[pilowsky]

Kit Woolsey said:

Any time you do not ask about the meaning of a call when the meaning is not obvious, you are giving partner the information that the meaning does not matter to you -- that you will be taking the same action regardless of the meaning. This is definitely information which partner is not entitled to. This is true regardless of whether the call is defined as "alertable" under the ACBL regulations. No, you would not be asking the meaning of every call. If the meaning is obvious, then you don't need to ask because not asking doesn't give partner such information.

I just looked at pescetom's link to BW and found the quote above.

Does this mean that in relation to any call where I suspect that my partner might consider that my failure to ask about the meaning of a call could be construed to mean that I should lead a card that I might not otherwise have led may result in my partner believing something that he may (or may not depending on vulnerability) have thought?
How much time do I have to make this decision without providing unauthorised information to my partner?
What is the penalty for failing to ask?
How would a Director establish that I failed to ask to convey UI when opponents complain?
Or does this type of problem only arise in certain jurisdictions and at certain tournaments?
When people gather to decide the next tranche of bridge rules will they be reading Kafka while consuming LSD?

[Winstonm]

 pilowsky, on 2021-December-03, 15:22, said:

I just looked at pescetom's link to BW and found the quote above.

Does this mean that in relation to any call where I suspect that my partner might consider that my failure to ask about the meaning of a call could be construed to mean that I should lead a card that I might not otherwise have led may result in my partner believing something that he may (or may not depending on vulnerability) have thought?
How much time do I have to make this decision without providing unauthorised information to my partner?
What is the penalty for failing to ask?
How would a Director establish that I failed to ask to convey UI when opponents complain?
Or does this type of problem only arise in certain jurisdictions and at certain tournaments?
When people gather to decide the next tranche of bridge rules will they be reading Kafka while consuming LSD?

Kafka or LSD otherwise they cancel each other.

[lamford]

 Trinidad, on 2021-December-03, 03:45, said:

The double was not alerted. That certainly doesn't mean that it shows clubs.

It does in England, and Wales. As 2C was artificial I think online one might add "lead-directing" or "clubs" if that is the meaning, but I don't think one is obliged to do so.

[Douglas43]

 lamford, on 2021-December-03, 19:01, said:

It does in England, and Wales. As 2C was artificial I think online one might add "lead-directing" or "clubs" if that is the meaning, but I don't think one is obliged to do so.

Again this may be down to familiarity with EBU regulations, but it seems reasonable to treat this sequence for alerting purposes like a lead-directing double of a cue bid, or of Stayman, or of a transfer.

[mycroft]

Kit, incredible player and teacher though he is, has an attitude to Alerting that is - idiosyncratic, to say the least. To give him credit, he has a lot of company in the upper echelons of bridge, and frankly, has a spiritual adviser in Edgar Kaplan, who was (in)famous for wanting to have the Laws written so that directors could give the "right" ruling (I hope the last bits of Kaplanese are removed in the next lawbook). Kit, and that group, believes very strongly in "do what is correct and most useful for the opponents, no matter what the Laws and Regulations say."

The problem is that it works very very well for Kit in the KOs of the Soloway (the draft chaff in the Swiss he's going to beat even if they are massively unethical and/or have no clue about their rights or responsibilities) and for Kaplan in the Bermuda Bowl. When you're the absolute top of the game, playing the absolute top of the game, everybody knows what's needed, and everybody knows what's good, bad, or "interesting". (although I still remember one post on BW where a player in the top 32 - I think - of one of the big KO events had dummy lead and his LHO put down dummy and open the screen. They "picked up the hand and declarer did his best to play without using any knowledge", with full cooperation from the opponents. And expected to be - and was! - lauded for this "ethical behaviour" (he was also excoriated by several as well).)

But for Bridge as It is Played anywhere except in those hallowed halls, this attitude is totally unworkable. Not only do the less virtuous players "do what is right" in complete violation of everything - and get away with it, frequently - the A players emulate their heroes and "prefer Right over correct" (and they're not good enough to be Right all the time), and the B players learn that that's the way it is (and they're not good enough to be Right more than half the time), and the C players just get snowed even more.

