Trinidad

Because browing through the Blue Book is much faster... ;) Rik

The reason why a short and simple regulation works better is that it communicates. What do we want to achieve with an alert regulation? That people disclose their agreements and warn their opponents if there is something they might not know. If that is your goal for an alert regulation, then just say so. Communicate exactly that, loud and clearly, and nothing more. Anything more is merely fogging up the message. Rik

"Alert any call where you think that one or both of your opponents might not understand its meaning or that has implications that might be unexpected to one or both of your opponents." An intuitive rule like this has several advantages: It is easy to understand It is simple to learn by heart because it is short It can be applied at the table without the need to look anything up It focuses on the purpose of the alert regulation, which is to disclose your agreements, rather than to follow a network of rules. It emphasizes the principle of Full Disclosure. You alert when you have something to disclose. You don't alert when there is nothing to disclose. It can't hurt if players encounter this principle a couple of times per board. It is designed from the perspective of the opponent whom the alert is for. It varies with the opponent: It means that you alert Stayman for an opponent who is still on the bridge course, but not for Jeff Meckstroth. It gives the "right of way" to the weaker player and puts the responsibility to alert on the stronger player. That is a long list of advantages for such a short regulation. Rik

If "being able to look it up" would be the criterion, you would be correct. But then the Dutch Tax code would also be "simple and easy to understand": You can look everything up in the tax law books, on the internet and in several nice computer programs designed for that purpose. So, "being able to look it up" is not the criterion. The criterion is: "All bridge players should be able to apply it at the bridge table without looking it up". One could argue that a little bit of looking up would be okay to determine which of your own bids requires an alert, since you could prepare for that in advance and one could look it up. But there is no way that one can look up at the table what the non-alertable meaning of the opponents' last call was. So, the criterion has to be what you call "intuitive". Rik

Setting aside what the OP was playing, it is clear that you have an outdated understanding of what the Drury convention is about. In addition, you are misrepresenting what I wrote. I don't know whether it was merely inaccurate silly poor debating style on your part. But don't worry, I have been silly in this thread myself, so it can happen to the best of us. ;) I never wrote that Drury was a substitute for a single raise. I wrote that Drury was a good raise. To make it 100% clear: That includes the game invitations and the maximum single raises. It does not include the minimum single raises, they just bid 2M. There is no doubt that Drury was originally invented to check whether opener had a true opening or was joking in third (or fourth) seat. But modern Drury has evolved from that. It started long time ago when Drury started to promise support. This was part of "Reverse Drury". Then came the useful space argument (an important argument since Jeff Rubens. Since then: my parents bought their first color TV, Lech Walesa founded Solidarnosz, the wall came down, the cold war ended. I assume you can come up with more recent events, e.g. the Netherlands winning the Bermuda Bowl... twice.): Drury is a 2♣ bid. A single raise is a 2M bid. That means that after Drury, you have room to explore between 2♣ and 2M. This room you don't have between 2M and 2M. (Now, who said that math was complicated?) That, in turn, means that the range for 2♣ can be wider than the range for 2M. When players then realized that: the range for 2♣ should be wider than the range for 2M they don't want to have any raises in the 1NT response (to make 1NT truely semi-forcing) modern openings in first and second seat are more aggressive, reducing the need for crazy openers in third and fourth seat. it became clear that Drury should be less used as a checkback for crazy openings but instead should be used to divide all hands with support and 4-11 HCPs over 2M and 2♣. The 2M range takes care of the lower part: 4-7. Drury takes care of the 8-11, and the hands that re-evaluate to more than 11 after the opening. As I said, this is not a development of recent years. Top players have been playing this version of Drury for quite a while now (if they play Drury). To complete the whole Drury scheme and to sketch the mouse trap as it is most often built for you: Pass-1M 2♣: 8-11, (at least) three card support, or a hand that re-evaluates to something better 2♦: a decent minimum opening, occasionally a good hand 2M: 8-9(10) All other bids: game tries according to the taste of the partnership*, i.e. decent invitations. 2M: a (sub)minimum opening. Responder will pass, unless he has a hand that re-evaluated to more than an opening All bids: game tries according to the taste of the partnership, a hand that re-evaluated to more than an opening 3M: according to partnership taste: slam try or game try All other bids: game tries according to the taste of the partnership *short suit, long suit, help suit, Romex, whatever. I hope this has resolved your confusion and catapulted you into the 21st century. You're welcome. Rik

