WellSpyder

Yes.

I don't think OP (or SB, of course) is confused about the regulation means. The argument is about what it says.

Yes, but now you have a disclosure issue. "0-8, 4+ suit" does not sound like adequate disclosure if you don't open some hands that fit this description.

I think I understand the reason why the regulation exists, and also that it isn't necessarily that easy to ensure that it says exactly what it wants to say. But my main purpose in starting another thread on the issue was to try to get a clear statement from those involved in implementing the EBU regulation that, as interpreted by the powers that be: (i) the regulation does/does not prohibit Italian signals when following to partner's lead (ii) the regulation does/does not prohibit combining attitude and SP signals in the way described in the OP when the signaller has shown length (5+) in the bidding

I can't see any reason why these wouldn't all be alertable in the EBU.

I think that is how the TD viewed the issue on this occasion, but I don't think she had come across the question before. In my mind there is one significant difference between the two examples I gave, In the second case, you will always have relatively high, low and medium cards when you have 5 or more cards in the suit. In the first case, it is far from obvious that you will always have an odd card, or a low even card, or a high even card.

EBU regulations include the following: I have encountered two problems recently with interpreting this. First, some opponents were playing "Italian" signals, whereby on partner's opening lead an odd card is encouraging while an even card is suit preference. I suggested to them - and then the TD - that this fell foul of the regulations. The TD decided that it was OK, I think because (i) odd cards were in principle all encouraging (so whether they were high or low didn't affect the signal) and (ii) SP was just an extension of the discouraging message rather than a separate meaning. I accepted this, of course (as I do with all TD rulings!) - and in any case, I didn't really think the system would help oppo much. But I thought this was actually the exact system the regulation was designed to prevent, and would welcome definitive guidance that I can show the people involved on a subsequent occasion. Second, I have seen a number of sources recommend a particular signalling agreement whereby if (a) you have shown a 5-card or longer suit in the bidding, (b) partner leads the suit at trick 1 and (c ) you know he will be holding the trick, then you play a middle card to encourage, while playing high or low as SP. When I suggested this to one partner he was worried about falling foul of this same regulation. I see this as somewhat different from the previous signalling system since you are only using the relative rank of the card to indicate one of 3 meanings, but is there a definitive view from the EBU on whether this agreement meets this regulation or not?

Citation needed. I think the opposite is actually the case. Aggressive leads may be needed against 3NT, but against 1NT you will often have time to switch later in the defence if you need to set up your tricks before declarer gets his.

I would rather have the 1NT opening bidder on lead than his partner.

Good question. I would play small, and then wonder whether I should have played Q.....

I am amazed at some of the molehills people want to turn into mountains. I think it is completely obvious that this should be interpreted as saying that the suit assumed to be implicitly named by declarer is the same as the one that he either explicitly or implicitly named for the card that won the previous trick.

So would I. I would expect the same of a double in this auction: 1♥- 1♠ - PASS - PASS - ???

As Vampyr says, these hands are all ER25. It may not be entirely obvious from the quotes that have been provided, but the terminology in use here talks about the EXTENDED rule of 25 (ie ER25 rather than just R25) precisely because this rule extends the R25 to include the other two hand-types you mention.

I think this is the sentence where you seem to be parting company with the rest of us, pran. (I say "seem to", because I don't really believe you play things that differently from the rest of us.) To me, it is absolutely normal when you have a hand that wants to make a penalty double in a position where double would be for to takeout to pass instead, planning to pass again if partner is able to make a takeout double. Since you won't normally what to make a penalty double unless you have values, it follows that in any normal "natural" system, a pass where double would be for takeout can indeed have significant values if you want to take a penalty. You seem to be suggesting that this only applies in the "negative" double position after opponents have overcalled partner's opening bid, but for most of us I think it applies in more or less any takeout double position.

I don't play this treatment. And neither do I play in the ACBL. But if I did, I think I would be a little bit nervous of relying on a decision which seems rather specifically to be based on concluding that this is a treatment rather than a convention, since as I understand it that distinction is no longer relevant to the issue of whether or not the ACBL regulations can affect the legality of this agreement.

I think that is a very unusual way of playing the take-out double of an opening bid. AFAIK it is more usual unless showing significantly more than minimum opening strength to have interest in all other suit denominations other than that opened. (Equal Level Conversion can modify this rule for very specific combinations of suits.) If the suit opened is your best suit then you may well have no sensible call to make other than pass even if you have opening values and interest in another denomination as well as that opened.

Obviously the subset of all possible hands which is likely to make the call is different, but the general principles are more or less the same, aren't they?

So, LHO deals and opens 1♠. Partner passes. Oh dear! I'm in a bit of difficulty, now. We play take-out doubles in partner's position, so he may decide to pass when he wants to make a penalty double. I guess I had better alert that pass then, should I?

Any lead seems possible to me. It is also pretty unclear what a hesitation suggests. It MIGHT suggest partner has clubs but couldn't call them naturally, but it might also be based on all sorts of other things. Maybe partner just doesn't like to let oppo play 1N, but couldn't quite persuade himself to stop them this time....

I think pass has to be a LA for East. Just imagine the West and South hands reversed. The bidding would probably be the same other than where the hesitation occurred - until South doubled 4♦ with glee....

I'm not sure I have fully understood the question, so let me answer a simpler question first. What is the probability that the second card in a standard pack is an ace? Well, obviously it depends on what the first card is, since if this is an ace then it lowers the probability that the second card is. But if you multiply together the probabilities for the first card by the conditional probabilities for the second card and add the results together then I think it is obvious that you will just get the same 1 in 13 probability that you would get if you just looked at the second card on its own. Is this any different in principle from the question we are being asked here?

I don't remember getting much sympathy from forum-ites a few years ago when having exactly the same problem opening a strong 1♣ with a nice-looking 4450 15-count or something. I'm surprised some Benjy players are only just realising now the problems that strong club players had with the regulations for years.

I'm not sure whether you would describe election leaflets as advertising, but I had much this experience when we recently had a parliamentary by-election in our constituency - every time I looked at one of the leaflets that came through the door I wanted to vote for someone else.....

So do I. To return to the original question, I don't think the first pause demonstrably suggests anything. Most likely the player was thinking "If I bid 4♥, will partner interpret it as natural or a splinter?", but there is no way to decide what conclusion he reached. (Incidentally, this is an auction that I do have agreements with opposite most of the people I play with, but the agreement differs with different partners, so there is still the chance of a pause while I try to remember what the agreement is with this particular partner.) The second pause might mean different things - as someone has mentioned, it might be because a redouble is being considered. But if there is any doubt about the meaning of 4♥ then it seems much more likely to me that the 4♥ bidder was thinking "I have to assume partner interpreted my natural 4♥ bid correctly and still took it out to 4♠, so do I have a hand that is prepared to play in 4♠ on that basis or not?" That might well suggest to opener that 4♠x isn't a good place to play if he originally bid it assuming there was spade support opposite.

I'm not sure your maths is quite right here. 11 cards out of our 26 in one suit leaves 15 across the other 3 suits. If we have 5 in each suit then oppo have 3 8-card fits, but not even a 9-card fit let alone a 10-card one. (Give partner 1543 opposite this 4612 shape.)