Passing a doubled transfer

[Zelandakh]

I've posted a question about interpreting the Blue Book clause to the English Language and Usage StackExchange site.

Have you considered just asking Robin, Barry? As I recall he was one of the writers working on it.

[Finch]

Have you considered just asking Robin, Barry? As I recall he was one of the writers working on it.

 

Robin is the currently the most active person working on the White Book

I am the current main writer of regulations in the Blue Book, but the content was actually written by a number of people over the years. That particular sentence, I think, has been there so long that I don't know who wrote it.

[lamford]

You really want to play that game? The cleaner was unexpectedly neither being paid for their work nor wearing clothes. YOur example is flawed because grammatically the slowly refers to both but we know from the sense that it should not. The correct form of your sentence is with the word slowly between "contract" and "and". There is no doubt that Barry's interpretation is grammatically correct, irrespective of whether the writer meant it that way or not.

Yes, I love playing that game, as you well know! I will ask a legal friend, Professor of Law at London University, what the sentence means in legal terms, and come back to you. Maybe some person better at grammar than I can throw in their oar. In your sentence I think the "neither" and "nor" mean that "unexpectedly" refers to both. If you wrote "the cleaner was unexpectedly wearing nothing and carrying his own mop" would you think that it was unexpected that he was carrying his own mop? I also look forward to barmar's reply from the site on which he has posted.

[VixTD]

This seems a very strange logic to me Vix. What you are saying is that in any situation where many club partnerships do not have an agreement you have to alert every call, even the most common one.

I think the logic behind the regulation is that partnerships who have built up an implicit agreement that a call might be used to convey a meaning that would be alertable should alert it rather than not alert and claim "undiscussed". This is a sea-change from the previous regulation under which it was acceptable not to alert in situations where no explicit agreement existed.

 

In this situation I expect most serious tournament partnerships to have some idea of what pass conveys, even if it hasn't been discussed, but to the majority of unsophisticated and unfamiliar partnerships at the club the pass probably doesn't say anything about suit lengths.

[VixTD]

How do you know he assumed this? How do you know he took fright? Did East make any statement to the TD? It seems more likely to me that 2NT was a constructive move. The failure to alert makes it MUCH more attractive to bid 2NT because partner may well have a doubleton spade, but if North has only two, there is an increased chance of West having three small.

I know he assumed it because he told me. "Took fright", I'll have to admit, was my own phrase, but it still looks to me a panic-stricken action from someone who is facing the prospect of defending 2♥X.

[VixTD]

I can't claim to be an expert on English grammar, but I think that in the Blue Book construction in question:

 

A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings

the most natural interpretation is that "unexpectedly" qualifies "convey values" but not "specify suit holdings", although it's possible to read it otherwise.

 

The cleaner was unexpectedly neither being paid for their work nor wearing clothes.

Here "unexpectedly" qualifies what follows "neither" and what follows "nor".

 

The cleaner was unexpectedly wearing nothing and carrying his own mop

This time it's ambiguous, but the likely intended meaning would be coloured by what the reader knows about the situation. Normally cleaners are expected to wear clothes to work and carry cleaning implements, but if the previous sentence had been something like "the cleaner had lost his mop and was unable to find it anywhere" the expectations change.

[Vampyr]

OK, so it appears that Vampyr is mistaken when she is interpreting this 'simple' rule.

 

Do you find it simple? I don't, I think it needs to be clarified so as to avoid varied interpretations. What I do know is that in practice, "everyone" alerts the pass as showing a doubleton.

 

If the pass showed willingness to play in 2♥x, then it would specify suit holdings (in hearts) and would therefore be alertable.

 

This all depends on whether "unexpectedly" refers to showing suit holdings. Normally, a pass that shows a willingness to play in the last named contract is considered natural. If that is not the case here then it is a struggle to find a non-alertable meaning, which, when there are no relevant announcements, is an absurd situation.

[campboy]

That pass does not "specify" the number of hearts held, as it could be 0, 1 or 2, and I know of plenty of people who do alert when playing support doubles. Generally, an adverb only applies to one verb unless made clear. For the meaning you suggest, they could have written:

 

A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values nor unexpectedly specify suit holdings.

I assumed "unexpectedly" applied to both, and it would not have occurred to me to read it otherwise. For the meaning you suggest, they could have written "A pass which does not specify suit holdings or unexpectedly convey values", and this feels a great deal more natural than your alternative version.

