1) 3C as a response to a 2NT opening is dicussed in a section entitled "Announcements – 1NT Openings and Responses" (4E3)
2) Puppet is defined but not used (other than the name "Puppet Stayman"). What is the thinking behind having a definition that is not used? Also, thinking ahead to future revisions, is it intended that a Lebensohl 2NT is a proxy?
Also, I suspect the terms proxy, puppet and transfer might lead to confusion. As defined, a transfer is both a proxy and a puppet.
"Doubles are only to be announced as a proxy for another suit on the first round of bidding."
it may be useful to add in "(i.e. not the suit being doubled)" to make this clear. (assuming this is the intention) or auctions such as 1NT - P - 2D (hearts) - Double would be announced.
@JeremyChild said:
A couplke of minor points on first read through:
1) 3C as a response to a 2NT opening is dicussed in a section entitled "Announcements – 1NT Openings and Responses" (4E3)
2) Puppet is defined but not used (other than the name "Puppet Stayman"). What is the thinking behind having a definition that is not used? Also, thinking ahead to future revisions, is it intended that a Lebensohl 2NT is a proxy?
Also, I suspect the terms proxy, puppet and transfer might lead to confusion. As defined, a transfer is both a proxy and a puppet.
It does sound as though they might need more work if that is how you have interpreted them!
A transfer bid is indeed a proxy, but is not a puppet.
Maybe puppet could be defined as "A call requiring partner to make a certain call at their next turn without necessarily showing that suit". So, Lebensohl is a puppet, not a proxy.
@gordonrainsford said:
Maybe puppet could be defined as "A call requiring partner to make a certain call at their next turn without necessarily showing that suit". So, Lebensohl is a puppet, not a proxy.
By "that suit" do you mean the suit of the original call (if it is a bid), or the suit of the call that s/he is required to make?
In a standard negative double auction: 1C-(1S)-DBL, do I understand that the double would be a Proxy, announced as "Hearts"? - It is the first round of bidding, so seems to be covered by 4-B-2.
What about if the double usually shows hearts, but might be some other hand-type (e.g. first action on a stronger hand)?
Maybe the auction is 1C-(1H)-Dbl. It is common to play that this promises exactly four spades. What is the announcement? Others might play that it shows four or more spades, or maybe five or more spades. Does the announcement change? Other players might play that it denies four or more spades - is this now an alert?
@Tramticket said:
In a standard negative double auction: 1C-(1S)-DBL, do I understand that the double would be a Proxy, announced as "Hearts"? - It is the first round of bidding, so seems to be covered by 4-B-2.
L&E intend to change the wording of proxy announcement rule, so a call at the 1-level which shows at least 4 in the suit shown is announced. (Currently if the suit shown can not be bid at 1-level, the length must be 5 or more.)
What about if the double usually shows hearts, but might be some other hand-type (e.g. first action on a stronger hand)?
Don't alert or announce - this is a takeout double.
Maybe the auction is 1C-(1H)-Dbl. It is common to play that this promises exactly four spades. What is the announcement? Others might play that it shows four or more spades, or maybe five or more spades. Does the announcement change?
Announce. Players are required to extend an announcement if there is an unexpected element, see 4A2.
So "spades, exactly 4" and "spades, 4 plus" and "spades, 4 or 5" are possible announcements.
4 A 2
...
When a bid is to be announced but has an unexpected element, the announcement must be
So: If an unpassed partner responds 2 Spades to my 1 Heart bid, then I must announce it. (Strong forcing, strong game forcing, weak, intermediate, invitational) (not that I approve of 'invitational bids" - invitational to what?)
Presumably 1H - 2NT (Jacoby) would be announced as "Intermediate to strong, game forcing, with 4+ hearts" since 2NT is not "natural".
I understand WHY this has been put forward, but I do not agree with it - it makes the alerting/ announcing rules too complicated.
The announcement for natural jumps shifts have been revised to "natural, non-forcing", "strong, forcing" or "strong, game forcing"
Artificial responses are alerted.
Why? Because lots of people play weak jump shifts and they are currently alertable and players are very bad at alerting. The general motivation was not to alert natural responses with a potentially unexpected meaning and instead to announce them.
There is a bit of ambiguity in the definition of permitted length of a "Natural Suit"
Length of x Permitted
0-2 No, not “natural”
3 Only if satisfies Rule of 20
4 Only if second suit is also specified, or satisfies Rule of 20
5+ Any
There is no requirement to specify the length of the second suit! Now it seems that the second suit should be "natural" - (3+ if Rule of 20 or 4+ otherwise) as well but as written in theory I could specify "4 Hearts and at least 0 spades" and meet the permitted definition.
