Blue Book and White Book changes
https://www.ebu.co.uk/article/updates-blue-and-white-books-2022
Blue Book changes include changes to announcements and to strong openings
The new Blue Book and White Book contain regulations/etc. currently in the Sky-Blue Book. The Sky-Blue Book will gracefully retire in September 2022.
Comments
Quick note about the Multi 2 Diamonds
You define a strong hand (one of the options) as showing 13 points in two suits of total length 10+. (5d1b) - I assume you mean 13+ not exactly 13
BUT for the multi the strength required is 16 HCP. I can imagine hands where 2D might be used
AKJ9876
AK98
54
where it could be argued that this is an Acol 2 hand
Also just to check 7C3 (bids from 2C to 3S inclusive)
(1) In all cases players should explain their method by at least stating:
• HCP range or equivalent expression of hand strength
• Minimum length of longest suit(s)
• Forcing or not
(2) Subject to any changes in the Announcement regulations, apart from natural single-suiters and a strong balanced 2NT, which are announced, all other openings above the 1 level are alertable
(3) It is the responsibility of
That would seem to imply that if a player opens 3 Hearts (for example), partner must announce something like "7-10 points, at least 6 hearts, not forcing"
(And the 'strong balanced 2NT' isn't announced in the Announcement regulations but is here!)
Correct?
I think the new announcing rules for transfer responses to a short Club risk the general acceptance of announcing in clubs because they clutter and confuse the rules for the 90% of players who have never heard of transfer responses to a short club.
Here is what I put in an email to Robin "The announcing regulations are not just for tournaments but for everyday club play. They have in general been accepted and most players implement them because they are simple to understand. We are putting that acceptance by club players in jeopardy by introducing announcements of transfer responses to 1 Club. I think less than 0.5% of EBU members play them and 90+% do not even know they exist. When we try to write out in chart form these new regulations, the announcing of transfer responses to 1 Club will take up 25% of the space. Most members will not understand them and may switch off from the whole announcement scheme. Tournament players can protect themselves, as I do, by asking those playing short club if they play transfer responses to 1 Club.
I think the announcements of transfer responses to 1 Club should be removed but if it is too late to get them removed from the Blue Book then at least leave them out of the announcing rules presented to members and have a footnote which says, "If you play a short club with transfer responses there are additional announcing requirements which can be found by clicking this link".
I think it is more important to cater for the 95+% of members who do not play in tournaments rather than a small fraction of those who do. Also I fail to see what the opponents gain from an announcement rather than alert."
I would be interested if others share my view or if transfer responses to a short club are more common than they seem to me.
An announcement that rarely happens generally isn't a burden on people. For example, when was the last time you heard a "strong not forcing" announcement of an opening 2-level bid? I also don't think low-level club players will have much issue understanding an announcement of a transfer over 1!c, which isn't conceptually very different from a transfer over 1NT or 2NT (except that often it only shows four cards) – the form of the announcement is the same.
The benefit from announcements is typically in preventing unauthorised information arising from questions about alerts, by reducing the chance that the question would need to be asked (e.g. without a Stayman announcement, players would need to ask every time after 1NT, 2!c alert, just in case their opponents were playing something other than Stayman, but would often get out of the habit with weak hands and this might give information away to their partners). So what the announcement is actually doing is protecting the opponents from being put into situations where they have ethical UI-related obligations. (In your case, it'll no longer be required to ask every time after a 1!c, 1!d sequence – if it shows hearts rather than diamonds, you'll hear an announcement about that, so you can safely assume diamonds and get redress if the opponents actually have hearts. This protects you from gaining unauthorised information from the way in which the question is asked, reducing your options in the bidding.)
I am aware of the arguments for announcements over alerts in common situations such as stayman and red suit transfers over 1NT where an alert now means that it is something different to that which would be announced. However in most clubs if someone announced 'hearts' when partner responded 1 Diamond that is likely to lead to more questions than an alert.
I help run a 9-High event in Kent (and 9-High includes the majority of EBU members) and no one there plays short club let alone transfer responses. A large proportion of our members will never come across someone playing short club and only a tiny minority will come across anyone playing transfer responses to it.
