[billw55]

 Trinidad, on 2013-February-26, 13:28, said:

Now, why doesn't the EBU write it up like that? Then their alert regulation would be remarkably similar to most alert regulations.

It is possible you answered your own question.

[Trinidad]

 gnasher, on 2013-February-26, 07:50, said:

This certanly isn't true. In England, if an opponent's action is not alerted, I immediately know what the systemic meaning is (if any). That doesn't require any special expertise, because the rules about what is alertable are very simple - basically almost no more than "Alert artificial calls below 3NT".

This seems to be cutting corners given campboy's post in an other thread. (This post said that 3♣ in the auction 1NT-2♦-3♣ is alertable if it is natural and forcing. He added that few people are aware that this is alertable.)

Could it actually be so that the EBU regulations are not that simple after all?

Rik

[Vampyr]

 jallerton, on 2013-February-26, 11:43, said:

Yes, you can avoid the problem (of tipping off information about the contents of your own hand) by alerting in both cases but then you are not following the regulation.

I will do the same as Andy, and be more helpful to the opponents than the regulation requires. With the longer-term aim of getting it changed.

[campboy]

 Trinidad, on 2013-February-27, 13:09, said:

This seems to be cutting corners given campboy's post in an other thread. (This post said that 3♣ in the auction 1NT-2♦-3♣ is alertable if it is natural and forcing. He added that few people are aware that this is alertable.)

Could it actually be so that the EBU regulations are not that simple after all?

No, they really are simple. The basic alerting rules are just over a page of A5, and say much the same thing as any other countries' rules. It is just that the orange book actually bothers to give examples of how to interpret the basic rules. Is this meaning alertable in the ACBL? I have no idea. It depends whether it is "about the expected strength and shape", whatever that means.

[Trinidad]

 campboy, on 2013-February-27, 13:42, said:

No, they really are simple. The basic alerting rules are just over a page of A5, and say much the same thing as any other countries' rules. It is just that the orange book actually bothers to give examples of how to interpret the basic rules. Is this meaning alertable in the ACBL? I have no idea. It depends whether it is "about the expected strength and shape", whatever that means.

They are not simple since they specify that 1NT-2♦-3♣ is alertable when it is natural and forcing, though the basic rules would indicate that this would not be alertable (natural and not unexpected).

I don't know whether it is alertable in the ACBL. I have never declared my love for the ACBL alert regulations.

I did write that I like the current alert regulations in The Netherlands. I know it is not alertable there since 1) it is natural and 2) this meaning is not unexpected. Simple... Less is good.

Rik

[RMB1]

 Trinidad, on 2013-February-27, 13:09, said:

Could it actually be so that the EBU regulations are not that simple after all?

“Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein

[jallerton]

 Vampyr, on 2013-February-27, 13:23, said:

I will do the same as Andy, and be more helpful to the opponents than the regulation requires. With the longer-term aim of getting it changed.

If you really want this regulation changed, I suggest that you write to the Secretary of the Laws & Ethics Committee as soon as possible. The Orange Book is currently subject to a major review and next month's L&EC meeting will be considering any proposed changes.

[Vampyr]

 jallerton, on 2013-February-27, 16:12, said:

If you really want this regulation changed, I suggest that you write to the Secretary of the Laws & Ethics Committee as soon as possible. The Orange Book is currently subject to a major review and next month's L&EC meeting will be considering any proposed changes.

Thank you, I will do this.

[gnasher]

 Trinidad, on 2013-February-27, 13:09, said:

Could it actually be so that the EBU regulations are not that simple after all?

Why not see for yourself?
http://www.ebu.co.uk...Book%202012.pdf
Section 5E.

 Trinidad, on 2013-February-27, 15:12, said:

They are not simple since they specify that 1NT-2♦-3♣ is alertable when it is natural and forcing, though the basic rules would indicate that this would not be alertable (natural and not unexpected).

I don't know whether it is alertable in the ACBL. I have never declared my love for the ACBL alert regulations.

I did write that I like the current alert regulations in The Netherlands. I know it is not alertable there since 1) it is natural and 2) this meaning is not unexpected. Simple... Less is good.

Rik

This is the relevant EBU rule:
5 G 2 Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert
..
(d) A non-jump natural response to an opening natural 1NT bid if forcing whether in competition or otherwise

So, in England, the ACBL and the Netherlands you are required to alert bids whose strength is unexpected. In the ACBL and the Netherlands, players are expected to guess use their judgement as to what constitutes "unexpected". In the EBU, the rule-makers have provided examples to assist the players.

