@weejonnie said:
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!
I concur this can be irritating. To clarify this I simply ask the question opponents to clarify their normal point range for those bids. At some of the clubs, I play, most people do not carry convention cards with them for me to review and get the information. At higher levels, everyone has a convention card so the problem is solved.
I'm still not convinced the new rules actually ban Wilkosz at level 4 (despite the intent presumably being to ban it) – it doesn't promise 4+ cards in the suit opened, guarantees 5+ cards in another suit, and is a variation of a permitted understanding (a weak multi) by making it more restrictive (requiring a 5-card side suit). The fact that the side suit could be (but doesn't have to be) the suit opened is presumably intended to be relevant, but doesn't seem to be relevant by the letter of the rules.
A couple of separate issues, on the announcements chart:
There are a couple of blank boxes when discussing doubles of suit bids. This is especially confusing when it comes to doubles of artificial bids: the options are "" and "anything else". Presumably there was meant to be something in those boxes.
The chart for redoubles includes options only for "partner is expected to pass" and "partner is expected to pull". It's possible to play redoubles as showing a specific hand type (rather than suggesting a particular course of action), and leaving it up to partner to decide whether to pull or not based on that information. I think that doing this is an alert, but that isn't at all clear based on the chart.
The only changes on that page were trying to make layout consistent. I have re-instated the text of the empty boxes for doubles of suit bids.
The tables are only supposed to be a summary, but this is the second comment I have had about redoubles with a specific meaning, so I have added some text.
The new Alerting and Announcing rules include reference to 'prepared, phoney, short or nebulous' 1C or 1D openings without a clear definition.
???
Alan
Did I read that right? You no longer announce the point range of a 2NT opener? Why on earth not? Maybe 80% of club players play 2NT as 20-22. The Benji folk often play it as 19-20 or just 20 but without an announcement, most club players are just going to assume 20-22. I cannot see any sane reason for not announcing 2NT range and many reasons why not announcing it will confuse some players and benefit others.
@writerman said:
Did I read that right? You no longer announce the point range of a 2NT opener? Why on earth not? Maybe 80% of club players play 2NT as 20-22. The Benji folk often play it as 19-20 or just 20 but without an announcement, most club players are just going to assume 20-22. I cannot see any sane reason for not announcing 2NT range and many reasons why not announcing it will confuse some players and benefit others.
I concur with your assessment. If it is reasonable to announce the point range for a 1NT opening likewise it should be applicable for a 2NT opening.
Also, having to announce Stayman (1NT-2C) response is so widely used certainly anything other than Stayman is more efficient and reasonable. (Sorry pet peeve)
I can understand why many people see the Announcing and Alerting rules as fickle and incomprehensible and the 2NT situation just makes the EBU look incompetent.
First, we had announcing for 1NT, Stayman and transfers.
Then similar announcements were added for 2NT.
Now we still announce Stayman and transfers over 2NT but don't announce the 2NT range. Once again 1NT and 2NT are treated differently.
I can't see any sense in this. It makes the whole system look rather ridiculous.
One reason for announcing 1NT and not 2NT is that the range for 1NT varies much more (10-12,12-14,14-16, 15-17 and others). A 2nd reason is according to what it is you are more likely to come in over it than a 2NT opening.
One benefit of announcing 2NT (for the announcing side) is that it can clear up any misunderstanding about exact range. You are pretty unlikely to want to or need to know during the auction. You might want to know when defending.
Hopefully even if you disagree it won't be judged "insane" I can't really see why anyone should be confused except for the change itself. People are flexible though. All our cricket commentators seem to manage to say "batters" even though, in some cases, "batsman" has been ingrained for decades.
I'm not confused.
It just looks like incompetence. Maybe not the fact that 2NT isn't announced - but the decision to announce it, then the change of mind next time.
> @16248 said: > I'm not confused. > It just looks like incompetence. Maybe not the fact that 2NT isn't announced - but the decision to announce it, then the change of mind next time.
Rethinking things in the light of experience? After only five years or so?