Most players understand the current alerting arrangements and abide by them. If you look at the variations of transfer responses to short club which have to be announced setting them out for players will take up at least 25% of the space explaining all announcing rules. Players' eyes will glaze over when they see all this stuff about announcing calls they do not understand and make it less likely that they will pay attention to the rules relating to the everyday situations they do understand. Announcing should be confined to bids which the majority of players will make in order that they are generally understood and accepted.
7C1 looks interesting.
Alan
Even the transfers over 1NT : 2S = Clubs, 2N = Diamonds are far less popular than the Jacoby (Red Suit) Transfers. Many? pairs play 2S as 11 points (or a minor) and 2NT as 12 points at club level
I disagree. In practice, hardly anyone alerts the final double in sequences like (1NT), X penalty, (2!s=!s+!c), P; (3!c), X penalty. Most players would be astonished to learn that it's alertable, because they consider the meaning to be so obvious, and even players who conceptually know that it's alertable tend to forget at the table. (I've even forgotten to alert this sort of double once myself, despite being a stickler for this part of the alerting rules – alerting an entirely natural call in the middle of a competitive auction is something that people simply tend not to think of.)
"Announce transfer responses to 1NT, 2NT and 1!c openings" doesn't take up that much more space than "Announce transfer responses to 1NT and 2NT openings". You might want the clarification "as long as the transfer shows only the suit transferred to and contains no other hand types" but that principally applies in the notrump case, not the club case. This isn't a 100% accurate definition of the announcing rules, but anyone playing a system for which the difference matters has probably read the entire Blue Book anyway, in order to check whether it's legal or not.
The extra word in the explanation is probably preferable to the players in your club, who have never heard of transfer responses to 1!c openings, asking why you keep asking them what 1!c, 1!d means – the fact that they don't announce it means that you don't need to ask the question any more. (I've observed that new players often struggle to answer questions about unalerted natural calls; they can't figure out whether you're asking because the call is something that many people use artificially, thus the answer you want is "natural", or whether you're interested in the range/length/forcingness, so the answer often takes a while to arrive and is frequently useless.)
Even if you write the rules out in full, 25% seems too much. There are announcements for two-of-a-suit openings (probably about four short lines of explanation), 1NT (2-3 lines – range announcements are easy to explain but some 1NT agreements need more complex announcements), responses generally associated with the 2/1 system (2 lines), short minor openings (1 line), and transfers (4 cases for 2NT, 4 cases for 1NT, 2 cases for 1!c). So it's more like 10% than 25%.
As I read it:
You can play a bid as being strong only.
You can play a bid as being natural only: which means you could play it as e.g. 2 Hearts shows 6 hearts or 5 hearts and a four card minor. These hands could be strong.
You can play a bid as being Non-natural: which means it must not show the suit bid UNLESS it also specifies the short suit. (Which in effect shows two other suits although one could be only three cards.) This merges the old 7C2 except the short suit must now be specified. These hands could be strong.
(Previously the short suit need not be specified)
OR
You can play a bid as being strong OR Natural:
OR
You can play a bid as being strong OR Non-Natural.
Examples of most common 2-level bids.
Weak 2s: Natural provided you guarantee at least 5 cards in the suit. You cannot guarantee only 4.
Lucas: Natural provided it guarantees 5 cards in the suit bid: (unless the second suit is named)
Acol 2 bids (not clubs): Natural - must explain if they need not be strong.
Acol 2 Clubs: Strong.hand
Benji 2 clubs: As before comes under two sections (a) and (c)
(a): Strong hand (22-23 balanced, or other combinations) OR
(b): Strong hand: 8 playing tricks in Clubs.
(b): Non-natural: 8 playing tricks in an unspecified suit that is not clubs.
(c): Non-natural: Weak hand with diamonds (if this is played).
Roman 2 Diamonds: Must be strong as the singleton is unspecified. Which means 16+ points.
Multi 2 Diamonds: (Usual options)
a) Non-Natural: Weak 2 in either major
b) Strong hand: 23+ balanced
c) Strong hand: Single suited Diamonds hand
d) Non-natural: 8 playing tricks in an unspecified suit that is not diamonds.
e) Strong: Unspecified 3-suited hand with 16+ points.
