[barmar]

lamford, on 2015-March-26, 11:00, said:

That pass does not "specify" the number of hearts held, as it could be 0, 1 or 2

Well, the only reason the pass after the doubled transfer "specifies" the number is because the initial NT bid implies at least 2. The pass simply limits it to at most 2, just as the pass in my example does.

And I'm not sure "specify suit holdings" means that it specifies an exact number in the suit, just that it defines the suit holdings in some particular way. So a pass that indicates that it can only be 0, 1, or 2 does "specify" the suit holding. Would you say that opening 1♠ in a 5-card major system doesn't specify the spade holding, because it could actually be more than 5?

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2015-March-26, 10:05, said:

It would be easy if you read the Blue Book, but you seem to have a pathological dislike of the EBU regulations causing you to generate inane observations on this and similar threads. The Blue Book has, under the definition of "natural" for Pass, and therefore not alertable:

[4C1] (c) A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings.

On a linguistic note, it would be clearer if this regulation said:
[4C1] (c) A pass which does not specify suit holdings or unexpectedly convey values.
As written it is ambiguous and the second version above might not be the correct interpretation.

The fact that it specified a suit holding (precisely two spades) means that it was not natural, and therefore was alertable.

lamford, on 2015-March-26, 10:49, said:

Not so. The unexpectedly refers to "convey values". If a pass specifies a suit length it is always alertable.

OK, so it appears that Vampyr is mistaken when she is interpreting this 'simple' rule.

Vampyr, on 2015-March-25, 11:44, said:

The EBU don't recognise the concept of "self-alerting bids".

It seems to me that BB4C1( c) implies that a pass here is alerted, since it conveys a message about suit holdings. In any case, it is, in my experience, always alerted, so this is what the opponents will expect, even if it is incorrect!

A non-alerted meaning, trevahound, would show some willingness to play in 2♥X.

If the pass showed willingness to play in 2♥x, then it would specify suit holdings (in hearts) and would therefore be alertable.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2015-March-26, 11:17, said:

various

I think a non-alertable meaning is one that does not convey information about suit lengths, nor does it unexpectedly show values. If pass showed a desire to compete to the three level, while redouble said "don't go to three", that would surely be alertable. If the pass showed length in hearts it would also be alertable. I disagree with Vampyr that a pass which shows heart length is not alertable.

And on the question of whether "unexpectedly" qualifies "convey" or "specify", take the following sentence.

"He slowly wrote down the contract and made the opening lead."

Which was slow; the writing down of the contract or the making of the opening lead after writing down the contract?

[barmar]

I've posted a question about interpreting the Blue Book clause to the English Language and Usage StackExchange site.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2015-March-26, 11:28, said:

And on the question of whether "unexpectedly" qualifies "convey" or "specify", take the following sentence.

You really want to play that game? The cleaner was unexpectedly neither being paid for their work nor wearing clothes. YOur example is flawed because grammatically the slowly refers to both but we know from the sense that it should not. The correct form of your sentence is with the word slowly between "contract" and "and". There is no doubt that Barry's interpretation is grammatically correct, irrespective of whether the writer meant it that way or not.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2015-March-26, 11:36, said:

I've posted a question about interpreting the Blue Book clause to the English Language and Usage StackExchange site.

Have you considered just asking Robin, Barry? As I recall he was one of the writers working on it.

[FrancesHinden]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-26, 11:39, said:

Have you considered just asking Robin, Barry? As I recall he was one of the writers working on it.

Robin is the currently the most active person working on the White Book
I am the current main writer of regulations in the Blue Book, but the content was actually written by a number of people over the years. That particular sentence, I think, has been there so long that I don't know who wrote it.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-26, 11:38, said:

You really want to play that game? The cleaner was unexpectedly neither being paid for their work nor wearing clothes. YOur example is flawed because grammatically the slowly refers to both but we know from the sense that it should not. The correct form of your sentence is with the word slowly between "contract" and "and". There is no doubt that Barry's interpretation is grammatically correct, irrespective of whether the writer meant it that way or not.

Yes, I love playing that game, as you well know! I will ask a legal friend, Professor of Law at London University, what the sentence means in legal terms, and come back to you. Maybe some person better at grammar than I can throw in their oar. In your sentence I think the "neither" and "nor" mean that "unexpectedly" refers to both. If you wrote "the cleaner was unexpectedly wearing nothing and carrying his own mop" would you think that it was unexpected that he was carrying his own mop? I also look forward to barmar's reply from the site on which he has posted.

