[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2023-April-03, 13:41, said:

This was a player who's either close to or in in the national U-26 women's team playing with a good player.

In which case I would inspect their card and then give them a hard time (whatever it says, at least under Italian or English regulations).

[mycroft]

As I said, "normal" things they do are "not Alertable, why would we have to, it's expected", and "odd" things their opponents do need to be explained down to every possible option, or they're "trying to win by confusion".

That vs. "what the regulators think needs to be Alerted" is yet another question.

Of course, "not forcing, but we 'never' pass", or "not forcing, but there are zero-counts we will bid on, they look like <this>" is a valid agreement, and if it's legal and only "forcing" bids are Alertable, then we're here again.

Edit: checked the Blue Book. "natural, but potentially unexpected meaning" is Alertable, this particular one isn't in the list of examples of "PU Meaning", so they may be right (they may be crazy). Downside of "fuzzy" language such as "potentially unexpected". Send it to the committee - unlike others, the EBU is known to be responsive in periods short of "years".

[Cyberyeti]

mycroft, on 2023-April-04, 08:51, said:

As I said, "normal" things they do are "not Alertable, why would we have to, it's expected", and "odd" things their opponents do need to be explained down to every possible option, or they're "trying to win by confusion".

That vs. "what the regulators think needs to be Alerted" is yet another question.

Of course, "not forcing, but we 'never' pass", or "not forcing, but there are zero-counts we will bid on, they look like <this>" is a valid agreement, and if it's legal and only "forcing" bids are Alertable, then we're here again.

Edit: checked the Blue Book. "natural, but potentially unexpected meaning" is Alertable, this particular one isn't in the list of examples of "PU Meaning", so they may be right (they may be crazy). Downside of "fuzzy" language such as "potentially unexpected". Send it to the committee - unlike others, the EBU is known to be responsive in periods short of "years".

I emailed it to a friend who's on the L&E to see what his opinion was. The reason for doing this is that the pair was playing the system that is taught to most of the English juniors so if they're all playing it I'd like to know if it's legal.

[mycroft]

Oh, I'm sure it's legal: Level 2 (where the 2+ club isn't legal): "Any natural call is permitted, subject to the restrictions on the strength of opening bids in 6C1" (my emphasis). Level 4: "From responder’s first call onwards all partnership understandings are permitted." The question is whether it is "potentially unexpected" enough to be Alertable.

[Cyberyeti]

mycroft, on 2023-April-04, 12:42, said:

Oh, I'm sure it's legal: Level 2 (where the 2+ club isn't legal): "Any natural call is permitted, subject to the restrictions on the strength of opening bids in 6C1" (my emphasis). Level 4: "From responder’s first call onwards all partnership understandings are permitted." The question is whether it is "potentially unexpected" enough to be Alertable.

Which was exactly the question I asked, along with "is the club effectively forcing and thus alertable"

[TylerE]

There is a huge gulf between "MAY respond on a zero count" and "MUST respond on a zero count". Describing the former as "forcing" is most misleading.

Would you describe a natural 1NT as forcing for a pair playing a scrambling-style garbage stayman? After all, 2c could be zero count.

[pescetom]

TylerE, on 2023-April-06, 00:31, said:

There is a huge gulf between "MAY respond on a zero count" and "MUST respond on a zero count". Describing the former as "forcing" is most misleading.

Would you describe a natural 1NT as forcing for a pair playing a scrambling-style garbage stayman? After all, 2c could be zero count.

Agreed.
But there is no gap that I can see between "forcing" and "not forcing, but we will never pass".

[TMorris]

Cyberyeti, on 2023-April-03, 09:44, said:

I had an interesting one at the weekend, didn't bother with a director call (EBU)

RHO opens a 2+ card club in a 5M approach forcing context, LHO responds 1♥, can't remember what RHO ended up declaring.

I lead, dummy decks with a flat Yarborough with 4♣/4♥.

Is that routine I ask opener, yes he replies, if you're going to agree to respond with zero isn't that alertable ? No.

Now it appears to me either 1♣ is forcing and thus alertable, or the response is on less values than we might expect if not bereft of clubs and thus alertable

We have an enquiry we have to explain carefully, we play a weird 2♠ opener that includes a bad 3♥ bid, 5-5 minors or 5-5 reds weak. 2N over this shows all the strong hands plus a hand of any strength that wants to play in diamonds opposite the minors, but hearts opposite the reds. What's usually asked of the 2N is "Is it strong ?".

This approach seems common amongst the good players around here (Middlesex) albeit with transfers after the short club. They can respond on nothing as the 1♣ is often a weak nt and if opener has the weak nt hand they show this in their second bid and responder can pass at a very low level. One gets used to it.

[jillybean]

TMorris, on 2023-April-06, 04:55, said:

This approach seems common amongst the good players around here (Middlesex) albeit with transfers after the short club. They can respond on nothing as the 1♣ is often a weak nt and if opener has the weak nt hand they show this in their second bid and responder can pass at a very low level. One gets used to it.

[Cyberyeti]

TMorris, on 2023-April-06, 04:55, said:

This approach seems common amongst the good players around here (Middlesex) albeit with transfers after the short club. They can respond on nothing as the 1♣ is often a weak nt and if opener has the weak nt hand they show this in their second bid and responder can pass at a very low level. One gets used to it.