Apparently you don't agree with this particular example, but surely you must agree that it's better to provide examples than not?

As for why this is meaning is treated as "unexpected", I expect it's because in England this sequence is traditionally played as non-forcing. Last time I played rubber bridge (admittedly a while ago) it was non-forcing. My 1980 copy of Crowhurst's Acol in Competiton says it's non-forcing. The EBU's Standard English system (page 17) says it's non-forcing. If I didn't play Lebensohl or anything similar, I would want to play 3♣ as non-forcing.

That doesn't necessarily make it correct for the EBU to make a forcing 3♣ bid alertable. Given the prevalence of Lebensohl, it's not very unexpected. But it is at least understandable that they chose to interpret the basic rule in this way.

[helene_t]

 gnasher, on 2013-February-28, 02:22, said:

....
(d) A non-jump natural response to an opening natural 1NT bid if forcing whether in competition or otherwise
....
If I didn't play Lebensohl or anything similar, I would want to play 3♣ as non-forcing.
....

Hmmm I am not sure, I rememember a discussion we had about 1NT-(3♦)-3♥, and Cascade was pretty much alone when he argued that it should be NF. This is similar I think. To be honest I wasn't aware that a forcing 3♣ is alertable. If an advanced pair bid it without alert I would expect it to be forcing, if an avaerage club pair bid it I would expect opener not to know whether it is forcing or not. But OK, Standard English apparently says nonforcing. I didn't know that.

Natural jump overcalls are non-alertable whether weak or intermediate. Many club players would expect IJO and some alert (or anounce, sigh) WJO. Am I supposed to alert non-forcing shifts in response to partner's preempt? Some Acol textbooks prescribe negative freebids without mentioning that they are alertable (maybe they were written in times of different alert rules?). Inverted minors is not alertable (I think) but probably more unexpected to the average club pair than the forcing 3♣ bid in question.

But cudos to EBU and the OB for providing so many examples, it does make it a lot clearer. Of course you can never make everybody happy.

[gnasher]

 helene_t, on 2013-February-28, 03:15, said:

Am I supposed to alert non-forcing shifts in response to partner's preempt?

I think that's "potentially unexpected", so yes that's alertable.

Quote

Inverted minors is not alertable (I think)

No, they're alertable. 5G2: "Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert ... ( c)(3) If the next hand passes or overcalls, a pre-emptive raise to three ... (5) A forcing raise."

[Vampyr]

 helene_t, on 2013-February-28, 03:15, said:

Am I supposed to alert non-forcing shifts in response to partner's preempt?

Surprisingly, no, not if the preempt is at the two-level. We learnt this to our detriment a few years ago at Easter when a pair had been inclined to alert but told not to.

This is perhaps another thing that could be changed in the next OB.

[Trinidad]

 gnasher, on 2013-February-28, 02:22, said:

Why not see for yourself?
http://www.ebu.co.uk...Book%202012.pdf
Section 5E.

Thanks for the link. I had it already and I sometimes do look there when there is a discussion on English regulations.

 gnasher, on 2013-February-28, 02:22, said:

Apparently you don't agree with this particular example, but surely you must agree that it's better to provide examples than not?

As it is I certainly do not agree.

It is a good idea to give one or two examples to illustrate what the rule means. But, no matter what the first line of section 5E says, the "examples" in the Orange book are neither examples nor interpretations. They are specifications. And it is a long list of specifications. I certainly think that it is much better to leave this long list of specifications out. Less is good.

It may be English culture to think that a rule works better if it is specified in more detail. The EBU has managed to write a whopping 21 (twenty one!) pages on how players should disclose their system. And then I am not counting the pages about fielding of psyches. Does the EBU remember that their publications are not merely meant to be written but also meant to be read? We are in the 21st century now. I think an alert regulation should be at most 140 characters.

Rik

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2013-February-28, 09:53, said:

It may be English culture to think that a rule works better if it is specified in more detail.

It depends. If people want to be able to obey the rule, then yes.

[campboy]

 Vampyr, on 2013-February-28, 08:51, said:

Surprisingly, no, not if the preempt is at the two-level. We learnt this to our detriment a few years ago at Easter when a pair had been inclined to alert but told not to.

This is perhaps another thing that could be changed in the next OB.