[lamford]

I assumed "unexpectedly" applied to both, and it would not have occurred to me to read it otherwise. For the meaning you suggest, they could have written "A pass which does not specify suit holdings or unexpectedly convey values", and this feels a great deal more natural than your alternative version.

Some responses so far suggest that it is just ambiguous. There is no doubt that "does not" applies to "specify", and someone mistakenly thought that was the issue! One opinion:

 

"There is nothing wrong with either of the two sentence structures associated with the meanings you're concerned with, so it's grammatically ambiguous. There could be something special about the context and the way such rules are customarily interpreted that eliminates one of the readings, I suppose, but that wouldn't be a grammatical issue."

In practice, it does not matter, as passes that specify suit lengths will be unexpected to many people and I cannot imagine any such pass not requiring an alert, so it is quite possible that the writer at the time intended all such passes to be alerted. I would guess that 80% of people at my local club would not know that Pass showing two spades is common. It would be useful, however, if the clause was reworded so that it was not ambiguous.

 

It has occurred to me also that the wording of the clause regarding alertable passes is inadequate in other ways. We play after a weak two, and an Ogust enquiry followed by an overcall (say 3C) that Pass is the weakest, saying I would have bid 3C, Double says I would have bid 3D, 3D says I would have bid 3H etc. Now this Pass neither conveys values (it shows a complete minimum) nor specifies suit lengths and therefore is not alertable. That cannot be active ethics, and I alert it anyway. The correct wording of the clause is something like:

 

"A pass which does not specify suit holdings or unexpectedly convey information about hand strength"

 

'A dog which does not noisily bark or bite', with the adverb modifying only the first infinitive, seems acceptable. – Edwin Ashworth

[lamford]

"Took fright", I'll have to admit, was my own phrase, but it still looks to me a panic-stricken action from someone who is facing the prospect of defending 2♥X.

If you are right, then I hope I never get stuck in an elevator with East. His partner is a passed hand and has doubled a transfer, clearly showing five or more hearts, and he is looking at three hearts himself. If North wants to play in 2H doubled, East should be rubbing his or her hands with glee, although South will be looking at a singleton or void and will remove anyway. It looks to me like the normal constructive move from someone who has been reading the Blue Book avidly, and now knows the opponents have eight spades at least (or South would have alerted). I think 2NT should be played as artificial as well, with three-card heart support, and either Lebensohl or Rubensohl, but I presume West did not alert it. I think all four-card heart raises should go through 2S, and 3 minor should be fit-non-jump. Doesn't everyone play this way? But maybe this particular East is being given too much credit. You know him or her better than me!

[campboy]

In practice, it does not matter, as passes that specify suit lengths will be unexpected to many people and I cannot imagine any such pass not requiring an alert.

Really? 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3NT - pass means opener has two spades for many pairs, and I've never seen it alerted.

[lamford]

Really? 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3NT - pass means opener has two spades for many pairs, and I've never seen it alerted.

No it doesn't. For everyone who has ever played bridge it exercised a choice between 3NT and 4S. I have passed even with four spades on several occasions. If I had ♠xxxx ♥KQx ♦KJT ♣KQx I would not dream of bidding 4S. If there was an agreement that the opener was obliged to bid 4S with all 3-(433) hands regardless of suitability, then I would expect an alert, and would provide an alert on the solitary occasion I agreed to play with this particular partner.

 

There used to be a blanket over-riding clause, I recall in the Orange Book, that one did not need to alert something which would be regarded as standard by a pick-up partner, but I cannot see such a clause in the Blue Book anymore. Perhaps it should be re-introduced to cover obvious cases.

[gnasher]

We're supposed to be intelligent, well-educated people who mostly speak English as a first language. Do we really need to consult some external authority about the meaning of a simple twelve-word phrase?

 

The wording in the Blue Book is, as VixTD says, ambiguous. It will remain ambiguous even if we're told otherwise by the finest legal brains in the world, the geekiest geeky English language site on the Internet, or even H W Fowler himself.

 

I blame the proof-readers.

[barmar]

We're supposed to be intelligent, well-educated people who mostly speak English as a first language. Do we really need to consult some external authority about the meaning of a simple twelve-word phrase?

Obviously we do, because we have a significant disagreement on what it means.