I disagree with Jeremy69 that 1NT openers are more variable. Maybe it's the circles I mix in or the level I play at but I play at two clubs and, with the exception of one Precision pair, everyone plays 12-14 NT. It's the same in the local league. 2NT, by contrast, varies much more with Acol players playing 20-22 and the Benji cohort playing various ranges. I have come across 19-20, 20 exactly, 20-21 and 21 exactly. But my basic question remains. Why change? What was it about announcing 2NT that, "in the light of experience", made it seem a bad idea? Yes it will confuse all those members who have got used to announcing and it will be weeks, if not months, before some of the older players at my clubs get their heads round the change. It will also slow things down as every opponent will now be asking opener's partner for the strength of the 2NT.
Clubs of course can apply their own announcing/ alerting rules and permitted conventions (as long as they don't break the laws). Currently I play in three clubs - one of which is keeping the old (2021) EBU alerting procedures, one of which has switched to the new one, and one of which doesn't know what it is doing. (The last is meant as a joke)
@Robin_BarkerTD said:
"Prepared, Phoney, Short or Nebulous 1C or 1D opening" (page 3)
The last page was not meant to have changed but I did try and tidy up the tables. This resulted in an error - two cells became empty and I put the wrong text back. A new version of the table ‘Corrected September 7’ is now up.
A suit opening - Prepared, Phoney, Short or Nebulous 1C or 1D opening – Double for Take-out is not alertable.
This should be consistent with Blue Book 4B2 (b)
Minor suit openings which may be shorter than three cards but which may be natural
and which do not promise a strong hand: Alert, unless the double is for take-out.
@writerman said:
But my basic question remains. Why change? What was it about announcing 2NT that, "in the light of experience", made it seem a bad idea?
People rarely forget what range they play for a 1NT opener, and it is information that is often necessary for their opponents, who may well play different defences according to that range. Doing this routinely by way of announcements also prevents what used to be a fairly common occurence, when opponents would ask about the range and then pass, showing (whether or not deliberately) some values.
By contrast, it is not infrequent for players to have forgotten, or failed to discuss, the range of their 2NT opener, particularly in the context of agreeing to play Multis or Benjamin two-bids. This is also not information that is likely to affect any defender's actions before the opening lead. In those circumstances, announcing the range of a 2NT opener may well help the opening side more than their opponents.
Gordon and I will have to agree to disagree. In both my clubs, 90% of pairs know exactly what their 2NT range is. Any occasional scratch pairs will invariably assume the default Acol range of 20-22. I have never come across a pair in any doubt. As a defender, with the new regulations, I shall end up having to ask every time a 2NT opener becomes declarer because, on any hand, it's vital to know declarer's range as accurately as possible. Also, by chopping and changing, you confuse the rank and file, and for months we shall have some players announcing and some not. I shall be recommending to both my clubs that we don't adopt this regressive change because I think it makes little sense for club level play.
There is a difference of experience. Gordon and I are very used to playing in scratch partnerships, in clubs where there can be a significant proportion of scratch partnerships.
It is awkward to have had to guess your agreement so you could announce, knowing that partner not always carefully avoiding the UI - which invariably exists, even if the announcement is what partner was expecting, it confirms that we haven't forgotten.
It was awkward to open 2NT, not knowing the strength, hoping to cope - but coping becoming much harder when you have the UI from partner as to their understanding.
@writerman said:
As a defender, with the new regulations, I shall end up having to ask every time a 2NT opener becomes declarer because, on any hand, it's vital to know declarer's range as accurately as possible.
Doesn't sound like a big imposition - once a month? If you expect to be defender whenever the oppos open 2NT, then announcing during the auction will never benefit you. It may occasionally benefit the oppos who have a greater need to know each other's precise range. Therefore this change seems pragmatic.
If you think it's essential for defenders to know then you could have a local rule that declarer should announce the range at the end of the auction.
Under new rules what is the recommended way of describing a Benji 2C that was previously "19/20 balanced or 8 Playing tricks in a suit (whatever that meant)"? Steve Green's accompanying document seems to be discouraging the use of "playing tricks", which I agree with as there were varying interpretations (all correct of course :) ).
Would a reasonable description be "19/20 balanced or strong single suiter", and adding if asked, "but not our strongest bid and hence not forcing to game (which would have 0opened 2d)"?
Applies to both wording on convention card and when asked at the table.
@GrahamC said:
Under new rules what is the recommended way of describing a Benji 2C that was previously "19/20 balanced or 8 Playing tricks in a suit (whatever that meant)"?