@weejonnie said:
There is a bit of ambiguity in the definition of permitted length of a "Natural Suit"
Length of x Permitted
0-2 No, not “natural”
3 Only if satisfies Rule of 20
4 Only if second suit is also specified, or satisfies Rule of 20
5+ Any
There is no requirement to specify the length of the second suit! Now it seems that the second suit should be "natural" - (3+ if Rule of 20 or 4+ otherwise) as well but as written in theory I could specify "4 Hearts and at least 0 spades" and meet the permitted definition.
I find it hard to see how you can argue that "4 Hearts and at least 0 spades" is a natural specification when it stated clearly "0-2 No, not “natural”".
the reason is that "Natural" only refers to a call that specifies the same denomination as that that bid. There is no requirement that the lengths of the other suit specified is such that they, too , must be "natural."
Just add the word "Natural" - so you get 4 - Only if a second natural suit is also specified, or satisfies Rule of 20
@gordonrainsford said:
Or just read the regulations in a sensible fashion.
Surely good regulations are clear and unambiguous, and don't rely on being read "in a sensible fashion".
The point is that the rules are not just for dealing with the situations we can forsee, but those we can't. Just because everyone will agree the meaning in the case envisaged, doesn't mean they will in other cases.
Anything can be read in a perverse fashion if you put enough effort into it. Most of the contributors here find enough in the laws and regulations to provoke genuine questions, which will be answered when raised, without having to go and find obtuse readings that create problems out of nothing.
Well we can hope so but it is human nature in competitive events to try and push the boundaries of legality as far as they will go to gain an advantage.
Echoing Tramticket's comments above, I'm surprised that the new draft isn't more explicit about the requirement to announce the traditional negative double 1m (1M) Dbl, showing the other major. This was previously regarded as just being a type of take-out double (ie. we don't currently alert it), so if it's now going to be defined as a proxy then that seems like a significant change, and one that affects the vast majority of partnerships. If I wasn't already aware of this thread I don't think I would have been able to work out what was intended. Shouldn't it at least be mentioned as one of the examples in 4G1?
The traditional negative double was defined by what it did not show (hence "negative"): it did not show support and it did not show a hand that could bid a natural 1NT/2NT/3NT and it denied the values/length to bid another suit. The agreement that 1m(1S)X guarantees 4 Hs and says nothing about the minors is not "traditional".
"1m(1S)X = 4 Hs" was not given an example of an announceable proxy bid until we changed the wording of 4G2.
I can propose that we add this as an example in 4G1.
Thanks Robin, you're right I should have said "standard" rather than "traditional".
For what it's worth, I think this aspect is going to be a tough sell. There's no doubt that 1m (1M) Dbl showing the unbid major meets the new definition of a "proxy" - but for 15 years or so, people have been informed that the EBU regarded this as a variety of take-out double, which did not need to be alerted. If it had been treated as a "proxy" - even before that term was defined - then we would have alerted it. Changing this now would affect anyone playing the most common meanings of the double, and doesn't seem to have a particularly strong motivation.
I guess the idea is to achieve consistency with other 1-level proxy calls, but it comes at the expense of consistency with other negative double auctions such as 1M (2m) Dbl. I don't think people are going to appreciate the reason for the distinction here.
The thinking previously was that we did not want the standard agreement to be alertable, because it would cause more outre alertable agreements to be hidden because opponents would not ask about the alert. So the interpretation was that the standard agreement was a form of take-out double.
Making it announced was a compromise, which we found we could achieve this with a small change to 4G2. This change gives a rebuttal to those who keep asking that the double be alerted.
It will cause confusion, but not much damage. Announcement or not, standard or traditional takeout - neither difference is likely to cause much difference to the opponent.
The intention of much of the new announcements is that natural responses with an unexpected meaning (or no standard meaning) are announced, so that alerts are reserved for artificial responses. Similarly, some take-out doubles with a "unexpected" meaning would not be alerted but announced.
Not sure if that last is 100% correct. If we get a proxy call such as "Clubs - denies 3 diamonds" i.e. there are potentially unexpected meanings, then should those unexpected meanings be included in the announcement. Similarly if the 'negative double' of a one spade overcall guarantees both the other minor and hearts, should it be announced as "Hearts and Clubs" or "Hearts and Diamonds".
One assumes that the level of the auction is that at which the auction now is, even if bidding the proxy suit requires bidding at the two level. i.e. 1D (1S) X only showing 4 hearts is a proxy bid.