2NT
It was possible to use 2NT as a weak/ strong pre-empt in any suit. Now you are limited to only two denominations.
I Applaud the simplification in the text!
@ais253 I agree many people do not follow the alerting rules for doubles because they do not understand them. We have made them as simple as possible. It is certainly better than not alerting any doubles when nobody has the faintest idea what is going on. I meant to say people understand the announcing rules. We should not be adding to them things which the majority of players will not have come across. Most of our members have never encountered 4-suit transfers I think adding them is a mistake but at least it is an extension of a concept with which they are familiar.
If you look at the existing EBU alerting and announcing chart at https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/convention-cards/announcements-table.pdf you will see that the existing Stayman and Red Suit transfers take up almost 25% of the chart. Transfer responses to shart club with 4 responses with varients will take up even more. Has anyone tried designing a chart for the new proposals?
For ordinary club players the new chart and new announcing rules will be totally confusing and there will likely be less compliance. It will just give ammunition to those who say that the EBU is just interested in tournament players and does not design its rules for the vast majority of members. Tournament players are now an even smaller minority of our membership. We should be designing our rules for what happens every day in clubs not increasingly few times a year in tournaments.
I know most of the people who post here are Aces, Kings, Queens and Jacks but surely you have contact with the majority of our members who are NGS 9 and below. I would be interested in how others think 9-High players will react
I'm puzzled by why anyone would be put off by aspects of regulations that apply to things they never encounter.
Well the 2S and 2N responses to 1NT occur nearly as often as 2D and 2H and there is sufficient variation in the possible meanings that UI is far more likely to arise than 2D and 2H. (Especially if you play different agreements with different opponents). I play 2S as minor suit stayman, raise to 2NT or clubs (with an option in one case to be 16+) or 11 points or an unspecified minor and 2NT as either 12 points or showing diamonds or transfer to clubs but may have diamonds. Depends on the partner.
I don't think I would worry about transfer responses over 1 Club: those sufficiently experienced to employ them should know what they are doing
If the only change were to announce transfer responses to short clubs, then the only change that would be needed to make to that announcements table to accommodate that would be to change the title "Responses to 1NT or 2NT openings" to "Responses to 1NT, 2NT or 1!c openings", and to add 1!c - 1!d and 1!c - 1!h as examples. That would add 2 lines to what is currently a 39-line page, so around 5%.
(I assume there isn't a rule "a transfer completion isn't alerted" for 1!c - 1!d and 1!c - 1!h because completions of those transfers normally show a specific hand, rather than being forced or nearly so.)
The problem is that the new additions clutter up the rules with stuff which most players do not understand. If they are too long and they do not understand them it is less likely they will buy into them and follow them. We run the real risk of players feeling, "Oh these rules are just for tournament players. I don't need to worry about them."
Also in the existing announcing rules every bid requiring an announcement is included in EBED's standard course so the existing rules are part of every bridge players education. In the document I referenced above we manage to fit the existing rules on to two sides of A5 which there is at least a chance of players reading through.
If we are not going to remove these new additions we at least need to introduce them as "For most players the only change will be that you must no longer announce the range of your 2NT opening bid. For those players who play four-suit transfers (as opposed to just red-suit transfers) over 1NT and who play transfer responses to a short club there are new announcements set out below..." Similarly the new requirements should be added at the end of the A5 leaflet rather than trying to insert them into the existing structure.
This should prevent the worst of the damage but I still think they will create the impression that the EBU is more interested in tournament players than the vast majority of players in the clubs.
EBED doesn't teach a short club, does it? That's an example of a bid that currently requires an announcement (typically "may be two"). It definitely doesn't teach a short diamond, and that also requires an announcement ("may be two" or even "may be one with five clubs").
Have we sorted out the ambiguity under 7 C 3 yet?
(2) Subject to any changes in the Announcement regulations, apart from natural single-suiters and a strong balanced 2NT, which are announced, all other openings above the 1 level are alertable
Since A: a balanced 2NT bid is NOT now announced.
And B: Pre-emptive bids (or even strong suit bids) must now be announced at any level.
Answer : a balanced 2NT bid is NOT now announced.
Will the EBU be issuing new rules for Alerting and Announcing?
Alan
It's because the Alerting and Announcing rules cover everything.