So we have Rules. And they may be stupid. They frequently are, especially if you look at them from the outside. They may be full of holes, and have several "obviously wrong" cases (sorry to pick on the EBU rules, but it's the one that comes to mind: 1♠-p-1NT F1 ART-X is Alertable unless it's for penalty. Nobody plays it as penalty; I bet not everybody Alerts what they do play; nobody is misinformed by the lack of Alert. "Obviously wrong". But better than a whole collection of exceptions.) They may be too complicated for anybody to truly understand (but even then you should be able to understand what *your partnership* needs to Alert) (yes, this is picking on the ACBL rules this time). But it doesn't require the judgement of a Woolsey or a Rosenberg to "get right", and it doesn't require the judgement of a Kojak or a Matt Smith to deal with what happens when it "isn't right" (picking on the WBF rules, which to give them credit, are almost always "top of the top" and with screens. But the A players countries emulate their heroes...

[Cyberyeti]

 mycroft, on 2021-December-03, 22:16, said:

So we have Rules. And they may be stupid. They frequently are, especially if you look at them from the outside. They may be full of holes, and have several "obviously wrong" cases (sorry to pick on the EBU rules, but it's the one that comes to mind: 1♠-p-1NT F1 ART-X is Alertable unless it's for penalty. Nobody plays it as penalty; I bet not everybody Alerts what they do play; nobody is misinformed by the lack of Alert. "Obviously wrong". But better than a whole collection of exceptions.) They may be too complicated for anybody to truly understand (but even then you should be able to understand what *your partnership* needs to Alert) (yes, this is picking on the ACBL rules this time). But it doesn't require the judgement of a Woolsey or a Rosenberg to "get right", and it doesn't require the judgement of a Kojak or a Matt Smith to deal with what happens when it "isn't right" (picking on the WBF rules, which to give them credit, are almost always "top of the top" and with screens. But the A players countries emulate their heroes...

I haven't tried this specific example, but I suspect if you called the director on 1M-P-1N-X (or over a 2N raise of a major) whether 1N's forcing or not and complained about it not being alerted for T/O, you'd be laughed out of court, as in my experience directors tend to rule no damage if it's something nobody plays for unalerted meaning and assume GBK.

[Trinidad]

 lamford, on 2021-December-03, 19:01, said:

 Trinidad, on 2021-December-03, 03:45, said:

The double was not alerted. That certainly doesn't mean that it shows clubs.

It does in England, and Wales. As 2C was artificial I think online one might add "lead-directing" or "clubs" if that is the meaning, but I don't think one is obliged to do so.

You can have the regulations that you like in England and Wales. As you may have guessed, I am not a fan of them, but that shouldn't bother anybody: When I'm in London, I will do as the Londoners and I will follow the English regulations without questioning them.

But we are not in London, or Cardiff. We are on the BBO forums, a forum for a company based in France, with its roots in North America.

Given that, why are you posing a bridge problem on the BBO forums where for the crucial clue (the meaning of the non-alert of the double) you assume that everyone will automatically understand that English/Welsh regulations are used?

There is the famous story about a visit of the English queen to Denmark: At an elevator, the text next to one of the buttons was blocked off to prevent the British monarch from seeing it. This text was "fart op" (which means "ride up"). I am sure that Her Majesty would not have broken wind if she would have seen the original text. She would have realized that she was not in London, but in Denmark.

Rik

[lamford]

 Trinidad, on 2021-December-04, 10:03, said:

Given that, why are you posing a bridge problem on the BBO forums where for the crucial clue (the meaning of the non-alert of the double) you assume that everyone will automatically understand that English/Welsh regulations are used?
Rik

I agree that it would be better to explain the double and have done so now.

[pescetom]

 Trinidad, on 2021-December-04, 10:03, said:

There is the famous story about a visit of the English queen to Denmark: At an elevator, the text next to one of the buttons was blocked off to prevent the British monarch from seeing it. This text was "fart op" (which means "ride up"). I am sure that Her Majesty would not have broken wind if she would have seen the original text. She would have realized that she was not in London, but in Denmark.

About the same time, Rolls Royce abruptly renamed a model "Silver Shadow": sure she would have understood and would not be surprised if she suggested it

[nige1]

A simple and sensible rule would be that you announce the meaning of a call before making it. (a card or tablet that displays likely meanings would facilitate such disclosure). This is similar to the on-line disclosure rule. This would enhance disclosure and eliminate tons of controversial local regulations.