[VixTD]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-26, 08:11, said:

This seems a very strange logic to me Vix. What you are saying is that in any situation where many club partnerships do not have an agreement you have to alert every call, even the most common one.

I think the logic behind the regulation is that partnerships who have built up an implicit agreement that a call might be used to convey a meaning that would be alertable should alert it rather than not alert and claim "undiscussed". This is a sea-change from the previous regulation under which it was acceptable not to alert in situations where no explicit agreement existed.

In this situation I expect most serious tournament partnerships to have some idea of what pass conveys, even if it hasn't been discussed, but to the majority of unsophisticated and unfamiliar partnerships at the club the pass probably doesn't say anything about suit lengths.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2015-March-26, 10:44, said:

How do you know he assumed this? How do you know he took fright? Did East make any statement to the TD? It seems more likely to me that 2NT was a constructive move. The failure to alert makes it MUCH more attractive to bid 2NT because partner may well have a doubleton spade, but if North has only two, there is an increased chance of West having three small.

I know he assumed it because he told me. "Took fright", I'll have to admit, was my own phrase, but it still looks to me a panic-stricken action from someone who is facing the prospect of defending 2♥X.

[VixTD]

I can't claim to be an expert on English grammar, but I think that in the Blue Book construction in question:

Quote

A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings

the most natural interpretation is that "unexpectedly" qualifies "convey values" but not "specify suit holdings", although it's possible to read it otherwise.

Quote

The cleaner was unexpectedly neither being paid for their work nor wearing clothes.

Here "unexpectedly" qualifies what follows "neither" and what follows "nor".

Quote

The cleaner was unexpectedly wearing nothing and carrying his own mop

This time it's ambiguous, but the likely intended meaning would be coloured by what the reader knows about the situation. Normally cleaners are expected to wear clothes to work and carry cleaning implements, but if the previous sentence had been something like "the cleaner had lost his mop and was unable to find it anywhere" the expectations change.

[Vampyr]

jallerton, on 2015-March-26, 11:17, said:

OK, so it appears that Vampyr is mistaken when she is interpreting this 'simple' rule.

Do you find it simple? I don't, I think it needs to be clarified so as to avoid varied interpretations. What I do know is that in practice, "everyone" alerts the pass as showing a doubleton.

Quote

If the pass showed willingness to play in 2♥x, then it would specify suit holdings (in hearts) and would therefore be alertable.

This all depends on whether "unexpectedly" refers to showing suit holdings. Normally, a pass that shows a willingness to play in the last named contract is considered natural. If that is not the case here then it is a struggle to find a non-alertable meaning, which, when there are no relevant announcements, is an absurd situation.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2015-March-26, 11:00, said:

That pass does not "specify" the number of hearts held, as it could be 0, 1 or 2, and I know of plenty of people who do alert when playing support doubles. Generally, an adverb only applies to one verb unless made clear. For the meaning you suggest, they could have written:

A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values nor unexpectedly specify suit holdings.

I assumed "unexpectedly" applied to both, and it would not have occurred to me to read it otherwise. For the meaning you suggest, they could have written "A pass which does not specify suit holdings or unexpectedly convey values", and this feels a great deal more natural than your alternative version.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2015-March-26, 12:33, said:

I assumed "unexpectedly" applied to both, and it would not have occurred to me to read it otherwise. For the meaning you suggest, they could have written "A pass which does not specify suit holdings or unexpectedly convey values", and this feels a great deal more natural than your alternative version.

Some responses so far suggest that it is just ambiguous. There is no doubt that "does not" applies to "specify", and someone mistakenly thought that was the issue! One opinion:

"There is nothing wrong with either of the two sentence structures associated with the meanings you're concerned with, so it's grammatically ambiguous. There could be something special about the context and the way such rules are customarily interpreted that eliminates one of the readings, I suppose, but that wouldn't be a grammatical issue."

In practice, it does not matter, as passes that specify suit lengths will be unexpected to many people and I cannot imagine any such pass not requiring an alert, so it is quite possible that the writer at the time intended all such passes to be alerted. I would guess that 80% of people at my local club would not know that Pass showing two spades is common. It would be useful, however, if the clause was reworded so that it was not ambiguous.