No matter how big you write it, it is a very narrow target to aim for. 3NT, 4♥ and 6♦ may be better contracts. I won't answer what to bid, unless I know more about the methods, but I could imagine bidding 1♥ (F1), 2♣ (only forcing bid), 2♥ (fit showing, F1), 3♥ (fit showing, GF), 3♠ (splinter), or 4♠ (void). Rik

They say that egg is good for your hair. I just wiped it off my face. I will see what it does for my hair. Rik

West has already shown 8-9 HCP by rebidding 2♠ (and denied a better hand). He has certainly not denied a three card spade suit. In fact, I would have assumed that he more or less denied four spades with his bidding (but apparently he didn't since he holds four spades). So, your SIM would be realistic if you would give West 8-9 HCP, a balanced hand and 3 spades. Then suddenly 4♠ is not going to look good any more. Even if you allow for all balanced hands with 3 or 4 spades (which overestimates the amount of hands with four spades, since on some West will take a positive action rather than attempt to sign-off in 2♠), 4♠ is going to be poor, since there will still be many more hands with 3 card support than with 4 card support. In addition, a West with four card support will normally accept if East still tries for game after West's 2♠ suggestion to sign-off. (The only reason why West didn't accept the invitation in this case was that he had the worst possible holding opposite the club shortness.) That means that game will normally be reached when East makes a trial bid. There is no need at all for East to blast game. An invitation will get him to the good games and will keep him out of the games opposite the true minimume Drury hands Rik

Does it? I agree that's what it should show, but I think many assume it shows at least 10 hcp, or even a good 10. Well, given that Fluffy posted the problem (and not somebody randomly drawn from "many"), I think it is reasonable to assume that he plays Drury as a good raise. But perhaps he can tell us what 2♣ showed in this particular partnership, Fluffy? Rik

Eh?!? If you look at the questions about alerts on BBF, you will notice that the vast majority come from the EBU. Why would it be that the EBU generates so many questions about alerts? Hardly because they are so simple to apply and easy to understand. Take this example: Any player should have known whether the pass of 4♣ required an alert. It is right there in the EBU Blue Book! But clearly: Hardly anybody knew the rules about alerts of passes above 3Nt in the first round of the bidding without looking in the Blue Book (and as a player you don't have the Blue Book at the table) Those who read the Blue Book don't agree on how to interpret it: Is a lead implication enough of lead direction to make it alertable? How can there be any discussion about whether the pass of 4♣ is alertable when the alert rules are "simple to apply and easy to understand"? In many other NBOs, this is a simple question: "Is an opponent going to understand the meaning of pass?" Answer: NO. That makes the bid alertable, in principle. Next question: Is this is an exception to the rule (e.g. above 3NT)? Most NBOs have a simple exception: Only alert calls above 3NT in the first round of the bidding (starting with the opening bid). This is a call above 3NT but in the first round of the bidding, therefore alert. Now that is "simple to apply and easy to understand". Rik

That is certainly true, and I am sorry if I have depicted the Europeans as saints and the Americans as sinners. The point that I was trying to make is that both sides need to try and realize where the other side is coming from. The Americans come from a culture with essentially one standard system where there is little need for explanations and many (not all) Europeans come from a culture where almost anything is allowed and where almost every bid eeds to be explained. Add the language barrier to that and you have a recipe for friction. If both sides understand that this is a recipe for friction and understand the culture of the other, this friction can be prevented. Rik