"playing tricks" is all right if you know the opponents will share a common understanding with you, but you should include "strong" somewhere, if only to reinforce that you intend your agreement to match the regulations.
You could trim some words from:
"artificial, strong, but not game forcing: either 19-20 balanced, or 8-9 playing tricks (in any suit)"
OR
"either 19-20 balanced, or a strong single suited hand, less than a game force"
Comments
I concur this can be irritating. To clarify this I simply ask the question opponents to clarify their normal point range for those bids. At some of the clubs, I play, most people do not carry convention cards with them for me to review and get the information. At higher levels, everyone has a convention card so the problem is solved.
The blue book draft has been updated. There are some corrections and clarifications, and some changes to 7C (opening 2C to 3S at level 4).
https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/2022/blue-book-draft.pdf
There is also a draft of the announcement summary - updated to include the new announcements.
https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/2022/announcements-table-draft.pdf
Despite Paul's suggestions, it proved impractical to hide the new announcements for 1C-(P)-1X transfer on page 3!
I'm still not convinced the new rules actually ban Wilkosz at level 4 (despite the intent presumably being to ban it) – it doesn't promise 4+ cards in the suit opened, guarantees 5+ cards in another suit, and is a variation of a permitted understanding (a weak multi) by making it more restrictive (requiring a 5-card side suit). The fact that the side suit could be (but doesn't have to be) the suit opened is presumably intended to be relevant, but doesn't seem to be relevant by the letter of the rules.
A couple of separate issues, on the announcements chart:
The text on page 3 is supposed to be unchanged from the earlier version
https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/convention-cards/announcements-table.pdf
The only changes on that page were trying to make layout consistent. I have re-instated the text of the empty boxes for doubles of suit bids.
The tables are only supposed to be a summary, but this is the second comment I have had about redoubles with a specific meaning, so I have added some text.
Latest version 'Updated 29 August'
Robin, is there a tentative date for the implementation of these revisions?
1st September (Thursday)
Today, I uploaded final versions - without change marks - but not to their final location
https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/2022/announcements-table.pdf
https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/2022/blue-book.pdf
https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/2022/blue-book-white-book-changes.pdf
https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/2022/white-book.pdf
https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/2022/skyblue-book.pdf
Update. The final versions have been moved to their official locations - and deleted from /documents/laws-and-ethics/2022/, to avoid any confusion.
The announcement summary links to the old table not the new one, because I hadn't cleared my cache.
Caching of PDF documents is a pain. I don't think its a fault with the EBU site.
If you know there is a new document, keep clicking refresh.
The new Alerting and Announcing rules include reference to 'prepared, phoney, short or nebulous' 1C or 1D openings without a clear definition.
???
Alan
Alan
That text is not new. As I said above the summary is only a summary.
"Prepared, Phoney, Short or Nebulous 1C or 1D opening" (page 3) == "Non-forcing, could be on fewer than 3 cards" (page 1)
As one of the apparently few "ordinary" players who use transfer responses to 1C, I welcome the new Announcements.
Did I read that right? You no longer announce the point range of a 2NT opener? Why on earth not? Maybe 80% of club players play 2NT as 20-22. The Benji folk often play it as 19-20 or just 20 but without an announcement, most club players are just going to assume 20-22. I cannot see any sane reason for not announcing 2NT range and many reasons why not announcing it will confuse some players and benefit others.
I concur with your assessment. If it is reasonable to announce the point range for a 1NT opening likewise it should be applicable for a 2NT opening.
Also, having to announce Stayman (1NT-2C) response is so widely used certainly anything other than Stayman is more efficient and reasonable. (Sorry pet peeve)
I can understand why many people see the Announcing and Alerting rules as fickle and incomprehensible and the 2NT situation just makes the EBU look incompetent.
First, we had announcing for 1NT, Stayman and transfers.
Then similar announcements were added for 2NT.
Now we still announce Stayman and transfers over 2NT but don't announce the 2NT range. Once again 1NT and 2NT are treated differently.
I can't see any sense in this. It makes the whole system look rather ridiculous.
Alan
One reason for announcing 1NT and not 2NT is that the range for 1NT varies much more (10-12,12-14,14-16, 15-17 and others). A 2nd reason is according to what it is you are more likely to come in over it than a 2NT opening.
One benefit of announcing 2NT (for the announcing side) is that it can clear up any misunderstanding about exact range. You are pretty unlikely to want to or need to know during the auction. You might want to know when defending.
