Misinformation at Stratford?

[jallerton]

It appears that N/S did agree on the meaning of redouble, namely SOS.

 

But the same principle applies; even if North-South agreed on the meaning of redouble, then they would be correct not to alert it if they regarded it as an agreement one would have without discussion. Similarly, they would be correct not to alert fourth-suit forcing, if they considered it to be an agreement that one would have without discussion. Its artificiality is not the issue; its alertability is.

 

Is that really true, Paul?

 

Suppose that you agree to partner Bluejak for the first time, and that on the first round you get to play against a pair who tell you they are beginners. On the first board, you open 1♥, Bluejak bids 1♠, you bid 2♦ and Bluejak bids 3♣, intending it as fourth suit forcing. You are virtually certain that the 3♣ bid is fourth suit forcing. Do you alert? If not, your opponents (who have never seen this convention being used before) will wonder why you have not disclosed what is (as far as they are concerned) your secret understanding.

Edited October 27, 2011 by jallerton

[lamford]

Suppose that you agree to Bluejak for the first time, and that on the first round you get to play against a pair who tell you they are beginners.

I presume you mean to [partner] Bluejak for the first time. Against beginners I would agree with you, because from our general bridge understanding we both know redouble will be take out (or fourth suit forcing would be artificial). The reason it is alertable is that, to the beginner, the meaning might be surprising. If either has been specifically agreed, then I would agree with the alert as well.

 

And I do not agree that more specific rules take priority over general rules. The general rule is that agreements you would expect from a pick-up partner are not alertable unless they are surprising. The specific rules deal with explicit agreements on the whole.

[blackshoe]

And I do not agree that more specific rules take priority over general rules. The general rule is that agreements you would expect from a pick-up partner are not alertable unless they are surprising. The specific rules deal with explicit agreements on the whole.

 

If you play with a pick-up partner, and he makes an undiscussed call the meaning of which you expect not to be surprising to your partnership, the general rule would say it does not require an alert. The specific rule "alert this call" then takes precedence over the general rule, even if there is no explicit agreement.

[lamford]

If you play with a pick-up partner, and he makes an undiscussed call the meaning of which you expect not to be surprising to your partnership, the general rule would say it does not require an alert. The specific rule "alert this call" then takes precedence over the general rule, even if there is no explicit agreement.

I don't agree with that. Let us consider car tax in this country. You do not pay tax if, for example:

 

You’re a disabled driver with exemption certificate DLA404.

 

If you own a Jaguar, then you pay this amount of tax: Band G £400 Jaguar X type saloon 2.0-litre petrol

 

However, if you are a disabled driver with exemption certificate DLA404 that drives a Jaguar X type saloon 2.0-litre petrol, then you are still exempt. I am sure you agree with that.

 

So it is with alerts. If a rule says "General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there had been no discussion beforehand, are not alertable, but a player must alert any inferences drawn from partnership experience or practice which have a potentially unexpected meaning." then it is assumed that this limits the times when the redouble in question is alerted. If a redouble is alertable under 5E3(b), but is not alertable under 5B9, then it is not alertable. That just seems common sense to me.

 

And I think the test is whether it is surprising to the opponents, not to this partnership.

 

Now the OB could have said "General bridge inferences, other than those specifically listed hereafter ... ". If that is the intention of the OB it should say so. If there is a 3A2 type implicit understanding, it is already specified as being alertable, surprising or not.

[blackshoe]

Would Joe Smith, who just learned the game last week, expect the same meaning (as an opponent) of this redouble as the pair who made it? "General bridge knowledge" is a slippery concept, and IME most beginners, having no experience at all to draw on, have no "general bridge knowledge" — they know only what they were taught.

 

If you're sure your opponents will expect this redouble not to be for blood, then fine. If you're not sure, I think you should alert it.

[jallerton]

I presume you mean to [partner] Bluejak for the first time.

 

Yes, you are quite right. I have edited my post to include the omitted word.

 

 

And I do not agree that more specific rules take priority over general rules. The general rule is that agreements you would expect from a pick-up partner are not alertable unless they are surprising. The specific rules deal with explicit agreements on the whole.

