EBU - unexpected meaning

[Vampyr]

Which IMHO calls for alerts (subject to other regulations) to be compulsory on any call defined in the laws as "Artificial" (see "Definitions").

 

Not entirely, eg takeout doubles as mentioned above.

[nige1]

Announcements might be better but simplicity should be paramount. What's the harm in insisting that T/O doubles and Stayman be alertable? The trend, however, is towards more complex and incomprehensible Bridge rules.

The harm is that when Stayman was alertable people didn't bother to ask about an alerted 2♣, because it was virtually always Stayman. This caused a problem on the rare occasions it was actually Keri.

That is why an announcement (perhaps by pointing to the meaning on a card) might be better.

If you play regularly in any area, it's hard to avoid learning what is normal there, and therefore what aspects of your system are significantly different. So "unexpected" is generally only a problem for the occasional visitor from afar -- most players have no problem knowing what it includes.

Disclosure rules should cater for experienced local players but should also protect beginners, strangers, and foreigners. As barmar points out, the latter might understand the concept of "artificiality" but are likely to be unfamiliar with local "expectations".

[akwoo]

1) Generally speaking, beginners don't care what their opponents' bids mean, because they aren't able to process the information and act on it.

 

2) Beginners are bad at answering questions about their bids, because they can't imagine what information opponents would be interested in. Also, they tend to have very nebulous agreements that are impossible to disclose. (I have certainly played with partners whose 1N openings would best be described as "somewhere between 14 and 24 hcp, usually no singleton but sometimes a singleton A or K at the higher end of that range, stopper in every suit, if they haven't forgotten the 1N opening is available and open 1 of a suit instead")

 

3) Beginners have a hard enough time following suit and counting to 13 that it is just cruel to make them remember additional rules that they have to follow.

 

Therefore, the ideal disclosure system is the one that beginners can simply ignore the existence of.

 

Making standard artificial bids (such as Stayman) alertable or announceable violates this principle. Actually, I think these days in the ACBL, any strong NT range and transfers shouldn't be announceable, but in the absence of an announcement either way on a possible transfer, a question should be presumed not to generate UI. This is already de facto standard practice in many clubs. (I can't imagine the difference between 14-16 and 16-18 making much of a difference in the bidding, though I automatically ask before the opening lead if the NT bidder is declarer.)

[helene_t]

If you play regularly in any area, it's hard to avoid learning what is normal there, and therefore what aspects of your system are significantly different. So "unexpected" is generally only a problem for the occasional visitor from afar -- most players have no problem knowing what it includes.

I have to disagree with this. Opps will not expect unalerted calls to have the most common meaning. They will expect it to have the meaning that is most common among the subset of local pairs who don't alert that specific call. So you need to know the alert rules. And preferably you also know which aspects of the alert rules are frequently misunderstood.

[barmar]

I have to disagree with this. Opps will not expect unalerted calls to have the most common meaning. They will expect it to have the meaning that is most common among the subset of local pairs who don't alert that specific call. So you need to know the alert rules.

The alert rules are generally based on what the common meanings are, so that's usually close to the same thing. And of course, when the alert rules specifically say "alert unexpected meanings", they're defined to be the equivalent.

[fromageGB]

The alert rules are generally based on what the common meanings are, so that's usually close to the same thing. And of course, when the alert rules specifically say "alert unexpected meanings", they're defined to be the equivalent.

But it is the expression "unexpected meanings (or strength)" that causes the problem. Partner makes a natural jump shift - I alert because I don't know what strength my particular opponents expect from that. Is partner's unexpected or not? Partner makes a natural 2♣ bid after my 1NT rebid. I alert this because I don't know whether my opponents expect it to be artificial. The whole idea of "unexpected" is crazy.

[barmar]

But it is the expression "unexpected meanings (or strength)" that causes the problem. Partner makes a natural jump shift - I alert because I don't know what strength my particular opponents expect from that. Is partner's unexpected or not? Partner makes a natural 2♣ bid after my 1NT rebid. I alert this because I don't know whether my opponents expect it to be artificial. The whole idea of "unexpected" is crazy.

