EBU - unexpected meaning

[TMorris]

In the auction

 

1♣ (1♠) 3♣

 

Where 3♣ is a weakish raise do you alert the 3 ♣ bid?

 

In particular does your answer change if it is bid at a club compared to at a tournement (where it is rather less unexpected one might feel).

[helene_t]

No, 3♣ as weak is an expected meaning. You might have local regulation that says that all weak single-jumps should be alerted (or some such), but according to EBU regulations this doesn't require an alert.

[pran]

In the auction

 

1♣ (1♠) 3♣

 

Where 3♣ is a weakish raise do you alert the 3 ♣ bid?

 

FWIW - In Norway clearly yes unless the call has already been declared as forcing, limit raise or pre-emptive. (respectively!)

 

We must alert: "Natural calls where there can be reasonable doubt about the demand-level".

[StevenG]

In the auction

 

1♣ (1♠) 3♣

 

Where 3♣ is a weakish raise do you alert the 3 ♣ bid?

 

In particular does your answer change if it is bid at a club compared to at a tournement (where it is rather less unexpected one might feel).

It used to be the case that

1♣ (pass) 3♣ was alertable

1♣ (1♠) 3♣ was alertable

1♣ (x) 3♣ was not alertable

if 3♣ was weak.

 

Has that changed?

[helene_t]

It used to be the case that

1♣ (pass) 3♣ was alertable

1♣ (1♠) 3♣ was alertable

1♣ (x) 3♣ was not alertable

if 3♣ was weak.

 

Has that changed?

I think so. BB 4 H mentions only a preemptive raise to the 3-level if next hand passes.

[campboy]

It used to be the case that

1♣ (pass) 3♣ was alertable

1♣ (1♠) 3♣ was alertable

1♣ (x) 3♣ was not alertable

if 3♣ was weak.

 

Has that changed?

Yes, that's true, and yes, it's changed. 1♣ (1♠) 3♣ weak used to be non-alertable, then changed to being alertable with the 2006 Orange Book, then back to non-alertable when the Blue Book came in (2013 I think). The other two haven't changed in at least 20 years.

[Vampyr]

Is 3♣ alert able if it is invitational?

[VixTD]

Is 3♣ alert able if it is invitational?

No, that's not unexpected either.

[TMorris]

Thanks for the replies. I would say that at my club "weak" in the situation given is unexpected for a number of players. I doubt at club level that this is uncommon.

[helene_t]

at my club, "undiscussed" is the only expected meaning :)

[gordontd]

Thanks for the replies. I would say that at my club "weak" in the situation given is unexpected for a number of players. I doubt at club level that this is uncommon.

What would they play 1♣ (1♠) 2♠ as showing?

[StevenG]

What would they play 1♣ (1♠) 2♠ as showing?

None of the ordinary club players in my clubs ever play that sequence and few, if any, would have any clue what it meant.

[barmar]

It's always fun to see the light bulb go on over their head when you teach a new player the value of cue bids to show good raises in competitive auctions.

[Vampyr]

No, that's not unexpected either.

 

This violates the sensible principle of "at most one unalerted meaning" and creates a situation where you have to ask every time you need to know. Or every time the auction comes up, if you want to avoid the transmission of UI. I think that this was a backwards step.

[TMorris]

What would they play 1♣ (1♠) 2♠ as showing?

 

I agree with Steven, many just don't use that sequence.

[aguahombre]

It's always fun to see the light bulb go on over their head when you teach a new player the value of cue bids to show good raises in competitive auctions.

Yes, but the light bulb doesn't stay lit; most club players stay "new" forever.

[jallerton]

It used to be the case that

1♣ (pass) 3♣ was alertable

1♣ (1♠) 3♣ was alertable

1♣ (x) 3♣ was not alertable

if 3♣ was weak.

 

Has that changed?

 

 

Yes, that's true, and yes, it's changed. 1♣ (1♠) 3♣ weak used to be non-alertable, then changed to being alertable with the 2006 Orange Book, then back to non-alertable when the Blue Book came in (2013 I think). The other two haven't changed in at least 20 years.

 

You are probably too young to know, but the 1998 Orange Book was itself a change. Before 1998 a pre-emptive raise was explicitly defined as alertable. The reason why it reverted to alertable in 2006, according to the then Editor of the Orange Book, was because so many people had told him that pre-emptive was an unusual meaning and that the L&E concluded that they had got it wrong in 1998.

 

I'm not so sure you are right about the current position.

 

The Blue Book 2013/2015 section 4H (Specific Cases) starts: "The following are interpretations and examples of the above directives.". Note the word "examples".

 

Then in 4H2

 

Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert:

<snip>

c)Responses to a non-forcing opening bid of one of a suit:

(1)If the next hand doubles, a pass that could have 10+ HCP or other defined characteristics

(2)If the next hand passes,a pre-emptive raise to three

 

So yes, we know that 1♣[non-forcing]-Pass-3♣ is alertable if pre-emptive but, unlike the 1998 Orange Book, the Blue Book makes no specific comment about the sequence 1♣-(1♠)-3♣.

