[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-October-25, 18:26, said:

But the same principle applies; even if North-South agreed on the meaning of redouble, then they would be correct not to alert it if they regarded it as an agreement one would have without discussion. Similarly, they would be correct not to alert fourth-suit forcing, if they considered it to be an agreement that one would have without discussion. Its artificiality is not the issue; its alertability is.

No, Paul.

Quote

5 E 3 Redoubles
The rules for alerting redoubles are:
(a) Redoubles which are for business or show general strength, which partner is
normally expected to pass if the next hand passes – not alertable.
(b) Other redoubles (notably those partner is expected to take out) – alertable.

They had an agreement that redouble was for takeout, so it is indisputably alertable. General bridge inferences has nothing to do with it.

[lamford]

iviehoff, on 2011-October-26, 08:53, said:

Therefore "takeout" is the potentially unexpected meaning of an unalerted redouble, regardless of the logic.

I think each auction has to be considered separately for what is unexpected. The auction 1NT-(Dble)-Rdble could be anything, but strength showing is not "unexpected", therefore with no agreement it should not be alerted, and an alert followed by mumbling something such as "I think this could be some sort of rescue" is incorrect, and conveys UI. The auction 2H(weak)-(Pass)-Pass-(Dble)-Pass-(Pass)-Redouble would not have a potentially unexpected meaning. I doubt whether a member of the Monster Raving Loony Party would play it as anything other than "Help". This is alerted if there is an agreement, and not alerted if there is not. Only agreements are alerted, not general bridge inferences.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-October-26, 09:41, said:

They had an agreement that redouble was for takeout, so it is indisputably alertable. General bridge inferences has nothing to do with it.

Why does 5E3 take priority over 5B9? Normally in a set of rules, the general rules which come first take priority. I am with RMB1 here, except I would say that it is clear that it is general bridge knowledge, rather than possible.

[blackshoe]

I don't get it. They had no agreement about 2♣, but they had an agreement about the redouble in 2♣ followed by redouble? How does that work?

You said in the OP that "South knew that it was takeout". How did he know?

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-October-26, 09:49, said:

Why does 5E3 take priority over 5B9? Normally in a set of rules, the general rules which come first take priority. I am with RMB1 here, except I would say that it is clear that it is general bridge knowledge, rather than possible.

Actually, you have that reversed: specific rules always override general rules.

There are general alerting rules, which say what you do generally: then there are specific rules to be followed. Artificial redoubles are alertable.

By your argument you can ignore all the rules of alerting and just follow your own ideas of what is normal. That is [a] against the rules [b] unhelpful [c] contra-indicated by some of your other posts and [d] you know perfectly well not the way alerting is done in England.

blackshoe, on 2011-October-26, 09:51, said:

I don't get it. They had no agreement about 2♣, but they had an agreement about the redouble in 2♣ followed by redouble? How does that work?

You said in the OP that "South knew that it was takeout". How did he know?

Most reasonable English players have an agreement that low level redoubles are always for takeout except in one or two specific situations. If I had been playing I would have alerted redouble but not 2♣ because I have that agreement with all my reasonable partners.

How did she know it was for takeout? Because she was a reasonable player and it was part of her general agreements.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2011-October-25, 18:20, said:

It appears that N/S did agree on the meaning of redouble, namely SOS.

lamford, on 2011-October-25, 18:26, said:

But the same principle applies; even if North-South agreed on the meaning of redouble, then they would be correct not to alert it if they regarded it as an agreement one would have without discussion. Similarly, they would be correct not to alert fourth-suit forcing, if they considered it to be an agreement that one would have without discussion. Its artificiality is not the issue; its alertability is.

Is that really true, Paul?

Suppose that you agree to partner Bluejak for the first time, and that on the first round you get to play against a pair who tell you they are beginners. On the first board, you open 1♥, Bluejak bids 1♠, you bid 2♦ and Bluejak bids 3♣, intending it as fourth suit forcing. You are virtually certain that the 3♣ bid is fourth suit forcing. Do you alert? If not, your opponents (who have never seen this convention being used before) will wonder why you have not disclosed what is (as far as they are concerned) your secret understanding.

This post has been edited by jallerton: 2011-October-27, 14:21

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-October-26, 12:39, said:

Suppose that you agree to Bluejak for the first time, and that on the first round you get to play against a pair who tell you they are beginners.

I presume you mean to [partner] Bluejak for the first time. Against beginners I would agree with you, because from our general bridge understanding we both know redouble will be take out (or fourth suit forcing would be artificial). The reason it is alertable is that, to the beginner, the meaning might be surprising. If either has been specifically agreed, then I would agree with the alert as well.