 

If you play with a pick-up partner, and he makes an undiscussed call the meaning of which you expect not to be surprising to your partnership, the general rule would say it does not require an alert. The specific rule "alert this call" then takes precedence over the general rule, even if there is no explicit agreement.

 

I don't agree with that. Let us consider car tax in this country. You do not pay tax if, for example:

 

You’re a disabled driver with exemption certificate DLA404.

 

If you own a Jaguar, then you pay this amount of tax: Band G £400 Jaguar X type saloon 2.0-litre petrol

 

However, if you are a disabled driver with exemption certificate DLA404 that drives a Jaguar X type saloon 2.0-litre petrol, then you are still exempt. I am sure you agree with that.

 

So it is with alerts.

 

Interesting. Your example seems to corroborate the suggestion that the specific rule over-rides the general rule!

 

The general rule is that virtually all cars registered in the UK are liable for annual car tax and that the rate of annual car tax is based on the car's carbon dioxide emissions. Following the general rule, one would conclude that the car tax for a Jaguar X type saloon 2.0-litre petrol car is £400.

 

There is a specifc rule that disabled drivers with the DLA404 exemption certificate are exempt from car tax.

 

According to you, a disabled driver with exemption certificate DLA404, who drives a Jaguar X type saloon 2.0-litre petrol, is exempt from car tax. Why is this? Because the specific rule about disabled drivers with exemption certificates over-rides the general rule.

[lamford]

According to you, a disabled driver with exemption certificate DLA404, who drives a Jaguar X type saloon 2.0-litre petrol, is exempt from car tax. Why is this? Because the specific rule about disabled drivers with exemption certificates over-rides the general rule.

I don't think it is clear here which is the general rule, and I accept it was a poor example. When there is a rule in the section "general", then I think that this applies in all cases, unless it specifies that the later rules take priority. There is a general rule that people under a certain age are not allowed to vote. This takes priority over any specific rules as to whether they are in prison etc.

[blackshoe]

There is a general rule that everyone who has reached a particular birthday is permitted to exercise their inherent right to participate in the choosing of the people in their government. There are specific rules that further restrict the right for some who would otherwise be permitted to exercise it.

 

Paul, I think you need to rethink your position. IMO you are consistently miss-describing the relevant groupings.

[lamford]

There is a general rule that everyone who has reached a particular birthday is permitted to exercise their inherent right to participate in the choosing of the people in their government. There are specific rules that further restrict the right for some who would otherwise be permitted to exercise it.

 

Paul, I think you need to rethink your position. IMO you are consistently miss-describing the relevant groupings.

My argument is the same as yours - that something in the general section always applies. The rule states that if something can be assumed without discussion it is not alerted. It can be assumed that further rules stipulate the alerting procedure for anything that cannot be assumed without discussion.

 

Auction: "1S - 1NT - 2H, uncontested, playing basic Acol". Responder: "Alert". Opponent: "Yes, please". Responder: "Now promises five spades." Opponent: "Stop patronising me."

 

I think you need to rethink your position, in particular the spelling of misdescribing.

[Finch]

There is a general rule that people under a certain age are not allowed to vote. This takes priority over any specific rules as to whether they are in prison etc.

 

This is a remarkably poor example, which doesn't help illustrate any potential point.

There is a general rule that defines that people in set A cannot vote.

There are specific rules that also restrict the ability of people in set B to vote.

 

There is no need for for anyone to define which rules take priority, as they apply to different sets of people.

 

One might equally well say:

 

There is a general rule that citizens over the age of 18 are allowed to vote.

There are specific rules that some citizens over the age of 18 are not allowed to vote. The specific rules win.

[Finch]

My argument is the same as yours - that something in the general section always applies. The rule states that if something can be assumed without discussion it is not alerted. It can be assumed that further rules stipulate the alerting procedure for anything that cannot be assumed without discussion.

 

I don't understand where your assumption comes from. You seem to have invented it for the purpose of provoking discussion. The basic alerting rules say "...a pass or bid must be alerted it... if it not natural"

 

Auction: "1S - 1NT - 2H, uncontested, playing basic Acol". Responder: "Alert". Opponent: "Yes, please". Responder: "Now promises five spades." Opponent: "Stop patronising me."

 

I'm trying to work out under which section of the alerting rules a natural 2H bid could be alertable, as it is both natural and does not have a potentially unexpected meaning.