No it isn't. Unless you're a foreigner, you know what's normal in your jurisdiction, and what's normal is expected. Stayman is practically universal, everyone knows it's normal, and a natural 2♣ response to 1NT is about as unexpected as things get.

 

Like I said earlier, you're not expected to know what your particular opponents expect. The alert regulations are based on typical players, not specific players. Alert regulations that catered to beginners, foreigners, and experienced local players, giving each of them just what they needed, would be too complicated to be workable.

 

Like many things in life, it's a compromise, not a perfect system. We want to balance the useful information provided to opponents with the bother of having to alert too frequently. As EBU discovered, alerting Stayman was counter-productive -- hardly anyone ever asked, so in the rare case that someone was playing non-Stayman, the opponents didn't realize they should ask.

[pran]

No it isn't. Unless you're a foreigner, you know what's normal in your jurisdiction, and what's normal is expected. Stayman is practically universal, everyone knows it's normal, and a natural 2♣ response to 1NT is about as unexpected as things get.

 

Like I said earlier, you're not expected to know what your particular opponents expect. The alert regulations are based on typical players, not specific players. Alert regulations that catered to beginners, foreigners, and experienced local players, giving each of them just what they needed, would be too complicated to be workable.

 

Like many things in life, it's a compromise, not a perfect system. We want to balance the useful information provided to opponents with the bother of having to alert too frequently. As EBU discovered, alerting Stayman was counter-productive -- hardly anyone ever asked, so in the rare case that someone was playing non-Stayman, the opponents didn't realize they should ask.

I wonder:

Do you vary your alert routines when you meet an opponent whom you do not know?

You are aware I presume that "Stayman" is not a single universal convention but includes several different variants, so what is expected by one opponent can be completely unexpected by another?

 

The alert regulations are there for one single purpose: To protect your opponents from agreements which to them may appear as a concealed partnership understanding, and it is for this purpose completely immaterial whether your opponents in a particular situation are "typical" or "particulars".

 

So indeed: Unless you know your opponents in a particular situation well enough to be sure of their expectations the whole idea of "unexpected" is crazy.

[Vampyr]

I wonder:

Do you vary your alert routines when you meet an opponent whom you do not know?

You are aware I presume that "Stayman" is not a single universal convention but includes several different variants, so what is expected by one opponent can be completely unexpected by another?

 

In the EBU any 2♣ response which asks partner to rebid 4-card majors is announced. Any other variant would be alerts.

The alert regulations are there for one single purpose: To protect your opponents from agreements which to them may appear as a concealed partnership understanding, and it is for this purpose completely immaterial whether your opponents in a particular situation are "typical" or "particulars".

 

I am not sure what you are trying to say. Alert regulations are there to let the opponents know what is going on,

 

So indeed: Unless you know your opponents in a particular situation well enough to be sure of their expectations the whole idea of "unexpected" is crazy.

 

Not a problem in real life. People who have decided to,play weak jump shifts or negative free bids have made a conscious decision to do that. Sure, there might be people who learned to play that way and don't know that it is non-standard; but they will be in a tiny minority, and the regulations are made instead for the vast majority.

[aguahombre]

Not a problem in real life. People who have decided to,play weak jump shifts or negative free bids have made a conscious decision to do that. Sure, there might be people who learned to play that way and don't know that it is non-standard; but they will be in a tiny minority, and the regulations are made instead for the vast majority.

It is precisely a problem in real life that the regulations are made for the alleged majority and we expect the minority to know they are a minority in the region or level they are participating.

 

You can say it is not a problem; Barry can say it isn't a problem. But, it is a problem. "Expected" is a problem.

[barmar]

I wonder:

Do you vary your alert routines when you meet an opponent whom you do not know?

Of course not. I alert what the alert regulations say I should alert. And nothing in the alert regulations makes mention of the specific opponents.

 

From the ACBL Alert Procedures:

This procedure uses the admittedly “fuzzy” terminology of “highly unusual and unexpected” as the best practical solution to simplifying the Alert Procedure. “Highly unusual and unexpected” should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage.