It has occurred to me also that the wording of the clause regarding alertable passes is inadequate in other ways. We play after a weak two, and an Ogust enquiry followed by an overcall (say 3C) that Pass is the weakest, saying I would have bid 3C, Double says I would have bid 3D, 3D says I would have bid 3H etc. Now this Pass neither conveys values (it shows a complete minimum) nor specifies suit lengths and therefore is not alertable. That cannot be active ethics, and I alert it anyway. The correct wording of the clause is something like:

"A pass which does not specify suit holdings or unexpectedly convey information about hand strength"

'A dog which does not noisily bark or bite', with the adverb modifying only the first infinitive, seems acceptable. – Edwin Ashworth

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2015-March-26, 11:54, said:

"Took fright", I'll have to admit, was my own phrase, but it still looks to me a panic-stricken action from someone who is facing the prospect of defending 2♥X.

If you are right, then I hope I never get stuck in an elevator with East. His partner is a passed hand and has doubled a transfer, clearly showing five or more hearts, and he is looking at three hearts himself. If North wants to play in 2H doubled, East should be rubbing his or her hands with glee, although South will be looking at a singleton or void and will remove anyway. It looks to me like the normal constructive move from someone who has been reading the Blue Book avidly, and now knows the opponents have eight spades at least (or South would have alerted). I think 2NT should be played as artificial as well, with three-card heart support, and either Lebensohl or Rubensohl, but I presume West did not alert it. I think all four-card heart raises should go through 2S, and 3 minor should be fit-non-jump. Doesn't everyone play this way? But maybe this particular East is being given too much credit. You know him or her better than me!

[campboy]

lamford, on 2015-March-26, 12:45, said:

In practice, it does not matter, as passes that specify suit lengths will be unexpected to many people and I cannot imagine any such pass not requiring an alert.

Really? 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3NT - pass means opener has two spades for many pairs, and I've never seen it alerted.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2015-March-26, 12:58, said:

Really? 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3NT - pass means opener has two spades for many pairs, and I've never seen it alerted.

No it doesn't. For everyone who has ever played bridge it exercised a choice between 3NT and 4S. I have passed even with four spades on several occasions. If I had ♠xxxx ♥KQx ♦KJT ♣KQx I would not dream of bidding 4S. If there was an agreement that the opener was obliged to bid 4S with all 3-(433) hands regardless of suitability, then I would expect an alert, and would provide an alert on the solitary occasion I agreed to play with this particular partner.

There used to be a blanket over-riding clause, I recall in the Orange Book, that one did not need to alert something which would be regarded as standard by a pick-up partner, but I cannot see such a clause in the Blue Book anymore. Perhaps it should be re-introduced to cover obvious cases.

[gnasher]

We're supposed to be intelligent, well-educated people who mostly speak English as a first language. Do we really need to consult some external authority about the meaning of a simple twelve-word phrase?

The wording in the Blue Book is, as VixTD says, ambiguous. It will remain ambiguous even if we're told otherwise by the finest legal brains in the world, the geekiest geeky English language site on the Internet, or even H W Fowler himself.

I blame the proof-readers.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2015-March-26, 13:39, said:

We're supposed to be intelligent, well-educated people who mostly speak English as a first language. Do we really need to consult some external authority about the meaning of a simple twelve-word phrase?

Obviously we do, because we have a significant disagreement on what it means.

Unfortunately, it's grammatically ambiguous. Often in cases like this, context or common sense can be used to disambiguate. I gave my reason above for why I think my intrerpretation is what the regulators likely intended. It also fits the general philosophy that unexpected meanings are what need to be alerted.

On the other hand, lamford is one of the only ones arguing against my interpretation. It feels more like one of his SB hypothetical posts, where he's deliberately trying to interpret the words literally, but in a way that flies in the face of common sense.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2015-March-26, 14:45, said:

Obviously we do, because we have a significant disagreement on what it means.

Unfortunately, it's grammatically ambiguous. Often in cases like this, context or common sense can be used to disambiguate. I gave my reason above for why I think my intrerpretation is what the regulators likely intended. It also fits the general philosophy that unexpected meanings are what need to be alerted.

Your second paragraph shows why it's utterly pointless to consult some external non-bridge authority about this. It is, as you say, grammatically ambiguous. Why do you think that some people on an English-usage website who know nothing about bridge will be better placed than you to disambiguate? You have a far better understanding of the context than they do, and the evidence of their choice of subject for online discussion suggests that you have rather more common sense too.