[dburn]

lamford, on 2011-May-23, 11:24, said:

This is a sentiment I share, and there is a lot to be said for deliberately breaking a regulation to ensure that the opponents are fully informed; alerting a 4-level splinter or Texas transfer are two cases that I think I mentioned elsewhere. I recall, at the End of Year congress 2009, that you did not alert 2H - (pass) - 2S which was non-forcing, because, as I recall, "Wilberforce had said this was not alertable", so you presumably now think that you should ignore whatever edicts have been issued, if the opponents might need to know; an admirable volte-face. I recall, at the time, bluejak indicating that this was not alertable when we sought a ruling, "because different players play it differently". But this goes against the "full disclosure" principle somewhat.

In our example, however, we are deciding how to rule, not how one would disclose oneself.

To clarify: I will not now and would not in 2009 flout a regulation to the effect of what is alertable if I firmly believe that my opponents know at least as much about the issues involved as I do, and are capable of protecting themselves should the need arise; but if in some grey area my opponents ask questions, I personally will give them more latitude than is given them by the current OB3E (by more or less abrogating my "rights" under Law 16B).

That is: if I play against you I will not alert after 2♥-pass-2♠ non-forcing, because I know [a] that I'm not supposed to and [b] that your side is quite capable of looking after itself; but there are people whom I would inform that 2♠ was not forcing even though I'm not supposed to, because I know that they might not entertain the possibility.

By the same token, I will not alert anything above 3NT even though I know that by not doing so I may cause my present opponents considerably more damage than if I had alerted. That regulation appears for a reason that I personally believe is now outdated: it is held that alerts above 3NT by and large help the bidding side more often than they help their opponents, and whereas this used to be true, nowadays it is not (since players are by and large better educated [a] in terms of not playing Gerber and [b] in terms of understanding their responsibilities regarding UI). Still, my personal beliefs do not have very much to do with this kind of situation; if the majority view among the L&E is that the reason for the edict still holds, it is not for me to gainsay that view at the table, however much I may disagree with it as a theoretical matter.

Moreover, I will continue until my dying day to forget to alert after some auction as 1♠-double-redouble-2♣-double where double is penalty, because the regulation that makes this alertable is so repugnant to the nature of the game (as viewed by an ancient such as myself) that I cannot fix it in my mind - although it is possible that I played this double as takeout in the Premier League last season (I never could be sure). Still, if my opponents claim damage because they played me rather than my partner for the missing clubs, I will accept the judgement of the Court with the best grace I may. That is why I grew a beard in the first place: so as to be able to stalk off muttering into it every now and again.

This grace will also be exhibited, of course, in other cases that arise from the infractions against regulations that I may commit in following the principles I have outlined above. It hasn't happened yet, but one day I may well be dragged before the Beak for telling the opposition what I play despite something in the OB commanding me not to.

As to the actual ruling, this depends on the actual explanation of the actual opening bid. For some reason, even though this bid has a yellow background in my browser, holding the mouse over it does not divulge exactly (or at all) what this information was. Perhaps you can help.

[blackshoe]

Try clicking on the bid rather than just hovering over it. Works for me, anyway.

[lamford]

dburn, on 2011-May-23, 18:38, said:

Perhaps you can help.

Indeed, the precise words uttered by the club's equivalent of SB were "strong, 16+HCP or extended rule of 25". SB toyed with the idea of adding "with or without defensive tricks", but he knew that West, who spent his time revising the OED, would not appreciate this meaningless verbosity for the sake of emphasis. He also thought of adding "with opening values", but as they had a 16+ HCP express condition, he also rejected that idea.

[PeterAlan]

bluejak, on 2011-May-23, 10:47, said:

Of course disclosure should not use the Orange book terms. They are designed as a legal basis, not as a method of disclosure.

The problem with this is that when announcing such a natural 2-bid it is mandatory to use the Orange Book terms. It's hardly surprising, then, that people then use the same terms when making disclosures.

[PeterAlan]

nige1, on 2011-May-23, 17:24, said:

In the EBU, you are expected to read the Orange Book. This would serve a useful purpose if it aided accurate disclosure. The book does provide a careful definition of some otherwise nebulous terms like "strong". Assuming that your opponents are equally law-abiding, then if you ignore this shared understanding, and instead resort to less accurate vocabulary, that seems accident-prone and even deliberately misleading.

It's not the disclosing side that's ignoring your putative shared understanding: they're using the "accurate vocabulary".

[PeterAlan]

May I attempt to put a constructive slant on all this? It seems to me that it's both the Law and essentially common ground that appropriate disclosure should be made of whatever system is being played. The questions are over

• what terms should be used in doing this
  
• what reliance can be placed on use of Orange Book terms; indeed, what reliance can be placed on players' awareness of what the Orange Book says
  
• consistency between terms in the Orange Book and their "real-world" usages (whatever those may be), and the consequences of any divergence
  
• how far it is appropriate to go in the various forms of disclosure (announcement (if applicable), system card and reply to enquiry). (In a game with 7 minutes per hand and without hundreds of pages of system notes there have to be some boundaries: "All agreements, including implicit understandings and practices of the partnership must be fully disclosed to opponents" is fine as a general principle, but can't be taken too literally, as Jeremy has already pointed out.)

One end of the spectrum, towards which I would probably subscribe personally, would be to answer:

• Players should use defined Orange Book terms, where these exist
  
• Players should be able to rely on these being understood and accepted by other players
  
• To the extent that there might be divergence between defined Orange Book terms and some players' general perceptions, players should no longer be able to claim to be misled just because their perceptions / expectations are not met. [This is (a) to ensure clarity of what a term means, and (b) because it is impossible to tie down both what such other perceptions might be and where the boundaries would lie between reasonable different perceptions and unreasonable ones. Otherwise, you just have to avoid using such a term altogether - including in announcements.]
  