Hopefully even if you disagree it won't be judged "insane" I can't really see why anyone should be confused except for the change itself. People are flexible though. All our cricket commentators seem to manage to say "batters" even though, in some cases, "batsman" has been ingrained for decades.
I'm not confused.
It just looks like incompetence. Maybe not the fact that 2NT isn't announced - but the decision to announce it, then the change of mind next time.
Alan
> I'm not confused.
> It just looks like incompetence. Maybe not the fact that 2NT isn't announced - but the decision to announce it, then the change of mind next time.
Rethinking things in the light of experience? After only five years or so?
But my basic question remains. Why change? What was it about announcing 2NT that, "in the light of experience", made it seem a bad idea?
Yes it will confuse all those members who have got used to announcing and it will be weeks, if not months, before some of the older players at my clubs get their heads round the change. It will also slow things down as every opponent will now be asking opener's partner for the strength of the 2NT.
Clubs of course can apply their own announcing/ alerting rules and permitted conventions (as long as they don't break the laws). Currently I play in three clubs - one of which is keeping the old (2021) EBU alerting procedures, one of which has switched to the new one, and one of which doesn't know what it is doing. (The last is meant as a joke)
The last page was not meant to have changed but I did try and tidy up the tables. This resulted in an error - two cells became empty and I put the wrong text back. A new version of the table ‘Corrected September 7’ is now up.
This should be consistent with Blue Book 4B2 (b)
Sorry for the confusion
People rarely forget what range they play for a 1NT opener, and it is information that is often necessary for their opponents, who may well play different defences according to that range. Doing this routinely by way of announcements also prevents what used to be a fairly common occurence, when opponents would ask about the range and then pass, showing (whether or not deliberately) some values.
By contrast, it is not infrequent for players to have forgotten, or failed to discuss, the range of their 2NT opener, particularly in the context of agreeing to play Multis or Benjamin two-bids. This is also not information that is likely to affect any defender's actions before the opening lead. In those circumstances, announcing the range of a 2NT opener may well help the opening side more than their opponents.
Also, by chopping and changing, you confuse the rank and file, and for months we shall have some players announcing and some not.
I shall be recommending to both my clubs that we don't adopt this regressive change because I think it makes little sense for club level play.
Chopping and changing is a bit of an overbid. The regulation hasn't changed for quite a few years.
There is a difference of experience. Gordon and I are very used to playing in scratch partnerships, in clubs where there can be a significant proportion of scratch partnerships.
It is awkward to have had to guess your agreement so you could announce, knowing that partner not always carefully avoiding the UI - which invariably exists, even if the announcement is what partner was expecting, it confirms that we haven't forgotten.
It was awkward to open 2NT, not knowing the strength, hoping to cope - but coping becoming much harder when you have the UI from partner as to their understanding.
Doesn't sound like a big imposition - once a month? If you expect to be defender whenever the oppos open 2NT, then announcing during the auction will never benefit you. It may occasionally benefit the oppos who have a greater need to know each other's precise range. Therefore this change seems pragmatic.
If you think it's essential for defenders to know then you could have a local rule that declarer should announce the range at the end of the auction.
The new EBU magazine has a very unfortunate typo in Ask Robin (page 34) - the first bullet says:
Is is possible to change the online version of the magazine from "alert" to "announce" so that it is correctly captured for posterity?
Oops. Thanks.
I will see what we can do.
Under new rules what is the recommended way of describing a Benji 2C that was previously "19/20 balanced or 8 Playing tricks in a suit (whatever that meant)"? Steve Green's accompanying document seems to be discouraging the use of "playing tricks", which I agree with as there were varying interpretations (all correct of course :) ).
Would a reasonable description be "19/20 balanced or strong single suiter", and adding if asked, "but not our strongest bid and hence not forcing to game (which would have 0opened 2d)"?
Applies to both wording on convention card and when asked at the table.
"playing tricks" is all right if you know the opponents will share a common understanding with you, but you should include "strong" somewhere, if only to reinforce that you intend your agreement to match the regulations.
You could trim some words from:
"artificial, strong, but not game forcing: either 19-20 balanced, or 8-9 playing tricks (in any suit)"
OR
"either 19-20 balanced, or a strong single suited hand, less than a game force"