[blackshoe]

It can be assumed that further rules stipulate the alerting procedure for anything that cannot be assumed without discussion.

 

No, it can't.

 

Auction: "1S - 1NT - 2H, uncontested, playing basic Acol". Responder: "Alert". Opponent: "Yes, please". Responder: "Now promises five spades." Opponent: "Stop patronising me."

 

Responder: Director, please!

 

See, I can play this silly game too.

 

I think you need to rethink your position, in particular the spelling of misdescribing.

 

Certainly the fact that I misspelled a word completely invalidates everything I wrote.

[Trinidad]

I just can't get the idea out of my head that the EBU is overregulating bridge.

 

Rik

 

Q.E.D.

 

Do non secretary bird bridge players have any chance at understanding these discussions?

 

Rik

[gnasher]

I think you need to rethink your position, in particular the spelling of misdescribing.

I think you should rethink your punctuation of "the spelling of 'misdescribing'".

[lamford]

There is no need for for anyone to define which rules take priority, as they apply to different sets of people.

I agree it is a poor example, but there will be people in both sets as there will be bids in more than one set. One needs to have a method of deciding which rule takes priority when they contradict each other. A Google search for "General Law" revealed definitions of the following type:

 

"a law that is unrestricted as to time, is applicable throughout the entire territory subject to the power of the legislature that enacted it, and applies to all persons in the same class"

 

In essence we have:

 

One rule tells us that, if something would be expected wihout discussion, it is not alerted, unless it is surprising. That seems a contradiction in itself; how could it be surprising if it is expected without discussion?

 

Another rule tells us that a redouble which is for takeout is alerted.

 

We need to decide which applies. I argue that the rule in "General" takes priority. It seems to have no restrictions, other than the non-surprising requirement, in that it says "is not alerted" rather than "is not alerted except as stipulated hereafter."

[lamford]

I'm trying to work out under which section of the alerting rules a natural 2H bid could be alertable, as it is both natural and does not have a potentially unexpected meaning.

A pedant who thinks that 5B9 does not apply if there is another clause on the same subject would argue:

 

Under 5F1(a) A bid of a suit which shows that suit and does not show any other suit is considered 'natural' for alerting purposes. The 2H bid in 1S-1NT-2H shows both four hearts (or more) and a fifth spade (or more). However, the bid is correctly not alerted under 5B9. This is because of the general rule which clearly takes precedence over the specific rule.

 

A better example would be, uncontested, 1NT-2C(Stayman)-2S, showing four spades and two or three hearts in many methods. This would be alertable under 5F1(a), but 5B9 means it is not alerted as it can be assumed without discussion. I presume "show any other suit" means "give information about the length or strength of any other suit."

[mjj29]

My argument is the same as yours - that something in the general section always applies. The rule states that if something can be assumed without discussion it is not alerted. It can be assumed that further rules stipulate the alerting procedure for anything that cannot be assumed without discussion.

I don't think it says that at all.

 

Two weeks ago I sat down at the University club and said to my (pick-up) partner "I assume we'll play something sensible". Does this mean that we shouldn't alert the 4 transfers, 'good raise' 2NT, splinters, doubles in positions which are alertable, michaels cue bids, gambling 3NT et al that we both assumed without discussion we were playing? Should we assume that the room full of new freshers also assumed those - or even knew we were playing without discussion? No, clearly things which we've assumed and are alertable should be alerted.

 

The EBU plays in a regime where alerts have specific meanings, rather than one where you alert where you think it's needed and as a result opponents can assume certain things from alerts or lack of alerts. Yes, you can not alert a bid where it's genuinely a guess - but none of those things above were guesses, we clearly both knew what they were going to be and, importantly, there's no reason for the opponents to know how much or little discussion we've had, they shouldn't have to ask for every unalerted bid 'have you explicitly agreed the non-alertable meaning for this bid'.

[Trinidad]

There is a simple logic why a specific rule has priority over a general rule.

 

Suppose that Lamford would be right and the general rule takes precedence. Then, it wouldn't make any sense to make the Lawbook thicker by writing specific rules. After all, the general rule would take precedence anyway and therefore specific rules are worthless.

