[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2011-November-25, 19:12, said:

The EBU is allowed to change the English language?

All the words we use in bridge are normal words, but they have specialized meaning in the context of the game. And if some of them are used in regulations, it makes sense for the regulation to say how they should be interpreted there.

"game forcing" is an idiom. Idioms often don't mean what their literal words mean.

[aguahombre]

I didn't know "game forcing" was an idiom. But I am not in England, so maybe it is different there.

Do gentlemen believe "no" is just a figure of speech, also?

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-26, 01:20, said:

I didn't know "game forcing" was an idiom. But I am not in England, so maybe it is different there.

I am in England, and I was also unaware that "game forcing" is an idiom.

Quote

Do gentlemen believe "no" is just a figure of speech, also?

If they do, you are using the word "gentlemen" extremely loosely.

[Oof Arted]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-26, 04:26, said:

If they do, you are using the word "gentlemen" extremely loosely.

Now this statement is a 'Gross' understatement Stephanie

[ahydra]

The "...or a doubled contract by opponents" thing is interesting. On Thursday my partner opened 2C (standard GF/23+ thing), 2S from RHO, all pass [Great view from partner, +100 for us instead of going off in 2NT - I had one 10 in my hand and nothing higher]

If you explained a bid as "extended rule of 25" in a club you'd get blank looks. I'm of the opinion that everyone has similar ideas about "game forcing" hands - they're the hands that they themselves would open 2C with (playing standard) - so I think opening the OP hand 2C and describing it as "GF" is fine, at least at club/county level, provided that when asked for further info (eg could it be a huge suit with not much outside) you answer appropriately.

ahydra

[EricK]

ahydra, on 2011-November-26, 05:22, said:

The "...or a doubled contract by opponents" thing is interesting. On Thursday my partner opened 2C (standard GF/23+ thing), 2S from RHO, all pass [Great view from partner, +100 for us instead of going off in 2NT - I had one 10 in my hand and nothing higher]

If you explained a bid as "extended rule of 25" in a club you'd get blank looks. I'm of the opinion that everyone has similar ideas about "game forcing" hands - they're the hands that they themselves would open 2C with (playing standard) - so I think opening the OP hand 2C and describing it as "GF" is fine, at least at club/county level, provided that when asked for further info (eg could it be a huge suit with not much outside) you answer appropriately.

ahydra

It looks like you should have doubled them!

[bluejak]

Let us look at the problem another way.

Pair A play an Acol 2♣ traditionally. It shows 23+ balanced, or game in hand with 5+ quick tricks unbalanced. They describe the bid as 23+ or FG on their SC and in answer to questions.

Pair B play an Acol 2♣ in the more modern style but with common sense. It shows 23+ balanced, or game in hand [nearly] and a fairly strong hand. They describe the bid as 23+ or FG on their SC and in answer to questions.

Pair C play an Acol 2♣ in modern palooka style. It shows 23+ balanced, or any hand which they are scared of missing game, including nine nearly solid spades and an outside king. They describe the bid as 23+ or FG on their SC and in answer to questions.

Some of you, judging by your description of game forcing, consider that these three pairs have practiced full disclosure since they are playing it as 23+ or game forcing. I find it incredible that anyone believes that this is adequate disclosure when people play vastly different methods but describe them the same.

[StevenG]

bluejak, on 2011-November-27, 02:57, said:

Some of you, judging by your description of game forcing, consider that these three pairs have practiced full disclosure since they are playing it as 23+ or game forcing. I find it incredible that anyone believes that this is adequate disclosure when people play vastly different methods but describe them the same.

They are not playing different methods. They are playing the same method, but using significantly different judgement.

[campboy]

They certainly are playing different methods if 2♣ establishes forcing passes for some but not others.

Even if none of them can allow the opponents to play undoubled then style is disclosable. The Orange Book specifically says that a strong artificial opening which can be as weak as the hand in the OP is only permitted "subject to proper disclosure"; bluejak's pair C have a particular responsibility to make it clear that their style is to open on much weaker hands than normal.