 

Unfortunately, it's grammatically ambiguous. Often in cases like this, context or common sense can be used to disambiguate. I gave my reason above for why I think my intrerpretation is what the regulators likely intended. It also fits the general philosophy that unexpected meanings are what need to be alerted.

 

On the other hand, lamford is one of the only ones arguing against my interpretation. It feels more like one of his SB hypothetical posts, where he's deliberately trying to interpret the words literally, but in a way that flies in the face of common sense.

[gnasher]

Obviously we do, because we have a significant disagreement on what it means.

 

Unfortunately, it's grammatically ambiguous. Often in cases like this, context or common sense can be used to disambiguate. I gave my reason above for why I think my intrerpretation is what the regulators likely intended. It also fits the general philosophy that unexpected meanings are what need to be alerted.

 

Your second paragraph shows why it's utterly pointless to consult some external non-bridge authority about this. It is, as you say, grammatically ambiguous. Why do you think that some people on an English-usage website who know nothing about bridge will be better placed than you to disambiguate? You have a far better understanding of the context than they do, and the evidence of their choice of subject for online discussion suggests that you have rather more common sense too.

[jallerton]

The wording "A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings" was previously in the Orange Book and remained when the shorter Blue Book replaced the Orange Book. I seem to recall that at one stage the wording was "A pass which does not convey values or specify suit holdings" but then somebody pointed out sequences in which it was normal for a pass to convey values or specify suit holdings and that nobody was alerting passes in these sequences.

 

Take the uncontested sequence: 1♠-1NT-2♦-Pass. I've never known anybody alert Responder's pass. The pass "specifies suit holdings" (preference for diamonds over spades and, by inference, not sufficiently good hearts or clubs to introduce either of those suits), but not unexpectedly so.

 

Also, as Campboy mentions, the clause could have been written differently had the alternative meaning been intended. Note that it does not say, for example, "A pass which does not convey unexpected values or specify suit holdings"

 

So I conclude that the writer(s) intended the word "unexpectedly" to attach to "specify suit holdings" as well as to "convey values". By the way, I also believe that the writer(s) intended the word "not" to apply to both parts!

[Trinidad]

It would be easy if you read the Blue Book, but you seem to have a pathological dislike of the EBU regulations causing you to generate inane observations on this and similar threads. The Blue Book has, under the definition of "natural" for Pass, and therefore not alertable:

 

[4C1] (c) A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings.

Excuse me, but when:

an experienced EBU TD comes to BBF to ask whether a certain call is alertable under EBU regulations

and the players failed to alert (seemingly because they weren't aware that the pass needed to be alerted

 

then that stronly suggests that the EBU alert regulation is far from "simple and easy to apply" as was claimed by Vampyre.

 

Of course, my observations are inane to you, but I think it is rather amusing that you tell me that all is fine with this regulation and tnen continue immediately:

On a linguistic note, it would be clearer if this regulation said:

[4C1] (c) A pass which does not specify suit holdings or unexpectedly convey values.

As written it is ambiguous and the second version above might not be the correct interpretation.

 

to show what you think is wrong with the regulation.

 

I can only notice that within a few weeks, there have been several EBU alert problem cases here that would not have existed if there would have been a simple "alert what your opponents might not understand" rule in force.

 

This case was a typical one: I can buy the argument that the TD (or I when responding to a forum post) should be able to read from the Blue Book whether a call is alertable. But I simply won't buy it that all players at the table know that alert regulation by heart and understand it well enough to apply it properly. And that is demonstrated over and over again.

 

Don't tell me that this was a case where North forgot to alert because he wasn't paying attention since the waitress came by or somebody spilled coffee. This was -again- a case where the player simply didn't know the alert regulation. And I don't blame him. We, as TDs, might like detailed, complicated rules and many of us are able to handle them easily. But the majority of the players are not Secretary Birds. And bridge regulations are intended for the players, not for the TDs.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Some of my opponents might not understand just about anything. Does that mean, under your simple rule, that I should alert everything?

[Trinidad]

Some of my opponents might not understand just about anything. Does that mean, under your simple rule, that I should alert everything?

Yes.

 

And here is why: Alerts are for your opponents, not for regulation writers.

 

It is one of the hidden advantages of this simple rule: It puts the responsibility on the shoulders of the players who can handle it best (e.g. on yours instead of those of your confused opponent).