In Norfolk it's extremely uncommon, and there would be many people who would never consider responding on a zero count, so it would be unexpected to many.

Also I erred, it was a 3 card club not 2 so guaranteed 7 card fit.

[mycroft]

TMorris, on 2023-April-06, 04:55, said:

This approach seems common amongst the good players around here (Middlesex) albeit with transfers after the short club. They can respond on nothing as the 1♣ is often a weak nt and if opener has the weak nt hand they show this in their second bid and responder can pass at a very low level. One gets used to it.

Cyberyeti, on 2023-April-06, 07:27, said:

In Norfolk it's extremely uncommon, and there would be many people who would never consider responding on a zero count, so it would be unexpected to many.

And that is why I love "potentially unexpected" Alert requirements. It caused all kinds of this kind of issue in the 20 years we had it - and to give the writers credit, they admitted it would be a problem right there in the Procedures - and it's been removed in the new one, in exchange for a bunch of "why should we have to Alert this" and a bunch of "wow, it can be a zero count and they aren't supposed to tell us?" Which have not been sufficiently exercised in practice for the world to have learned to deal with/the C&CC having been convinced to (attempt to) change to match what the complainers consider "totally unexpected" (in their area) and the bidders consider "normal, all the A players do this" (in theirs). And, of course, the reason for the First Post.

Not criticizing anybody here - everybody has a valid point. For the EBU, sending it to L&E to get a ruling, which should be reflected in the next BlueBook update one way or the other, seems the correct path. In the ACBL,...?

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2023-April-06, 01:53, said:

Agreed.
But there is no gap that I can see between "forcing" and "not forcing, but we will never pass".

What about "forcing, but we rarely pass".

In particular, in standard bidding, 1X-1Y-1Z (where Z is not NT) is hardly ever passed because the upper limit of 1Z is around 18 HCP. But if responder bid on trash they would pass (hopefully holding 3-4 cards in Z).

[mycroft]

I will state that my Secretary Bird inclinations are such that "you know, the documents have been out for three years (and not in "the display department" ™ Douglas Adams). If you are surprised by what it says now, that's because you didn't read them, or you just assumed that 'unusual bridge' would be Alertable, so you don't have to worry about what it actually *says*. This, oddly enough, is Not My Problem."

I describe myself (in my RL job) as "professional paranoid". I have described myself - and been used as - in my bridge role (not my TD role) as "your nitpicker who will look for ways to abuse what's there". Not because I want to play right to the edges (except when I'm told that I play my unusual stuff "because it wins by confusing the opponents" or "shouldn't be legal" - then I want to Dinkin my way to glory to show them exactly how far away from the edges I actually am!), but because for every abuseable point there, somebody *will* use it, and I want the committee to at least have said "yes, we see it, and yes, we know it's a problem, but it's not as much of a problem as any other solution we have found would be."

I realize that I look at the world in an unusual way. But the people who complain that "but we weren't told that they don't play X the way we do" (but weren't told they weren't, neither) or "bid on (some/many) zero" or even "that's awful bridge and deserves to be punished" (but wasn't this time, maybe because you no longer have a penalty double there?) "so clearly shouldn't be legal/must be Alerted" because it's not the way they would play bridge? RTFRegulations. They're right there. If you've got a problem with them, take it up with the writers, not me. And you should have been prepared for it two years ago, when *you read* the new Alert rules, and noticed that, say, there's no Alertable-if-less-than-minimum strangth requirements. You did notice that, didn't you? Or was it just the stuff you'd do that you noticed was no longer Alertable (and good riddance, that, it's Just Good Bridge)?

Again, not aiming this at the people in this thread. Most of whom do read the regs, and when surprised, do in fact query properly - and not just when it bites them at the table.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2023-April-06, 11:51, said:

What about "forcing, but we rarely pass".

I would at least say occasionally rather than rarely
It remains paradoxical, but perhaps (I would argue not) no more so than "semi-forcing": in any case the important thing is to disclose and be understood.

barmar, on 2023-April-06, 11:51, said:

In particular, in standard bidding, 1X-1Y-1Z (where Z is not NT) is hardly ever passed because the upper limit of 1Z is around 18 HCP. But if responder bid on trash they would pass (hopefully holding 3-4 cards in Z).

Not an example I think: this is not forcing in standard bidding (opener has not promised more than opening strength and has limited his hand, albeit quite high: responder with a minimum (trash or not) and strong preference for Z can now pass if this looks better than risking game).

Maybe because I played 30 boards today, but I can't think of an example in the way we play (and am grateful for that).
A relatively innocent example might be those pairs who will pass 4NT Blackwood with insufficient Aces and the right hand (relatively because I can't imagine them explaining that the same way behind screens).

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2023-April-06, 15:10, said:

I would at least say occasionally rather than rarely

I meant to say "not forcing, but we rarely pass".

[Gilithin]

TylerE, on 2023-April-06, 00:31, said:

Would you describe a natural 1NT as forcing for a pair playing a scrambling-style garbage stayman? After all, 2c could be zero count.

The given situation seems to be far closer to a mixed Multi-2♦ opener that will only be passed if Responder has a completely bust hand with very long diamonds than to a 1NT opener.