[StevenG]

I play Benji, so I have a choice of two strong forcing opening bids. People who play three weak twos often open their 2♣ noticeably lighter than I would open my 2♦, because it is the only forcing bid they have. This seems to go unmentioned, but is surely part of the same argument.

As to the forcing pass argument, I would suggest that 85% of the EBU membership would not have the first idea about the concept of a forcing pass, and that the argument cannot be taken seriously for that reason alone.

[PeterAlan]

RMB1, on 2011-November-25, 14:18, said:

Trinidad, on 2011-November-25, 13:28, said:

"Forcing to game" means exactly that: "We don't pass unless we are in a game contract". It doesn't mean that pass is forcing when opponents bid above game. ...

It does mean that in the EBU.

Orange Book - Glossary said:

Game forcing: A call after which a partnership has agreed the auction will end in a game or slam contract (or a doubled contract by opponents).

This is hardly unduly restrictive: since 3NT-4minor is the only way to go from a game contract to one that is not game, it follows that if you are prepared to bid to game in a suit then the opponents must also bid to game to outbid you and in this event the EBU definition is satisfied whether you double them or not - the regulation does not specify that the game or slam contract should be by the partnership side. It also follows that the issues above about forcing passes become irrelevant in this situation (so far as regulation is concerned).

Mind you, it also means that the traditional Acol 2♣ bid does not meet the EBU GF definition, because 2♣-2♦-2NT may be passed.

Peter

[RMB1]

StevenG, on 2011-November-27, 05:51, said:

As to the forcing pass argument, I would suggest that 85% of the EBU membership would not have the first idea about the concept of a forcing pass, and that the argument cannot be taken seriously for that reason alone.

I disagree, they may not have discussed the concept of a forcing pass but they do know that when they have opened with their strongest bid that they will not pass out the opponents: "I had to double, partner".

[aguahombre]

PeterAlan, on 2011-November-27, 06:34, said:

the regulation does not specify that the game or slam contract should be by the partnership side.

I love it.

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on 2011-November-27, 02:57, said:

Let us look at the problem another way.

Pair A play an Acol 2♣ traditionally. It shows 23+ balanced, or game in hand with 5+ quick tricks unbalanced. They describe the bid as 23+ or FG on their SC and in answer to questions.

Pair B play an Acol 2♣ in the more modern style but with common sense. It shows 23+ balanced, or game in hand [nearly] and a fairly strong hand. They describe the bid as 23+ or FG on their SC and in answer to questions.

Pair C play an Acol 2♣ in modern palooka style. It shows 23+ balanced, or any hand which they are scared of missing game, including nine nearly solid spades and an outside king. They describe the bid as 23+ or FG on their SC and in answer to questions.

Some of you, judging by your description of game forcing, consider that these three pairs have practiced full disclosure since they are playing it as 23+ or game forcing. I find it incredible that anyone believes that this is adequate disclosure when people play vastly different methods but describe them the same.

Pair A plays old fashioned strong 1NT openings. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

Pair B plays a slightly more modern style. Their 1NT opening can contain a five card major. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

Pair C plays a more modern style. They can have a six card minor or a 2245 distribution with a five card minor and a four card side suit. (But typically not 5 clubs and 4 spades). Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

I find it incredible that anyone believes that this is adequate disclosure when people play vastly different methods but describe them the same.

Or to get back to the topic of 2♣ openers: You are exagerating. The difference between the different 2♣ openers is marginal. The biggest difference lies in the bidding a round later when the opponents interfere. For some a pass would be forcing, for others it isn't. The cure: Alert the fact that the pass is forcing. This would at the same time make life easier on palooka's who don't know what a forcing pass is, whether they now play your method A, B and C. After all, they wouldn't need to alert. (You can't alert an agreement that you don't have, even less an agreement that you don't even know what it is or that it exists.)

Rik

P.S. It may be an idea to keep the word "palooka" out of posts that also involve regulations of the complexity of the Orange book. After all, a palooka is not able to understand the orange book.