Those players who keep to simple systems are expected to read and understand all the rules, in order to learn which ones apply.
Some will be put off by having new sets of rules every few years.
Alan
The original post in this thread was an announcement of the updated regulations contained in the new Blue Book and White Book, which come into force on Sep 1.
I was thinking of something for ordinary playerrs.
Alan
We do have a new Announcing and Alerting Chart in preparation to replace the current one.
Hi silly point but looking at the "summary" of amendments (https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/2022/blue-book-white-book-changes.pdf) I could not find "and dummy is faced" in the draft version of the Blue Book The summary says "BB 3M3 Added ‘and dummy is faced’, see comments on WB 8.22".
Have I missed something?
CMOT
P.S. pleased to see that we are going to get an amended Announcing and Alerting chart. However, 4G isn't exactly clear as to whether or not a 2NT bid should be announced. It looks like a 2NT should be announced because it is in the heading.
It is perfectly clear that 2NT is announced. See 7C3 notes
(2) Subject to any changes in the Announcement regulations, apart from natural single-suiters and a strong balanced 2NT, which are announced, all other openings above the 1 level are alertable
Also it is clear that all natural 3,4,5,6 and 7 level bids have to be announced as well.
Here is a copy from the text of the new Blue Book:
"When a player acts in such a way as to indicate they have passed and an opening lead is faced and dummy is revealed, they have passed."
In the new chart please put all the announcements relating to transfer response to a short club on pages 3 and 4. Perhaps just add a note to the rules about short club saying "if you also play transfer responses to a short club please see pages 3 and 4" If we try and incorporate these rules into the sections which affect everybody we will just introduce confusion for most players and they are likely to give up trying to understand the rules. Those people who play transfer responses to ashort clubwill have no problem looking at pages 3 and 4 and the 99%+ of EBU members who do not play them will easily be able to find the rules which affect them.
Hi Gordon
Ok Thanks for the update. So assume that any changes summary will show "revealed" rather than "faced" to avoid confusion.
CMOT
In any discussion about faced opening leads, this always means face(d) up opening lead. See Law 17D.
A face down opening lead does not end the auction period, and the auction may continue.
Having read Robins' point about "faced" I just wonder if "revealed" might lead to some misunderstandings and perhaps the amendment should be "and dummy has been spread, they have passed." Noting that Law 41 D uses "spreads" rather than "reveals".
Weejonnie I think you need to consider that 7C3 comes under the heading at 7C "Opening Bids from 2clubs to 3 spades inclusive" {sorry the symbols don't appear to come out clearly when cutting and pasting}. Therefore, you have to read 7C3 as part of this criteria. If that isn't the case then the heading needs to be changed. Same as I tried to point out in connection with 4G. If 2NT balanced and non-forcing is no longer announced then this heading probably needs to be changed to "Announcements - Responses to a balanced 2NT opening". However, having said that I agree that 7C3 needs a review. Perhaps you could make some suggestions. For instance at 7C3 (2) "Subject to any changes in the Announcement regulations" So where are the regulations? Is it another Schedule? Is it 4E; 4F & 4G? If so why not refer to it.
I would add that I think that the Blue Book amendments Summary needs to be updated as each change is made. After all it is a "living " document available to all members (and the World) and should be updated to ensure that no doubt of what is the agreed/current proposal. This may not seem important with the number of changes required at present but if the amendments increase then charting all amendments becomes important.
Like 16248 I think we need to think more about the ordinary players. Yes 99%+ don't play the complex systems but many do have to play against them and deserve to know that those that allow those systems to be played give a modicum of help for those ordinary players to understand them. Should we be thinking of a commentary on the Blue Book soon? No I jest.
Yes I play a very basic system and try to help those that I teach feel part of the bridge community. However, as time has moved forward I do despare at the number of EBU members and non-members that look to play bridge outside the umbrella of the EBU. I may get things wrong in your eyes but I do try and want to understand.
CMOT
Is there any chance in the blue book where we could define the meaning of "weak" and "intermediate" with regards to natural suit bids at the two level. We throw these words around willy-nilly and I suspect that many "weak" 2-level bids are actually "weak to intermediate" - bearing in mind that an average hand has 10 high card points!