I just spotted a broken reference in the latest draft: 6C3 references 5D1(a) but there is no 5D1(a) (indeed, there is no 5D1). I suspect the definition of "strong" was moved to the glossary, but the reference to it wasn't updated for the new location.
I've just noticed that 7C1 allows a 2H opening that shows a weak hand with either 5+ hearts or both black suits. Was that intentional?
(It wouldn't be allowed if the bid also had strong options, because in that case there is an additional restriction, "non-strong showing the suit and non-strong artificial meanings cannot be combined"; I'm surprised that this restriction does not also apply to weak-only openings.)
@davidcollier said:
I've just noticed that 7C1 allows a 2H opening that shows a weak hand with either 5+ hearts or both black suits. Was that intentional?
Good question.
1. The change to 'one or two' meanings in the second bullet was deliberate
2. Whether it was meant to include the possibility of one non-strong 'showing the suit' meaning and one non-strong artificial meaning is not clear.
Beware that PDF are readily cached at various points between the EBU servers and your computer. If you are worried the document you are looking at is out of date, click refresh. (Or at '?' at the end of the URL.)
I've noticed a possible issue with 4D6: there are two common non-forcing meanings in sequences where the opponents open, one partner overcalls, and then the other advances with a new suit. For some pairs, the new suit does not show strength and is frequently passed. For other pairs, the new suit does show strength, and can be passed, but it's usual for the overcaller to continue.
This distinction was considered important enough by the ACBL to have a specific line on their system card for it, with checkboxes allowing players to clarify which option they meant. However, 4D6 appears to use the same announcement, "natural, non-forcing", in both situations. Is that intended?
Comments
Blue Book 2023 effective from Monday 7 August
Final draft
https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/2023/blue-book-draft.pdf
Announcement and Alert Summary draft
https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/2023/announcements-table-draft.pdf
Changes document
https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/2023/blue-book-changes-2023.pdf
I just spotted a broken reference in the latest draft: 6C3 references 5D1(a) but there is no 5D1(a) (indeed, there is no 5D1). I suspect the definition of "strong" was moved to the glossary, but the reference to it wasn't updated for the new location.
Thanks, update to follow
New draft, dated 5 August
https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/2023/blue-book-draft.pdf?
Looking very hard to find section 4J2(i) which is referenced in the summary of changes. Presumably 4H2(h) - and there is an extra '0' in 9A1.
'4J2' is a typo for '4H2'. '(i)' is a mistake, the new item is item (h).
4H2 used to be (a)-(i). We deleted (d) and (h), and added a new (h) - after the old '(i)', now relabelled '(g)'
Today's (7 August) version of the changes document corrects the '4J2(i)' error and records the removal of 4H2(h).
I've just noticed that 7C1 allows a 2H opening that shows a weak hand with either 5+ hearts or both black suits. Was that intentional?
(It wouldn't be allowed if the bid also had strong options, because in that case there is an additional restriction, "non-strong showing the suit and non-strong artificial meanings cannot be combined"; I'm surprised that this restriction does not also apply to weak-only openings.)
Good question.
1. The change to 'one or two' meanings in the second bullet was deliberate
2. Whether it was meant to include the possibility of one non-strong 'showing the suit' meaning and one non-strong artificial meaning is not clear.
Is the version of the 2023 Blue Book on the EBU website still a draft, as indicated by the URL, or is it in use ?
The version dated 7 August is final and had a different url from the drafts.
https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/blue-book/blue-book.pdf
This has been corrected (in October) at the same url.
Googling 'EBU Blue Book' takes you to https://www.ebu.co.uk/blue-book which has various links, including the PDF.
Beware that PDF are readily cached at various points between the EBU servers and your computer. If you are worried the document you are looking at is out of date, click refresh. (Or at '?' at the end of the URL.)
Will the BB/WB need amending in view of the amended/new Laws 73 and 89?
I expect to put something in the WB. We need to say which law book applies, and capture something about Law 89. (In August 2024)
I've noticed a possible issue with 4D6: there are two common non-forcing meanings in sequences where the opponents open, one partner overcalls, and then the other advances with a new suit. For some pairs, the new suit does not show strength and is frequently passed. For other pairs, the new suit does show strength, and can be passed, but it's usual for the overcaller to continue.
This distinction was considered important enough by the ACBL to have a specific line on their system card for it, with checkboxes allowing players to clarify which option they meant. However, 4D6 appears to use the same announcement, "natural, non-forcing", in both situations. Is that intended?