It doesn't say anything about determining it with respect to the specific opponents, it's talking about the more general bridge community. It also quotes the Laws:

A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization.

It says "an opposing pair", not "the opposing pair". So again, it's not specific to these opponents, but opponents in general. But it also doesn't say "every opposing pair", so we don't have to cater to the lowest common denominator (imagine playing against someone who has never played before -- practically every bid would have an unexpected meaning, but we don't require alerting everything).

[Vampyr]

It is precisely a problem in real life that the regulations are made for the alleged majority and we expect the minority to know they are a minority in the region or level they are participating.

 

You can say it is not a problem; Barry can say it isn't a problem. But, it is a problem. "Expected" is a problem.

 

You think it is a problem and so do one or two others, but no one has come up with a single real-life example where this alleged problem occurred. Normally what happens is that this pair, who have been cocooned in cotton wool and have no idea how others around them bid, are told by opponents or the director early on that their bid is alertable.

[helene_t]

The alert rules are generally based on what the common meanings are

This is a very strong assumption. I suppose it may be true in some parts of the World.

And of course, when the alert rules specifically say "alert unexpected meanings", they're defined to be the equivalent.

But this is circular logic. In Germany, almost nobody plays strong twos, but the non-alertable meaning of a two-opening is "strong", so therefore the expected meaning of a non-alerted two-opening is "strong".

 

2/1 GF has about the same frequency in the Netherlands as in England but because it is alerted in England but not in the Netherlands, the expected meaning of a non-alerted 2/1 bid is "natural, forcing for only one round" in England, but "Natural, forcing for at least one round" in the Netherlands.

[Trinidad]

2/1 GF has about the same frequency in the Netherlands as in England but because it is alerted in England but not in the Netherlands, the expected meaning of a non-alerted 2/1 bid is "natural, forcing for only one round" in England, but "Natural, forcing for at least one round" in the Netherlands.

This has little to do with what is "expected" and what is not. The Dutch alert regulation specifically makes strength or the forcing or non forcing character of a bid "generally non-alertable" (whatever that means). Inverted minors are not alertable (and neither are "standard" minor raises), weak jump raises are not alertable (and neither are invitational or forcing jump raises), etc... So, the difference between "forcing for one round", "forcing to 2NT", and "forcing to game" is really not an issue for an alert in the Netherlands.

 

Rik

[fromageGB]

This is a very strong assumption.

I'm not sure whether I should alert that. How strong would opponents expect the assumption to be? In fact is your assumption itself unexpected?

[barmar]

This is a very strong assumption. I suppose it may be true in some parts of the World.

 

But this is circular logic. In Germany, almost nobody plays strong twos, but the non-alertable meaning of a two-opening is "strong", so therefore the expected meaning of a non-alerted two-opening is "strong".

Well, I'd like to politely suggest that Germany's alerting rules are poorly designed if they make the most common meaning alertable. Although I suppose it works in practice, since unexpected silence can act like an alert.

 

EBU used to have alerting rules like this, too, since their simple rule was "If it's artificial, alert it." They wised up, adding announcements and changing Stayman from alertable to announceable, so that an alert of 1NT-2♣ really warned the opponents that something they need to ask about was going on.

[jeffford76]

I can't imagine the difference between 14-16 and 16-18 making much of a difference in the bidding, though I automatically ask before the opening lead if the NT bidder is declarer.

 

Maybe you can't, but I play different defenses against these ranges. I am happy all ranges are announced.

[akwoo]

Maybe you can't, but I play different defenses against these ranges. I am happy all ranges are announced.

 

Interesting - many people play 2 NT defenses, but I wouldn't have expected the cutoff to be between 14-16 and 16-18.

[jeffford76]

Interesting - many people play 2 NT defenses, but I wouldn't have expected the cutoff to be between 14-16 and 16-18.

 

Been around too many conversations that started "You have a reasonable 13 count so you open a 14-16 NT" to not treat it as weak.