There may already have been a change since that occurred. I can't find anything specific in the current OB about responses to pre-empts, so I think it comes down to a judgement as to whether it is unexpected. I guess quite a lot of people play that a new suit opposite a weak two is constructive but NF, though I have no real idea how many as it's not a sequence I see from oppo often enough. I certainly wouldn't tell anyone who was alerting it to stop!

[barmar]

A reasonable area of discussion would be whether it's better to have the examples interspersed in the rules, or split out in an appendix. Using an appendix would allow the rules to be printed on a single sheet and posted, but players can still refer to the appendix to gain better understanding.

This wouldn't work well for the ACBL's alerting regulations, where many of the rules are defined mainly by example; players are expected to extrapolate.

[mycroft]

I am guessing that almost all the examples are "established case law" - as they happened and people griped about it, once it was ruled, it was put in the book so it could be pointed at again.

Whether in the book proper, or in an appendix, it's better than ruled and disseminated by word of mouth.

Edit: and some of them seem just about as "unexpected by rule, not by actual expectation in play" as the ACBL's "unexpected" weak jump shift out of competition.

[barmar]

Some of these "unexpected" meanings are historical. At one time, almost everyone played strong jump shifts, although there was variation in how strong it needed to be (when I first learned, 25 years ago, I was taught to jump shift with an ordinary game forcing hand), so weak jump shifts were unusual and definitely needed to be alerted.

These days, weak jump shifts are quite common, but so are strong jump shifts. I don't know the actual ratio, but I'll guess that in the US at least 30% of players use weak jump shifts. So it's not particularly unexpected, but neither is strong jump shift. In cases like this, arbitrary decisions need to be made about which meaning should be non-alerted -- it's not very helpful to alert both or neither. Unless WJS becomes significantly more common than SJS, the current approach has the value of maintaining the status quo -- changes in the rules are usually problematic and should be minimized.

WJS actually seems like a potential candidate for converting to an announcement, IMHO.

[Trinidad]

Helene_t:
- To be honest I wasn't aware that a forcing 3♣ is alertable.

- Natural jump overcalls are non-alertable whether weak or intermediate. Many club players would expect IJO and some alert (or anounce, sigh) WJO.

- Am I supposed to alert non-forcing shifts in response to partner's preempt?
     Gnasher:
     I think that's "potentially unexpected", so yes that's alertable.
     Vampyr:
     Surprisingly, no, not if the preempt is at the two-level.

Helene_t:
- Inverted minors is not alertable (I think) but probably more unexpected to the average club pair than the forcing 3♣ bid in question.
     Gnasher:
     No, they're alertable.

The above is an exchange between three people who have enough interest in bridge laws and regulations that they read this forum. Furthermore, these are smart people. They should not have any problem understanding an alert regulation.

Yet, they clearly have (or had?) different ideas on the alertability of bids in the first round of an uncontested auction. (How much more straightforward can it get?)

You can write that the answer can be found in the OB in Chapter 5, Section G, Paragraph 2, Item c, sub 3, resp. Chapter 5, Section G, Paragraph 2, Item c, sub 5, and you are entirely correct, but communication simply doesn't work like that. The contributions from these people who are more than intelligent and interested enough to actually read the OB make that very clear.

What do we want?

1) A regulation where visitors of bridge laws forums can find on page 27 and 28 -after searching and with some help- exactly whether a bid should have been alerted after the damage at the table has been done and a discussion has been started about it.
or
2) A short, concise regulation that is easy to understand for every player. This will come with a grey area (which is easily solved by "when in doubt, just alert since it encourages the opponents to find out").

It is clear that I opt for the second one: a regulation that is easy to understand for everyone. Why? Because bridge is intended for everyone and not only for visitors of bridge laws forums.

Rik

[gnasher]

 Trinidad, on 2013-February-28, 18:24, said:

- Am I supposed to alert non-forcing shifts in response to partner's preempt?
     Gnasher:
     I think that's "potentially unexpected", so yes that's alertable.
     Vampyr:
     Surprisingly, no, not if the preempt is at the two-level.

You can't reasonably object to this apparent* disagreement, because it arises from exactly the type of ambiguity that you're arguing for. You can't say "I think it's better to leave the details undefined and have grey areas", and then criticise the EBU regulations for leaving the details undefined and having grey areas.

* I say "apparent", because I was actually thinking of responses to three-level preempts, not to weak twos. It's unexpected to play 3♣-3♥ as non-forcing, but less unexpected to play 2♥-2♠ as non-forcing.