And I do not agree that more specific rules take priority over general rules. The general rule is that agreements you would expect from a pick-up partner are not alertable unless they are surprising. The specific rules deal with explicit agreements on the whole.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2011-October-26, 18:00, said:

And I do not agree that more specific rules take priority over general rules. The general rule is that agreements you would expect from a pick-up partner are not alertable unless they are surprising. The specific rules deal with explicit agreements on the whole.

If you play with a pick-up partner, and he makes an undiscussed call the meaning of which you expect not to be surprising to your partnership, the general rule would say it does not require an alert. The specific rule "alert this call" then takes precedence over the general rule, even if there is no explicit agreement.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-27, 03:49, said:

If you play with a pick-up partner, and he makes an undiscussed call the meaning of which you expect not to be surprising to your partnership, the general rule would say it does not require an alert. The specific rule "alert this call" then takes precedence over the general rule, even if there is no explicit agreement.

I don't agree with that. Let us consider car tax in this country. You do not pay tax if, for example:

You’re a disabled driver with exemption certificate DLA404.

If you own a Jaguar, then you pay this amount of tax: Band G £400 Jaguar X type saloon 2.0-litre petrol

However, if you are a disabled driver with exemption certificate DLA404 that drives a Jaguar X type saloon 2.0-litre petrol, then you are still exempt. I am sure you agree with that.

So it is with alerts. If a rule says "General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there had been no discussion beforehand, are not alertable, but a player must alert any inferences drawn from partnership experience or practice which have a potentially unexpected meaning." then it is assumed that this limits the times when the redouble in question is alerted. If a redouble is alertable under 5E3(b), but is not alertable under 5B9, then it is not alertable. That just seems common sense to me.

And I think the test is whether it is surprising to the opponents, not to this partnership.

Now the OB could have said "General bridge inferences, other than those specifically listed hereafter ... ". If that is the intention of the OB it should say so. If there is a 3A2 type implicit understanding, it is already specified as being alertable, surprising or not.

[blackshoe]

Would Joe Smith, who just learned the game last week, expect the same meaning (as an opponent) of this redouble as the pair who made it? "General bridge knowledge" is a slippery concept, and IME most beginners, having no experience at all to draw on, have no "general bridge knowledge" — they know only what they were taught.

If you're sure your opponents will expect this redouble not to be for blood, then fine. If you're not sure, I think you should alert it.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2011-October-26, 18:00, said:

I presume you mean to [partner] Bluejak for the first time.

Yes, you are quite right. I have edited my post to include the omitted word.

lamford, on 2011-October-26, 18:00, said:

And I do not agree that more specific rules take priority over general rules. The general rule is that agreements you would expect from a pick-up partner are not alertable unless they are surprising. The specific rules deal with explicit agreements on the whole.

blackshoe, on 2011-October-27, 03:49, said:

If you play with a pick-up partner, and he makes an undiscussed call the meaning of which you expect not to be surprising to your partnership, the general rule would say it does not require an alert. The specific rule "alert this call" then takes precedence over the general rule, even if there is no explicit agreement.

lamford, on 2011-October-27, 04:53, said:

I don't agree with that. Let us consider car tax in this country. You do not pay tax if, for example:

You’re a disabled driver with exemption certificate DLA404.

If you own a Jaguar, then you pay this amount of tax: Band G £400 Jaguar X type saloon 2.0-litre petrol

However, if you are a disabled driver with exemption certificate DLA404 that drives a Jaguar X type saloon 2.0-litre petrol, then you are still exempt. I am sure you agree with that.

So it is with alerts.

Interesting. Your example seems to corroborate the suggestion that the specific rule over-rides the general rule!

The general rule is that virtually all cars registered in the UK are liable for annual car tax and that the rate of annual car tax is based on the car's carbon dioxide emissions. Following the general rule, one would conclude that the car tax for a Jaguar X type saloon 2.0-litre petrol car is £400.

There is a specifc rule that disabled drivers with the DLA404 exemption certificate are exempt from car tax.

According to you, a disabled driver with exemption certificate DLA404, who drives a Jaguar X type saloon 2.0-litre petrol, is exempt from car tax. Why is this? Because the specific rule about disabled drivers with exemption certificates over-rides the general rule.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-October-27, 14:44, said:

According to you, a disabled driver with exemption certificate DLA404, who drives a Jaguar X type saloon 2.0-litre petrol, is exempt from car tax. Why is this? Because the specific rule about disabled drivers with exemption certificates over-rides the general rule.