I get the point that it would be nice to distinguish between "shows the unbid major" and "take-out suggesting both unbid suits", and that an announcement is the only good way to achieve this if we want to. But there doesn't seem to be much evidence that distinguishing these things has actually been a problem.
The issue is, while this is only a small change in the wording, for most people it represents the difference between "none of my doubles are alerted or announced" and "none of my doubles are alerted or announced, except for the sequences 1m (1H) Dbl and 1m (1S) Dbl for which I'm going to have to remember new announcements". So it's a significant addition to the list of things people actually need to know. And when put in these terms, it becomes rather hard to explain why these negative doubles should be affected and not any others.
All this might be fine if the new announcement was solving a real problem, but here the benefit seems minimal. I think this is a shame because the rest of the changes (especially for doubles) are very positive - and here we're just making the rules look bad by introducing a new announcing requirement for no particularly good reason.
Something that's unclear to me with respect to the proxy rules: suppose after 1C (1H) X, the double shows 4+ spades, and 3+ (but usually 4) diamonds (i.e. a "two-suited negative double"). Is this a proxy call for spades, or is it just left unalerted/unannounced as takeout?
"Proxy" is defined as "A call that shows a specified suit that is not the suit bid", but leaves it unclear what the call can say about other suits.
(A more extreme example: I play that a double by a passed hand in sandwich position always shows at least 4 cards in both unbid suits. This isn't announceable, due to not being by responder or advancer; but in terms of the definition of "proxy", is it defined as being a "proxy" for both suits, or for neither?)
I have raised some points with Robin via Gordon: Specifically about Snapdragon (other suit + tolerance) and responsive (typically 5-5 in the minors or majors) doubles. Still not sure about negative doubles though. You are at the one level (1D (1S) X) would this be announced if it only guaranteed 4 hearts since the suit would have to be bid at the two level.
Also: There is now a presumption that if a call that could be announced or alerted and isn't then the opponents are entitled to assume that the call doesn't have to be announced or alerted. Yet the requirement for experienced players to protect themselves is still there. (Obiter - if a call must be announced or alerted then opponents can (and indeed should) enquire as to its nature without imparting any UI - although I assume that means "What is the meaning of that call?" as an enquiry rather than "Does that call promise diamonds?")
(FWIW I approve of those changes - it is manifestly unfair for a non-offending side to be hamstrung by UI restrictions when this is caused by an infraction by the other side).
@Robin_BarkerTD said:
L&E intend to change the wording of proxy announcement rule, so a call at the 1-level which shows at least 4 in the suit shown is announced. (Currently if the suit shown can not be bid at 1-level, the length must be 5 or more.)
I don't think that this is in the published draft yet? Am I correct in thinking that these changes come into effect on 1st August?
@Tramticket said:
I don't think that this is in the published draft yet?
The revised public draft has the change:
and the suit shown is at least 4 cards, if the proxy call is at the 1-level, or at least 5 cards, otherwise.
but
@Tramticket said:
Am I correct in thinking that these changes come into effect on 1st August?
We had a late flurry of detailed comments and have attempted to correct various issues and simplify the new announcements. We met this week and there is a new internal draft. This will probably delay implementation until 7 August.
The only subsequent change to that text above is to remove some commas.
Comments
A couplke of minor points on first read through:
1) 3C as a response to a 2NT opening is dicussed in a section entitled "Announcements – 1NT Openings and Responses" (4E3)
2) Puppet is defined but not used (other than the name "Puppet Stayman"). What is the thinking behind having a definition that is not used? Also, thinking ahead to future revisions, is it intended that a Lebensohl 2NT is a proxy?
Also, I suspect the terms proxy, puppet and transfer might lead to confusion. As defined, a transfer is both a proxy and a puppet.
"Doubles are only to be announced as a proxy for another suit on the first round of bidding."
it may be useful to add in "(i.e. not the suit being doubled)" to make this clear. (assuming this is the intention) or auctions such as 1NT - P - 2D (hearts) - Double would be announced.
When defining a weak bid - should that be better written as "Below 10 points"
It does sound as though they might need more work if that is how you have interpreted them!
A transfer bid is indeed a proxy, but is not a puppet.
Maybe puppet could be defined as "A call requiring partner to make a certain call at their next turn without necessarily showing that suit". So, Lebensohl is a puppet, not a proxy.
Re "defined but not used"
The glossary was meant to include some terms which could be used in disclosure even if they weren't need for regulations.
By "that suit" do you mean the suit of the original call (if it is a bid), or the suit of the call that s/he is required to make?