 

Since the people who wrote the specific law cannot have done that for the sole purpose of making the law book thicker, it must have been put there to have a function. This can only be the case if the specific law takes precedence over the general law. Since this is the only way to construct laws that makes sense, it is the way laws are constructed. Specific laws take precedence over general laws. Here is a simple example:

 

General rule:

When a traffic light is red, traffic is supposed to stop.

 

Specific rule:

Emergency vehicles (with lights and sirenes) do not need to stop for red.

 

General rules are rules that work as the basis when there are no specific rules saying otherwise. You see them everywhere. My bridge club plays every Thursday (general rule), except during Carnaval (specific rule) since the location is used for partying people and during the Summer holidays (other specific rule) since everyone is on vacation. Another example: When you shop for groceries, you need to pay for them (general rule). If you shop at my grocery store and there are more than 4 people in line in front of you at the checkout counter, you don't need to pay. You get your groceries for free^* (specific rule).

 

Obviously, the principle that specific rules outrank general rules only applies when the general rule and specific rule -in principle- would be of the same rank. There are rules that are by definition higher ranking than others. (A constitution outranks a law and the bridge laws outrank regulations.)

 

Rik

 

^*Some restrictions apply, which are even more specific rules to the more general rule that you don't need to pay.

[lamford]

No, clearly things which we've assumed and are alertable should be alerted.

I have already acknowledged that implicit agreements are alertable, but we are told in the OP that there was no agreement over 2C followed by redouble. South "knew" it was for takeout, but we are not told whether that was by general bridge inference.

[lamford]

General rule:

When a traffic light is red, traffic is supposed to stop.

 

Specific rule:

Emergency vehicles (with lights and sirenes) do not need to stop for red.

General rule:

Emergency vehicles may ignore all traffic signs and lights.

 

Specific rule:

Vehicles stop at red and go on green

 

It is possible to express anything as a general rule and anything as a specific rule, just by calling them that. I spoke to a couple of high-court judges - yes our club has three. They had no real view on the bridge reasons for the laws. But they were both of the opinion that the rule in General would apply. There are two ways of interpreting the laws:

 

a) Anything which you would assume without discussion, which has not been discussed and is not surprising, is not alertable, but there is a whole host of exceptions from OB5C following and they are alertable (or announced) or not, as specified.

 

b) Anything which you would assume without discussion, which has not been discussed and is not surprising, is not alertable. All other conventions or implicit agreements are alertable (or announced) or not as per OB5C following.

 

My view is that b) is the more logical interpretation. This thread seems to think that a) applies. Those having that opinion should therefore alert 1NT-2C-2S under 5F1(a) as it is not "natural", and the fact that one can assume it also shows exactly two or three hearts without discussion does not remove the obligation to alert it as 5F1(a) is the specific rule. Poppycock!

[RMB1]

If the specific rules take precedence over the general and the specific rules in Orange Book 5E/5F/5G cover all bids, pass, doubles and redoubles, when do the general rules in 5B ever apply?

[Trinidad]

General rule:

Emergency vehicles may ignore all traffic signs and lights.

 

Specific rule:

Vehicles stop at red and go on green

You forgot the more general rule which makes clear that your "general rule" is actually specific:

General rule: "All vehicles need to obey the traffic signs and lights."

Specific rule: "Emergency vehicles may ignore all traffic signs and lights."

 

You could see the combination of these two rules as a definition of "emergency vehicle".

 

Rik

[lamford]

General rule: "All vehicles need to obey the traffic signs and lights."

The general rule should never be wrong. The statement you make is not true in all cases, and therefore is bad law. It would be fine to say, "Except as listed in section 2 (say), all vehicles need to obey the traffic signs and lights."

 

The rule "General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there had been no discussion beforehand, are not alertable, but a player must alert any inferences drawn from partnership experience or practice which have a potentially unexpected meaning." needs to be true. It would not be true if there were some general and expected bridge inferences that need to be alerted."

[blackshoe]

"Needs to be true"? Since when does a rule have needs?

[campboy]

The general rule should never be wrong. The statement you make is not true in all cases, and therefore is bad law.

If the general and specific rule were not in conflict then we would not need to argue about which one took precedence. The general rule should never be wrong, but neither should the specific rule be wrong; which do we follow when one of them must be?