 

As this sequence is not included in the list of examples it would seem that we should revert to the basic alerting rule in 4B1. Is pre-emptive a "potentially unexpected meaning"? For many players, I think the answer is yes [the posts of StevenG and TMorris confirm this] . For this reason I continue to alert a pre-emptive call in this situation.

[jallerton]

What would they play 1♣ (1♠) 2♠ as showing?

 

The longest book I have read on competitive bidding is Acol in Competition, written by Eric Crowhurst in the 1980s. That states that a cue bid of the opponents' suit in this situation is a general game force, best reserved for three situations:

 

(i) a balanced game force with no suit worthy of mention

(ii) when the overcall has deprived you of your normal response

(iii) when you have a fit for opener's suit and control of the enemy suit.

 

I think that "general game force" is the traditional Acol meaning. Certainly if I were playing in a simple systems event, I would assume Responder's jump raise after an overcall to be a limit raise.

[campboy]

So yes, we know that 1♣[non-forcing]-Pass-3♣ is alertable if pre-emptive but, unlike the 1998 Orange Book, the Blue Book makes no specific comment about the sequence 1♣-(1♠)-3♣.

 

As this sequence is not included in the list of examples it would seem that we should revert to the basic alerting rule in 4B1. Is pre-emptive a "potentially unexpected meaning"? For many players, I think the answer is yes [the posts of StevenG and TMorris confirm this] . For this reason I continue to alert a pre-emptive call in this situation.

Without any context, this would make sense. But the context is that the regulation has recently been changed from "after the next hand bids or passes..." to "after the next hand passes...", so someone must have thought about it and decided those two words shouldn't be there.

[jallerton]

Are you really suggesting that readers of the Blue Book are obliged to read its predecessor publication before they can fully understand what the Blue Book means?

 

Maybe it would help to understand the more general context of the Blue Book. Somebody high up in the EBU was of the opinion that the Orange Book (72 pages in 2006) was too long; the complilers of the Blue Book were asked to fit everything in 32 pages. Whilst some whole sections were removed, words had to be cut in all sorts of places. The section on specfic cases of what should or should not be alerted has been cut by a page, even though the basic principle (alert calls with potentally unexpected meanings and those which are not natural) has not significantly changed. The Blue Book was intended to be a more succinct document so we should not be surprised to discover that the examples do not cover every situation.

[campboy]

I know there was an attempt to shorten the Orange Book, and certainly in the past I have assumed that where an example was removed, that did not necessarily mean that it no longer applied (though in at least one case -- IIRC something to do with Walsh -- I have been told by Frances that I was wrong, and the reason it was removed was to change what was alertable).

 

However, where an example has not been removed, but has been modified in a way that doesn't save any space (look at the BB -- it would easily fit onto one line either way), I can only conclude that the regulation has been changed in an attempt to, well, change the regulation.

[fromageGB]

Isn't it about time we abandoned "unexpected meanings" and had simple, understandable regulations? I quite often seem to fall foul of this one. Announcements solve the problem of UI, and seem to be the way forward. Let partner say "natural/support - weak/invitational/GF" or whatever.

[Vampyr]

Isn't it about time we abandoned "unexpected meanings" and had simple, understandable regulations?

 

It's not so easy. Simple regulations will inevitably result in lots of cases where the most common meaning is alerted. There needs to be a sort of balance between understandable regulations and an efficient, informative alert system.

 

I quite often seem to fall foul of this one.

 

Probably the main reason the Orange Book was transformed into the shorter Blue Book is so that people would actually read it.

 

Announcements solve the problem of UI, and seem to be the way forward. Let partner say "natural/support - weak/invitational/GF" or whatever.

I do not think that the world is ready for all the UI that would be created by wholesale announcements.

[TMorris]

I think I am as confused at the end of this thread as I was at the beginning.

[jallerton]

I know there was an attempt to shorten the Orange Book, and certainly in the past I have assumed that where an example was removed, that did not necessarily mean that it no longer applied (though in at least one case -- IIRC something to do with Walsh -- I have been told by Frances that I was wrong, and the reason it was removed was to change what was alertable).

 

However, where an example has not been removed, but has been modified in a way that doesn't save any space (look at the BB -- it would easily fit onto one line either way), I can only conclude that the regulation has been changed in an attempt to, well, change the regulation.

 

Your negative inference conclusion is one possibility. But one could equally argue that in the same space there was room to state that the requirement to alert did not apply after an overcall, and draw the opposite negative inference from that.

 

Or maybe the failure to include this sequence in the examples was deliberate. After all this pre-emptive meaning is arguably "potentially unexpected" at many clubs, but not "potentially unexpected" in the final of a national tournament. This brings us back to one of the questions in the opening post which has not yet been answered: should our decision whether to alert depend on the opponents?