In a standard negative double auction: 1C-(1S)-DBL, do I understand that the double would be a Proxy, announced as "Hearts"? - It is the first round of bidding, so seems to be covered by 4-B-2.
What about if the double usually shows hearts, but might be some other hand-type (e.g. first action on a stronger hand)?
Maybe the auction is 1C-(1H)-Dbl. It is common to play that this promises exactly four spades. What is the announcement? Others might play that it shows four or more spades, or maybe five or more spades. Does the announcement change? Other players might play that it denies four or more spades - is this now an alert?
L&E intend to change the wording of proxy announcement rule, so a call at the 1-level which shows at least 4 in the suit shown is announced. (Currently if the suit shown can not be bid at 1-level, the length must be 5 or more.)
Don't alert or announce - this is a takeout double.
Announce. Players are required to extend an announcement if there is an unexpected element, see 4A2.
So "spades, exactly 4" and "spades, 4 plus" and "spades, 4 or 5" are possible announcements.
extended to mention that unexpected element.
So: If an unpassed partner responds 2 Spades to my 1 Heart bid, then I must announce it. (Strong forcing, strong game forcing, weak, intermediate, invitational) (not that I approve of 'invitational bids" - invitational to what?)
Presumably 1H - 2NT (Jacoby) would be announced as "Intermediate to strong, game forcing, with 4+ hearts" since 2NT is not "natural".
I understand WHY this has been put forward, but I do not agree with it - it makes the alerting/ announcing rules too complicated.
The announcement for natural jumps shifts have been revised to "natural, non-forcing", "strong, forcing" or "strong, game forcing"
Artificial responses are alerted.
Why? Because lots of people play weak jump shifts and they are currently alertable and players are very bad at alerting. The general motivation was not to alert natural responses with a potentially unexpected meaning and instead to announce them.
I think you should qualify them by stating "Suit" jump shifts.
There is a bit of ambiguity in the definition of permitted length of a "Natural Suit"
Length of x Permitted
0-2 No, not “natural”
3 Only if satisfies Rule of 20
4 Only if second suit is also specified, or satisfies Rule of 20
5+ Any
There is no requirement to specify the length of the second suit! Now it seems that the second suit should be "natural" - (3+ if Rule of 20 or 4+ otherwise) as well but as written in theory I could specify "4 Hearts and at least 0 spades" and meet the permitted definition.
I find it hard to see how you can argue that "4 Hearts and at least 0 spades" is a natural specification when it stated clearly "0-2 No, not “natural”".
the reason is that "Natural" only refers to a call that specifies the same denomination as that that bid. There is no requirement that the lengths of the other suit specified is such that they, too , must be "natural."
Just add the word "Natural" - so you get 4 - Only if a second natural suit is also specified, or satisfies Rule of 20
Or just read the regulations in a sensible fashion.
Surely good regulations are clear and unambiguous, and don't rely on being read "in a sensible fashion".
The point is that the rules are not just for dealing with the situations we can forsee, but those we can't. Just because everyone will agree the meaning in the case envisaged, doesn't mean they will in other cases.
Anything can be read in a perverse fashion if you put enough effort into it. Most of the contributors here find enough in the laws and regulations to provoke genuine questions, which will be answered when raised, without having to go and find obtuse readings that create problems out of nothing.
Well we can hope so but it is human nature in competitive events to try and push the boundaries of legality as far as they will go to gain an advantage.
Echoing Tramticket's comments above, I'm surprised that the new draft isn't more explicit about the requirement to announce the traditional negative double 1m (1M) Dbl, showing the other major. This was previously regarded as just being a type of take-out double (ie. we don't currently alert it), so if it's now going to be defined as a proxy then that seems like a significant change, and one that affects the vast majority of partnerships. If I wasn't already aware of this thread I don't think I would have been able to work out what was intended. Shouldn't it at least be mentioned as one of the examples in 4G1?
The traditional negative double was defined by what it did not show (hence "negative"): it did not show support and it did not show a hand that could bid a natural 1NT/2NT/3NT and it denied the values/length to bid another suit. The agreement that 1m(1S)X guarantees 4 Hs and says nothing about the minors is not "traditional".
"1m(1S)X = 4 Hs" was not given an example of an announceable proxy bid until we changed the wording of 4G2.
I can propose that we add this as an example in 4G1.
Thanks Robin, you're right I should have said "standard" rather than "traditional".