 

Rik

[campboy]

I can only notice that within a few weeks, there have been several EBU alert problem cases here that would not have existed if there would have been a simple "alert what your opponents might not understand" rule in force.

This is not one of those cases, though. This is one of the few cases where the EBU rule is basically what you want it to be: alert if the inferences about strength or suit length are unexpected. The problem is that we cannot agree on what is unexpected here -- unless we decide that anything could be unexpected, which rather defeats the point. For some of us, denying support is just the standard meaning, and we would find a suggestion to play "unexpected". For others, to play is expected and this isn't. You yourself gave a third candidate for "normal meaning".

 

It would be much easier if the rule was "alert a pass unless it shows willingness to play there", say. Then the rule might go against my intuition of what is expected in this situation, but that doesn't much matter. I would know what was alertable and what wasn't, and more importantly I could be confident my opponents would interpret the rule in the same way.

 

[edit: I suppose it would have to be "unless it shows a willingness to play or defend the last contract named", or something, to include the cases where passing it out would leave opponents playing a contract.]

[Zelandakh]

It would be much easier if the rule was "alert a pass unless it shows willingness to play there", say. Then the rule might go against my intuition of what is expected in this situation, but that doesn't much matter. I would know what was alertable and what wasn't, and more importantly I could be confident my opponents would interpret the rule in the same way.

 

[edit: I suppose it would have to be "unless it shows a willingness to play or defend the last contract named", or something, to include the cases where passing it out would leave opponents playing a contract.]

I agree with the sentiment of your post - it is essentially what I have been writing about for much of the thread - but not the solution. It is more complicated than this - for example, when the opps make a forcing call then I can pass with many hands that would not want to play the last contract named. Having a clear non-alertable for passes seems to me to be the right approach though, in the same way that the EBU have attempted to do for doubles. It just is not easy to write a regulation that covers all instances.

[Trinidad]

It just is not easy to write a regulation that covers all instances.

That is my point, except that I would say it is impossible rather than "not easy".

 

The regulators are trying their very best to build something that I believe cannot be built. The result is an extensive construct that is "almost good", but - apart from the fact that it is complicated and hard to apply for the average bridge player - with many small hidden flaws.

 

Once one realizes that it is impossible to construct the perfect regulation, one will accept imperfection (one will have to). Then it is obviously much better to have a simple regulation with one huge, obvious flaw that stares you straight in the face (but that players can handle) than a complex regulation with many small hidden flaws (where players will lose track of what flaw was where).

 

Rik

[Lanor Fow]

The fact that many people on here disagree with you, seems to suggest that it's not 'obviously' much better.

[lamford]

On the other hand, lamford is one of the only ones arguing against my interpretation. It feels more like one of his SB hypothetical posts, where he's deliberately trying to interpret the words literally, but in a way that flies in the face of common sense.

I originally wrote, when the question of potential ambiguity arose:

"As written it is ambiguous and the second version above might not be the correct interpretation." I presented both meanings. I am not arguing that your interpretation is not intended, as it is "outside my knowledge" as they say in court cases. Jallerton believes the intention was for "unexpectedly" to qualify both infinitives and he knows the dramatis personae better than I do.

 

As an aside, someone began another thread on here:

An acquaintance, let's say a friend but we don't get together often, contacted Becky (my wife). She is probably in her 40s and wants to get some math help.

I think that is ambiguous as well, as would be the following sentence:

An acquaintance, let's say a friend but we don't get together often, contacted Becky (my wife) for math help. She teaches the subject at MIT and was delighted to be of assistance.

In both cases, we work out the meaning from the context, and what we are told of the people. It is better however to avoid the ambiguity which can be achieved by an alternative wording.

[barmar]

Your second paragraph shows why it's utterly pointless to consult some external non-bridge authority about this. It is, as you say, grammatically ambiguous. Why do you think that some people on an English-usage website who know nothing about bridge will be better placed than you to disambiguate? You have a far better understanding of the context than they do, and the evidence of their choice of subject for online discussion suggests that you have rather more common sense too.

Because this thread indicates that understanding of the context is not a solution. We all understand the context quite well, yet we can't agree on what was meant.

 

So I thought maybe people with a better understanding of language in general might be able to point out some language-based guidelines for disambiguating it. Or they'd be able to confirm that it's really as ambiguous as it seems, which perhaps could be used to suggest to the EBU that they should clarify it in the next revision. At the very least, they mostly wouldn't have an agenda as a bridge player.