Q.E.D. If an experienced TD gets caught in the maze of EBU alert regulations, something needs fixing (and it is not the mentioned experienced TD ;)). Rik

Just getting into a discussion about regulations ia already taking your eye off the ball, but I will humor you. It is sensible to prohibit alerts in some situations (or rather: postpone alerts until there are no, or less, UI issues). Those situations would be exceptions to the rule. One such situattion could be calls above 3NT after the first round of bidding. The situation that EBU has created is: Calls with an unexpected meaning are alertable. Exception: Calls with an unexpected meaning above 3NT are not alertable Exception to the exception: Calls with an unexpected meaning above 3NT are alertable in the first round of the bidding Exception to the exception to the exception: Passes with an unexpected meaning above 3NT are not alertable in the first round of the bidding Exception to the exception to the exception to the exception: Passes with an unexpected meaning that is lead directing above 3NT are alertable in the first round of the bidding And after all this, the question pops up: What to do about a pass above 3NT in the first round of the auction that is not explicitly lead directing but does have unexpected lead directing implications? Are they an exception to the exception to the exception to the exception to the exception or not? If you take your eyes off the ball, then your answer is: the regulation (does / doesnot)1 say that it is alertable, so that is what I will do. 1 Pick the convenient interpretation of lead directing: Is a lead directing implication "lead directing" or not? But the correct answer to that question is: Forget all these regulation mechanics, because that is not what bridge is about. Focus on the ball -full dosclosure- and alert. Rik

It is only irrelevant if the alert regulation deems it irrelevant. I wrote that any sensible alert regulation starts with the rule that unexpected meanings of calls need to be alerted. It is not my fault that lamford carefully choses one of the few venues for his hypothetical problem that doesn't fulfill this condition. For me the governing principle is that bridge is a game of full disclosure. You happily volunteer the meaning of your calls through alerts, explanations, CCs, etc.. That attitude "to happily volunteer" should be the top priority of the regulators. Everything else is just a mechanism to achieve full disclosure. Prioritizing the mechanism and forgetting the underlying principle of Full Disclosure is taking your eyes of the ball. Rik

Sure, I would be honored. Rik

That is not the comparison I meant, and I thought it is not the comparison you meant originally. The comparison that I am talking about (and I thought you were talking about is): 1♥-Pass-1♠-Pass; 4♣-Pass1 1 Double would have meant: "Don't lead clubs", i.e. pass is mildly suggesting a club lead and 1♥-Pass-1♠-Pass; 4♣-Pass2 2 Double would have meant: "Please lead clubs", i.e. pass is mildly suggesting a diamond lead These two meanings are similar in the strength of the inference. The second meaning is the expected meaning, the first meaning is (very) unexpected, and, hence, alertable according to any sensible alert regulation. Rik

Err... Ahum... Rik

In no greater way than a pass would give you some direction as to what to lead if double had said "lead this suit". The extent of the lead direction inferences is certainly similar. However, the fact that the meaning is the exact opposite of what you would expect makes it alertable. So, where most passes are somewhat lead directing in an expected way, the pass in your example is somewhat lead directing in an unexpected way. As an opponent, I would like to know that the probability for a club lead has increased, rather than decreased (as I would normally expect) after the pass. I don't want to get into the Blue book regulations, but to me this pass is alertable, since to me any alert regulation starts with the main rule about alerts: "Alert what will be unexpected to your opponents." Rik

If I have good heart defense, I can double 3♥ myself. Who plays the double of 3♥ (after 1♣-Pass-1♠-2♥; Pass-3♥-Pass-Pass; ??) as takeout after having passed 2♥ on the previous round? What would it show? Some kind of 2146 hand that now wants to bid at the four level but didn't want to bid at the three level before? So, while partner might be hoping for some heart defense in my hand if I pass the double, he is certainly not doubling because I might have good heart defense. My good heart defense takes care of itself. Given that I have some heart defense, I have the amount of defense that my partner is expecting when I pass. It is not a coincidence that I don't have anything to bid either, making pass the fairly obvious choice. Rik