[campboy]

Trinidad, on 2011-November-27, 10:44, said:

Pair A plays old fashioned strong 1NT openings. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

Pair B plays a slightly more modern style. Their 1NT opening can contain a five card major. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

Pair C plays a more modern style. They can have a six card minor or a 2245 distribution with a five card minor and a four card side suit. (But typically not 5 clubs and 4 spades). Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

I find it incredible that anyone believes that this is adequate disclosure when people play vastly different methods but describe them the same.

What you describe is not adequate disclosure. This is why the EBU convention card, under "1NT openings" has a space for "strength" and another for "shape constraints".

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2011-November-27, 10:44, said:

Pair A plays old fashioned strong 1NT openings. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

Pair B plays a slightly more modern style. Their 1NT opening can contain a five card major. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

Pair C plays a more modern style. They can have a six card minor or a 2245 distribution with a five card minor and a four card side suit. (But typically not 5 clubs and 4 spades). Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

campboy, on 2011-November-27, 10:58, said:

What you describe is not adequate disclosure. This is why the EBU convention card, under "1NT openings" has a space for "strength" and another for "shape constraints".

In the ACBL, NT ranges are announced. All of these would require the announcement "15-17". If opponents want more info, they have to ask about style. I do not think you would get redress here if you failed to ask about style, assumed one of the above, and later found it to be another one. The only way one of these would require an alert is if it were considered "highly unusual and unexpected", and then you would disclose your style (which would be what makes it "highly unusual and unexpected") in your initial explanation. But I don't think any of them fits that criterion.

[PeterAlan]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-27, 10:32, said:

PeterAlan, on 2011-November-27, 06:34, said:

the regulation does not specify that the game or slam contract should be by the partnership side.

I love it.

The sarcasm's out of place - perhaps the regulators have thought this through rather more thoroughly than you?

It's perfectly reasonable for a regulation to say that you shouldn't describe a bid as game forcing if you're prepared to let the opposition take the contract from you below game level without playing for penalties (because that's what the double implies). It's not reasonable for a regulation to go further by insisting that making a game forcing bid requires you to double whatever contract the opponents may outbid you with once you've got to your game level, not least because their contract might be making. And this balance, in effect, is what the definition strikes.

Peter

[AlexJonson]

PeterAlan, on 2011-November-27, 14:14, said:

The sarcasm's out of place - perhaps the regulators have thought this through rather more thoroughly than you?

It's perfectly reasonable for a regulation to say that you shouldn't describe a bid as game forcing if you're prepared to let the opposition take the contract from you below game level without playing for penalties (because that's what the double implies). It's not reasonable for a regulation to go further by insisting that making a game forcing bid requires you to double whatever contract the opponents may outbid you with once you've got to your game level, not least because their contract might be making. And this balance, in effect, is what the definition strikes.

Peter

I don't know if there was sarcasm, but I do believe that your position is clearly correct in relation to the regulations, because that is what they say (and could hardly reasonably say anything else without attracting derision).

Whether it's a good thing to pass an opponents preemptive game bid in this context is not the business of regulators.

[aguahombre]

PeterAlan, on 2011-November-27, 14:14, said:

The sarcasm's out of place - perhaps the regulators have thought this through rather more thoroughly than you?

Sarcasm? Perhaps the regualtors have thought this through rather more thoroughly than they expressed in the Orange Book Glossary. They didn't make it clear, and you did.

You are a hard person to agree with, apparently.

[Trinidad]

PeterAlan, on 2011-November-27, 14:14, said:

The sarcasm's out of place - perhaps the regulators have thought this through rather more thoroughly than you?

It's perfectly reasonable for a regulation to say that you shouldn't describe a bid as game forcing if you're prepared to let the opposition take the contract from you below game level without playing for penalties (because that's what the double implies). It's not reasonable for a regulation to go further by insisting that making a game forcing bid requires you to double whatever contract the opponents may outbid you with once you've got to your game level, not least because their contract might be making. And this balance, in effect, is what the definition strikes.

Peter

You are entirely correct. There is no reason to assume that the regulators meant something other than what they wrote. This is also the only interpretation that makes sense. Game forcing means that you will not pass below the game level. It doesn´t say anything about what you do once you reach the game level.

This regulation is a lot better than I thought originally. Thanks for pointing that out.

Rik