follow regulations.

I have discussed this with lots of club players and the verdict is almost unanimous: nobody cares what the regulations say, but many people have strong opinions about one thing: they would like the regulations to change less frequently. I can sympathise with this. If it takes appr. 10 years for a revised regulation to sink down to the majority of club players, changing the regulations once per decade makes little sense. And FWIW, my position on what the ideal alert regulation would say comes close to gwnn's nice quote: "I have a strong opinion on this one but I am thinking of changing it". I can see the pros and cons of both the Irish, Dutch, Scottish and English approach. Maybe I prefer the Irish regulation slightly today. Who knows which one I will prefer tomorrow.

Yes, Yorkshire is a conservative region in a conservative country.

 gnasher, on 2013-March-22, 05:09, said:

I just came on the the forum realising that my suggestion did not cover pass-or-correct bids. I was thinking of something like "suits held by the bidder or suits potentially held by the bidder's partner", but your wording addresses the issue head-on, and is probably better.

At least here in the EBU we have something to work with. It seems that other jurisdictions have accepted Trinidad's repeated observation that there is no such thing as a perfect regulation, and have let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 helene_t, on 2013-March-22, 05:31, said:

My previous post crossed this one. The existence of the above should convince even the fiercest critics of the EBU regulation that things could be much much worse.

 gnasher, on 2013-March-22, 04:51, said:

I'm unsure so I wrote "AFAIR" but it may have been Philadelphia. Can anyone remember? I googled a similar incident with the same message.
Gamesmanship at the Vanderbilt
I agree with Gnasher about knowing and obeying the rules (as my comments in that topic illustrate)