Actually two of those three things happened on this occasion: It was blatant. He compounded it by stating that nobody would miscount trumps when declarer, in fact, clearly was already confused about the trump suit. If I don't give a PP for that then I will never give one. Rik

That's the psychology for the next match. You don't realize how shrewd Helene can be. ;) Rik

Of course, you would never forget to alert an alertable bid, but your opponents don't know that. And, as you show with your OP, forgetting alerts is quite common. In addition, in many situations experienced players are supposed to protect themselves against misinformation by asking. This all means that there is no reason for you to be irritated when an opponents asks about these kind of auctions. You just reply "Natural". The 'smart' comment "which is why I didn't alert it" is uncalled for. Remember that the opponents didn't write the regulation that says that they are supposed to protect themselves. Rik

There is a little bit of a cultural problem here. In Europe, more conventions and systems are allowed than within the ACBL. That means that European players not only play more exotic conventions, but it also means that they encounter more conventions that they don't know. That means that there is a culture to ask and explain. As a result, Europeans are generally better at explaining exotic conventions and, hence, their expectations of explanations will be higher. When a European player explains his 2♦ opening, he will typically say "Multi". When the opponents then indicate that they are not fully satisfied with with that explanation, or that they don't understand, he will rattle off something like: "Either a weak two in a major, a 24-25 balanced hand, or a strong two in a minor". And he might add something like: "The weak two could be based on a five card suit at favorable vulnerability". While he talks, he might point out on the convention card where all this information can be found. ACBL players have very little experience in explaining conventions. To start with convention cards are rarely available to the opponents (and the opponents don't want to see that nonsense). And since everybody essentially plays the same system, there is little need for extensive explanations. When a convention comes up, it is generally accepted by the players (not the TDs or regulators) to just give the name of the convention. There are so few conventions that seasoned tournament players will know them all. After Pass-1♠; 2♣ most players will explain "Drury". If someone would ask for more information (like that is going to happen in real life, LOL), they would perhaps say: "Just Drury, well technically, Reverse Drury.". A European player would say: "He has a good raise to 2♠, a hand worth at least a good 8 points with (at least/precisely) 3 card support." It is not a miracle that there is some friction when these two cultures meet. Having said that, it is clear that this time the Europeans are right. They are entitled to everything you know about partner's bid. "Transfer to clubs" is not sufficient and that is particularly true since experience has shown that the term "transfer" is not always used correctly (and not everybody speaks perfect English, despite the fact that everybody thinks they do). Simply state: "He has 6+ clubs, a decent suit, typically ~8-14 HCP." or whatever the agreement is. To the American this explanation may seem blatantly obvious, but he is not aware of the fact that the Europeans are used to defending against 2NT bids that ask partner to bid 3♣, but could, e.g., show clubs or the red suits or a big hand with both majors. So, humor those Europeans and simply explain -in terms of suit length and an approximate high card strength- what a bid shows. Rik

Score -100 when dummy comes down: ♠K43 ♥Q53 ♦T62 ♣KJ62 Rik

The problem with these last few posts is that Drury hasn't shown a limit raise since we started playing bridge over the internet about 20 years ago (and probably much longer than that, but I am too young :P). Drury shows a good raise. That is a much wider range than a limit raise. West could have: ♠K43 ♥Q53 ♦T62 ♣KJ62 and that would be a fine (as in: there are worse) 2♣ bid. The problem bid in the auction is West's 2♠ bid. That is the bid that says: I only had a good raise, I don't have a limit raise (i.e. it it is the type of hand that I just showed). This is a matter of judgement. To me it is a borderline limit raise, to others it doesn't qualify. Rik