[Liversidge]

What is GBK?

[helene_t]

Liversidge, on 2015-May-27, 03:08, said:

What is GBK?

General Bridge Knowledge.

The idea is that you don't have to explain to the opponents that a double on 7NT is penalty and that a fourth seat preempt won't be very weak because those things are GBK rather than partnership-specific agreements.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-26, 23:03, said:

I hope you agree with me that it is important that a regulation is understood by the players that need to abide by it.

Helene is one of the players in the EBU. She is not one of the dumbest (mild understatement ) and clearly has some interest in rules and regularions. Now, if she doesn't understand a regulation, that you think is so simple, then what will happen to those bridge players that are dumber than Helene (the vast majority of the EBU players) or have less interest in the rules?

They won't understand the regulation either. That means that the regulation may be simple (at least in your view), but it simply isn't simple enough.

Rik

Helene had thought that the regulation was "when in doubt, don't alert". The actual regulation is "when in doubt alert". Surely it has to be one or the other! And it escapes me why you think that one is more difficult to understand than the other.

Being misinformed is not at all the same as not understanding.

[helene_t]

Well I didn't think it was "when in doubt, don't alert". I is just that if it is a situation that isn't covered by any agreements, implicitly or otherwise, I wouldn't be sure if I had to alert or not. This is different from "we might have an agreement but I am not sure".

Anyway, I understand now, I think. Thanks.

I don't think it is easy to get alert regulations to sink down to ordinary club players, regardless of what they say. Last friday I played in Amsterdam, my p (who is a Dutch tournament director) alerted my lead-directing double on a transfer. I asked why. Then he thought for a while and said "yeah I suppose you are right, I shouldn't alert this". This could happen everywhere in the World. Maybe slightly less likely in Germany where no doubles whatsoever are alertable, but you never know.

We could simplify things by getting rid of alerts but that is ridicolous. Mostly it works ok. It might cause less issues in Yorkshire than in Amsterdam but that is not (mainly) because of the regulations but just because Yorkshire people are more easy-going and play fewer conventions.

At the end of the day there isn't much difference between Dutch and EBU alert regulations. Both essentially say that you have to alert artificial and/or potentially unexpected meanings. Then the EBU gives more examples of what "unexpected means", and some of those are different. Negative freebids are unexpected in EBU but not in NBB, Walsh is the opposite. And EBU has anouncements.

The fundamental difference is wrt doubles. Suppose it goes 1NT-(2♠)-X.
NBB, no alert: Probably not explictily agreed as "stolen bid" but other than that I would draw no inference.
EBU, no alert: Probably not explictily agreed as "stolen bid" but other than that I would draw no inference unless I know the players to be familiar with the regulation in which case I would know that it is takeout.
NBB, alert: No inference.
EBU, alert: No inference exept that if I know the players to be familiar with the regulation it is probably not generic takeout.

[Cyberyeti]

To Campboy - The auction goes 2♦ (multi)-P-P-X where the second pass is a diamond stack with the multier never intending to play diamonds, is this different to the example I gave earlier ? If so then the law's an ass.

[VixTD]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-May-27, 06:52, said:

To Campboy - The auction goes 2♦ (multi)-P-P-X where the second pass is a diamond stack with the multier never intending to play diamonds, is this different to the example I gave earlier ? If so then the law's an ass.

The same principle applies: the double should not be alerted if it is a takeout of diamonds, because the 2♦ bid has been followed by two passes. You can think of this as the partnership (rather than the 2♦ bidder) showing willingness to play in diamonds if you like, and you may think it asinine, but I find it more sensible than the earlier example of 2♦ (multi) - P - 2♠ - X where neither member of the partnership has shown any inclination to play in spades.

I can understand that the EBU might have thought that players would find this easier ("don't alert takeout doubles of suit bids where there is a reasonable possibility that it will end up as their trump suit"). I'm not saying I agree with them.

[Cyberyeti]

VixTD, on 2015-May-27, 07:09, said:

The same principle applies: the double should not be alerted if it is a takeout of diamonds, because the 2♦ bid has been followed by two passes. You can think of this as the partnership (rather than the 2♦ bidder) showing willingness to play in diamonds if you like, and you may think it asinine, but I find it more sensible than the earlier example of 2♦ (multi) - P - 2♠ - X where neither member of the partnership has shown any inclination to play in spades.

I can understand that the EBU might have thought that players would find this easier ("don't alert takeout doubles of suit bids where there is a reasonable possibility that it will end up as their trump suit"). I'm not saying I agree with them.

It gets silly when the chance of it being natural or a wish to play is quite small.

Eg we met a pair that played 1N-X-XX as 6 or so meanings one of which was clubs, but various 2/3 suiters without clubs were also involved and used redoubles on the way while being prepared to dial 50s and play in a non fit, partner's 2♣ was more a relay and the pass of it didn't show clubs if it wasn't doubled.

[helene_t]

I don't think this matters. Whatever the regulation may say, if opps play some nf relay to an obscure megamulticonvention and you fail to alert partner's double, they aren't going to get an adjusted score in their favour anyway.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-26, 12:26, said:

The question is not about what would be a logical meaning. It is about what would be the non-alertable meaning.

The auction goes: 1♥-Pass-2NT (Jacoby)-Dbl

The alert regulation says that double is non-alertable if it is penalty. We are doubling 2NT, we are not doubling some heart contract.

It says it's non-alertable if it's penalty. It doesn't say what it's penalty of, though. In the case of an artificial NT bid, why would you interpret that to mean penalty of a NT contract?

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2015-May-27, 14:37, said:

It says it's non-alertable if it's penalty. It doesn't say what it's penalty of, though. In the case of an artificial NT bid, why would you interpret that to mean penalty of a NT contract?

Because that is the bid that has been doubled and it is the contract that we will play if the double would be passed out (which is the main characteristic of a penalty double: "partner, please pass").

You cannot force the opponents to play 4♥X by doubling 2NT.

Rik