I don't think it is clear here which is the general rule, and I accept it was a poor example. When there is a rule in the section "general", then I think that this applies in all cases, unless it specifies that the later rules take priority. There is a general rule that people under a certain age are not allowed to vote. This takes priority over any specific rules as to whether they are in prison etc.

[blackshoe]

There is a general rule that everyone who has reached a particular birthday is permitted to exercise their inherent right to participate in the choosing of the people in their government. There are specific rules that further restrict the right for some who would otherwise be permitted to exercise it.

Paul, I think you need to rethink your position. IMO you are consistently miss-describing the relevant groupings.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-28, 16:07, said:

There is a general rule that everyone who has reached a particular birthday is permitted to exercise their inherent right to participate in the choosing of the people in their government. There are specific rules that further restrict the right for some who would otherwise be permitted to exercise it.

Paul, I think you need to rethink your position. IMO you are consistently miss-describing the relevant groupings.

My argument is the same as yours - that something in the general section always applies. The rule states that if something can be assumed without discussion it is not alerted. It can be assumed that further rules stipulate the alerting procedure for anything that cannot be assumed without discussion.

Auction: "1S - 1NT - 2H, uncontested, playing basic Acol". Responder: "Alert". Opponent: "Yes, please". Responder: "Now promises five spades." Opponent: "Stop patronising me."

I think you need to rethink your position, in particular the spelling of misdescribing.

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2011-October-28, 12:47, said:

There is a general rule that people under a certain age are not allowed to vote. This takes priority over any specific rules as to whether they are in prison etc.

This is a remarkably poor example, which doesn't help illustrate any potential point.
There is a general rule that defines that people in set A cannot vote.
There are specific rules that also restrict the ability of people in set B to vote.

There is no need for for anyone to define which rules take priority, as they apply to different sets of people.

One might equally well say:

There is a general rule that citizens over the age of 18 are allowed to vote.
There are specific rules that some citizens over the age of 18 are not allowed to vote. The specific rules win.

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2011-October-29, 04:15, said:

My argument is the same as yours - that something in the general section always applies. The rule states that if something can be assumed without discussion it is not alerted. It can be assumed that further rules stipulate the alerting procedure for anything that cannot be assumed without discussion.

I don't understand where your assumption comes from. You seem to have invented it for the purpose of provoking discussion. The basic alerting rules say "...a pass or bid must be alerted it... if it not natural"

Quote

Auction: "1S - 1NT - 2H, uncontested, playing basic Acol". Responder: "Alert". Opponent: "Yes, please". Responder: "Now promises five spades." Opponent: "Stop patronising me."

I'm trying to work out under which section of the alerting rules a natural 2H bid could be alertable, as it is both natural and does not have a potentially unexpected meaning.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2011-October-29, 04:15, said:

It can be assumed that further rules stipulate the alerting procedure for anything that cannot be assumed without discussion.

No, it can't.

lamford, on 2011-October-29, 04:15, said:

Auction: "1S - 1NT - 2H, uncontested, playing basic Acol". Responder: "Alert". Opponent: "Yes, please". Responder: "Now promises five spades." Opponent: "Stop patronising me."

Responder: Director, please!

See, I can play this silly game too.

lamford, on 2011-October-29, 04:15, said:

I think you need to rethink your position, in particular the spelling of misdescribing.

Certainly the fact that I misspelled a word completely invalidates everything I wrote.

[Trinidad]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-11, 14:37, said:

I just can't get the idea out of my head that the EBU is overregulating bridge.

Rik

Q.E.D.

Do non secretary bird bridge players have any chance at understanding these discussions?

Rik

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2011-October-29, 04:15, said:

I think you need to rethink your position, in particular the spelling of misdescribing.

I think you should rethink your punctuation of "the spelling of 'misdescribing'".

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-October-29, 04:57, said:

There is no need for for anyone to define which rules take priority, as they apply to different sets of people.

I agree it is a poor example, but there will be people in both sets as there will be bids in more than one set. One needs to have a method of deciding which rule takes priority when they contradict each other. A Google search for "General Law" revealed definitions of the following type:

"a law that is unrestricted as to time, is applicable throughout the entire territory subject to the power of the legislature that enacted it, and applies to all persons in the same class"

In essence we have:

One rule tells us that, if something would be expected wihout discussion, it is not alerted, unless it is surprising. That seems a contradiction in itself; how could it be surprising if it is expected without discussion?

Another rule tells us that a redouble which is for takeout is alerted.

We need to decide which applies. I argue that the rule in "General" takes priority. It seems to have no restrictions, other than the non-surprising requirement, in that it says "is not alerted" rather than "is not alerted except as stipulated hereafter."