For what it's worth, I think this aspect is going to be a tough sell. There's no doubt that 1m (1M) Dbl showing the unbid major meets the new definition of a "proxy" - but for 15 years or so, people have been informed that the EBU regarded this as a variety of take-out double, which did not need to be alerted. If it had been treated as a "proxy" - even before that term was defined - then we would have alerted it. Changing this now would affect anyone playing the most common meanings of the double, and doesn't seem to have a particularly strong motivation.
I guess the idea is to achieve consistency with other 1-level proxy calls, but it comes at the expense of consistency with other negative double auctions such as 1M (2m) Dbl. I don't think people are going to appreciate the reason for the distinction here.
The thinking previously was that we did not want the standard agreement to be alertable, because it would cause more outre alertable agreements to be hidden because opponents would not ask about the alert. So the interpretation was that the standard agreement was a form of take-out double.
Making it announced was a compromise, which we found we could achieve this with a small change to 4G2. This change gives a rebuttal to those who keep asking that the double be alerted.
It will cause confusion, but not much damage. Announcement or not, standard or traditional takeout - neither difference is likely to cause much difference to the opponent.
The intention of much of the new announcements is that natural responses with an unexpected meaning (or no standard meaning) are announced, so that alerts are reserved for artificial responses. Similarly, some take-out doubles with a "unexpected" meaning would not be alerted but announced.
Not sure if that last is 100% correct. If we get a proxy call such as "Clubs - denies 3 diamonds" i.e. there are potentially unexpected meanings, then should those unexpected meanings be included in the announcement. Similarly if the 'negative double' of a one spade overcall guarantees both the other minor and hearts, should it be announced as "Hearts and Clubs" or "Hearts and Diamonds".
One assumes that the level of the auction is that at which the auction now is, even if bidding the proxy suit requires bidding at the two level. i.e. 1D (1S) X only showing 4 hearts is a proxy bid.
I get the point that it would be nice to distinguish between "shows the unbid major" and "take-out suggesting both unbid suits", and that an announcement is the only good way to achieve this if we want to. But there doesn't seem to be much evidence that distinguishing these things has actually been a problem.
The issue is, while this is only a small change in the wording, for most people it represents the difference between "none of my doubles are alerted or announced" and "none of my doubles are alerted or announced, except for the sequences 1m (1H) Dbl and 1m (1S) Dbl for which I'm going to have to remember new announcements". So it's a significant addition to the list of things people actually need to know. And when put in these terms, it becomes rather hard to explain why these negative doubles should be affected and not any others.
All this might be fine if the new announcement was solving a real problem, but here the benefit seems minimal. I think this is a shame because the rest of the changes (especially for doubles) are very positive - and here we're just making the rules look bad by introducing a new announcing requirement for no particularly good reason.
Something that's unclear to me with respect to the proxy rules: suppose after 1C (1H) X, the double shows 4+ spades, and 3+ (but usually 4) diamonds (i.e. a "two-suited negative double"). Is this a proxy call for spades, or is it just left unalerted/unannounced as takeout?
"Proxy" is defined as "A call that shows a specified suit that is not the suit bid", but leaves it unclear what the call can say about other suits.
(A more extreme example: I play that a double by a passed hand in sandwich position always shows at least 4 cards in both unbid suits. This isn't announceable, due to not being by responder or advancer; but in terms of the definition of "proxy", is it defined as being a "proxy" for both suits, or for neither?)
I have raised some points with Robin via Gordon: Specifically about Snapdragon (other suit + tolerance) and responsive (typically 5-5 in the minors or majors) doubles. Still not sure about negative doubles though. You are at the one level (1D (1S) X) would this be announced if it only guaranteed 4 hearts since the suit would have to be bid at the two level.
Also: There is now a presumption that if a call that could be announced or alerted and isn't then the opponents are entitled to assume that the call doesn't have to be announced or alerted. Yet the requirement for experienced players to protect themselves is still there. (Obiter - if a call must be announced or alerted then opponents can (and indeed should) enquire as to its nature without imparting any UI - although I assume that means "What is the meaning of that call?" as an enquiry rather than "Does that call promise diamonds?")
(FWIW I approve of those changes - it is manifestly unfair for a non-offending side to be hamstrung by UI restrictions when this is caused by an infraction by the other side).
I don't think that this is in the published draft yet? Am I correct in thinking that these changes come into effect on 1st August?
The revised public draft has the change:
but
We had a late flurry of detailed comments and have attempted to correct various issues and simplify the new announcements. We met this week and there is a new internal draft. This will probably delay implementation until 7 August.
The only subsequent change to that text above is to remove some commas.
Ah yes, my mistake. I must have reopened the previously downloaded version.
I sympathise. It can be very hard to get browsers (chrome) to reload PDFs rather than rely on cached versions.