• Announcements in their current, limited form are fine. Obviously further information is required in a system card (so far as that is consistent with the current format and 4 sides of A5) and in response to enquiries.
  
• Sufficient disclosure of the type of bid we're talking about would be accomplished by saying "strong" [meaning: could be (subject to later qualification) any of Extended Rule of 25], a statement describing the types of hand that the partnership uses the bid to cover [say, 8+ playing tricks in an unspecified [/ the specified] suit or 23-24 balanced], together with a statement of any further general boundaries that the partnership agreement places on the bid [eg should meet full rule of 25]. I wouldn't necessarily expect the last of these to be in a system card summary, but I would expect it to be given in reply to an enquiry.
  
• I would modify OB 10B4 to remove the words "subject to proper disclosure," from the start of (a). More generally, I think it is unhelpful to have such a qualification to some but not all of the items of any such list: it just causes problems without achieving any clear end.

If 1 -3 are thought to be going too far as a general provision of the OB itself, they could at least form part of the Conditions of Contest for the major EBU competitions.

[gnasher]

I'd like to make a shorter constructive suggestion: the next edition of the Orange Book should state which of its definitions are intended to be used in explaining one's bids, and which are not.

[RMB1]

gnasher, on 2011-May-24, 08:29, said:

I'd like to make a shorter constructive suggestion: the next edition of the Orange Book should state which of its definitions are intended to be used in explaining one's bids, and which are not.

It used to be clearer: terms definited in the sections on Disclosure and Convention Cards were suitable for use in disclosure and for appearing on convention cards; terms defined in section 9 on Regulation of Agreements were "local" definitions to be used for understanding of the regulation of agreements in sections 9, 10 and 11. With the Glossary being move to the back and some definition being moved/repeated there, some of this clarity has been lost.

[Jeremy69A]

gnasher, on 2011-May-24, 08:29, said:

I'd like to make a shorter constructive suggestion: the next edition of the Orange Book should state which of its definitions are intended to be used in explaining one's bids, and which are not.

Your suggestion is taken on board for the 2023 edition!

However to show the importance of terminology the August Edition 2011 will show the word "Strong" replaced in favour of "Good" in 11L3 which for those whose life is too short to look is the bit about South African Texas/NAMYATS openings. Someone (not on the L&E)espoused the view that if they were described as a "Strong" 4H or 4S opener then by definition they would be required to meet the extended rule of 25 which was not the L&E's intention.

[mycroft]

Ah, well, there goes my strong NT system in England. Unless I go back to the 60s and play it 16-18, I guess...

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2011-May-26, 00:58, said:

Ah, well, there goes my strong NT system in England. Unless I go back to the 60s and play it 16-18, I guess...

Or require 5-5 if you have only 15 points. Then it will be strong. Just teasing, bluejak.

[PeterAlan]

The Crockfords hand was ♠6 ♥K 3 ♦8 7 ♣A K Q J 10 7 6 4.

If we transfer the hearts to diamonds we get ♠6 ♥- ♦K 8 7 3 ♣A K Q J 10 7 6 4.

This is Rule of 25, and arguably has marginally less defensive strength (the outside K is less likely to cash). Presumably everyone's happy that this can be described as "strong" when the pair's agreement is 8+ playing tricks satisfying either 16 HCP or Rule of 25, or 23-24 balanced? (No "subject to proper disclosure," in OB 10B4(b)).

[bluejak]

nige1, on 2011-May-23, 17:24, said:

In the EBU, you are expected to read the Orange Book. This would serve a useful purpose if it aided accurate disclosure. The book does provide a careful definition of some otherwise nebulous terms like "strong". Assuming that your opponents are equally law-abiding, then if you ignore this shared understanding, and instead resort to less accurately defined vocabulary, that seems accident-prone and even deliberately misleading.

Who said you are expected to read the Orange book? Of course you are not. If we throw everyone out of bridge who has not read it there would be very few games left. It seems a very strange notion.

[bluejak]

The problem is simple: when you describe a bid as strong a large proportion of the bridge-playing population expect a hand with a sizable number of points. If you think that calling a bid strong when you know it will mislead opponents is acceptable then I think you are sleazy - or worse. If you think that misleading opponents is acceptable because the word strong is used in the Orange book I think you are beyond sleazy.

Bridge is a game where you describe your agreements to opponents: when you use a term that you know will not do this, I do not care what your justification for it is: you are not following the Laws.

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2011-June-06, 17:51, said:

Who said you are expected to read the Orange book? Of course you are not. If we throw everyone out of bridge who has not read it there would be very few games left. It seems a very strange notion.

The Author, in his Introduction to his EBU Orange Book, said:

Players entering events are expected to submit themselves to the published regulations.

[blackshoe]

That doesn't say, Nigel, that players are expected to have read the regulations. No more are they expected to have read the laws. But if they violate a law or regulation, they are expected to accept rectification or penalty (or both), as the laws say, gracefully.

[mrdct]

lamford, on 2011-May-22, 03:43, said:

the term "rule of 25" is in the beginner's manual "Standard English", in wikipedia, and on the EBU website, so it is about as well-known as the footballer who is taking legal action against Twitter.

I've never heard of the "Rule of 25" or the "Extended Rule of 25", but if that is the north-south agreement and it's a term defined in the EBU regulations, I don't have any problem with north-south describing their agreements as such. If east-west wanted some clarity on what sort of hands conform to the north-south interpretation of the "Extended Rule of 25" they should've asked.