[jallerton]

The wording "A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings" was previously in the Orange Book and remained when the shorter Blue Book replaced the Orange Book. I seem to recall that at one stage the wording was "A pass which does not convey values or specify suit holdings" but then somebody pointed out sequences in which it was normal for a pass to convey values or specify suit holdings and that nobody was alerting passes in these sequences.

Take the uncontested sequence: 1♠-1NT-2♦-Pass. I've never known anybody alert Responder's pass. The pass "specifies suit holdings" (preference for diamonds over spades and, by inference, not sufficiently good hearts or clubs to introduce either of those suits), but not unexpectedly so.

Also, as Campboy mentions, the clause could have been written differently had the alternative meaning been intended. Note that it does not say, for example, "A pass which does not convey unexpected values or specify suit holdings"

So I conclude that the writer(s) intended the word "unexpectedly" to attach to "specify suit holdings" as well as to "convey values". By the way, I also believe that the writer(s) intended the word "not" to apply to both parts!

[Trinidad]

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.

Excuse me, but when:
an experienced EBU TD comes to BBF to ask whether a certain call is alertable under EBU regulations
and the players failed to alert (seemingly because they weren't aware that the pass needed to be alerted

then that stronly suggests that the EBU alert regulation is far from "simple and easy to apply" as was claimed by Vampyre.

Of course, my observations are inane to you, but I think it is rather amusing that you tell me that all is fine with this regulation and tnen continue immediately:

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

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.

to show what you think is wrong with the regulation.

I can only notice that within a few weeks, there have been several EBU alert problem cases here that would not have existed if there would have been a simple "alert what your opponents might not understand" rule in force.

This case was a typical one: I can buy the argument that the TD (or I when responding to a forum post) should be able to read from the Blue Book whether a call is alertable. But I simply won't buy it that all players at the table know that alert regulation by heart and understand it well enough to apply it properly. And that is demonstrated over and over again.

Don't tell me that this was a case where North forgot to alert because he wasn't paying attention since the waitress came by or somebody spilled coffee. This was -again- a case where the player simply didn't know the alert regulation. And I don't blame him. We, as TDs, might like detailed, complicated rules and many of us are able to handle them easily. But the majority of the players are not Secretary Birds. And bridge regulations are intended for the players, not for the TDs.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Some of my opponents might not understand just about anything. Does that mean, under your simple rule, that I should alert everything?

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-26, 19:34, said:

Some of my opponents might not understand just about anything. Does that mean, under your simple rule, that I should alert everything?

Yes.

And here is why: Alerts are for your opponents, not for regulation writers.

It is one of the hidden advantages of this simple rule: It puts the responsibility on the shoulders of the players who can handle it best (e.g. on yours instead of those of your confused opponent).

Rik

[campboy]

Trinidad, on 2015-March-26, 18:53, said:

I can only notice that within a few weeks, there have been several EBU alert problem cases here that would not have existed if there would have been a simple "alert what your opponents might not understand" rule in force.

This is not one of those cases, though. This is one of the few cases where the EBU rule is basically what you want it to be: alert if the inferences about strength or suit length are unexpected. The problem is that we cannot agree on what is unexpected here -- unless we decide that anything could be unexpected, which rather defeats the point. For some of us, denying support is just the standard meaning, and we would find a suggestion to play "unexpected". For others, to play is expected and this isn't. You yourself gave a third candidate for "normal meaning".

It would be much easier if the rule was "alert a pass unless it shows willingness to play there", say. Then the rule might go against my intuition of what is expected in this situation, but that doesn't much matter. I would know what was alertable and what wasn't, and more importantly I could be confident my opponents would interpret the rule in the same way.

[edit: I suppose it would have to be "unless it shows a willingness to play or defend the last contract named", or something, to include the cases where passing it out would leave opponents playing a contract.]

[Zelandakh]

campboy, on 2015-March-27, 02:54, said:

It would be much easier if the rule was "alert a pass unless it shows willingness to play there", say. Then the rule might go against my intuition of what is expected in this situation, but that doesn't much matter. I would know what was alertable and what wasn't, and more importantly I could be confident my opponents would interpret the rule in the same way.

[edit: I suppose it would have to be "unless it shows a willingness to play or defend the last contract named", or something, to include the cases where passing it out would leave opponents playing a contract.]

I agree with the sentiment of your post - it is essentially what I have been writing about for much of the thread - but not the solution. It is more complicated than this - for example, when the opps make a forcing call then I can pass with many hands that would not want to play the last contract named. Having a clear non-alertable for passes seems to me to be the right approach though, in the same way that the EBU have attempted to do for doubles. It just is not easy to write a regulation that covers all instances.

[Trinidad]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-27, 03:53, said:

It just is not easy to write a regulation that covers all instances.

That is my point, except that I would say it is impossible rather than "not easy".

The regulators are trying their very best to build something that I believe cannot be built. The result is an extensive construct that is "almost good", but - apart from the fact that it is complicated and hard to apply for the average bridge player - with many small hidden flaws.

Once one realizes that it is impossible to construct the perfect regulation, one will accept imperfection (one will have to). Then it is obviously much better to have a simple regulation with one huge, obvious flaw that stares you straight in the face (but that players can handle) than a complex regulation with many small hidden flaws (where players will lose track of what flaw was where).

Rik

[Lanor Fow]

The fact that many people on here disagree with you, seems to suggest that it's not 'obviously' much better.

[lamford]

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

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.

I originally wrote, when the question of potential ambiguity arose:
"As written it is ambiguous and the second version above might not be the correct interpretation." I presented both meanings. I am not arguing that your interpretation is not intended, as it is "outside my knowledge" as they say in court cases. Jallerton believes the intention was for "unexpectedly" to qualify both infinitives and he knows the dramatis personae better than I do.

As an aside, someone began another thread on here:
An acquaintance, let's say a friend but we don't get together often, contacted Becky (my wife). She is probably in her 40s and wants to get some math help.

I think that is ambiguous as well, as would be the following sentence:
An acquaintance, let's say a friend but we don't get together often, contacted Becky (my wife) for math help. She teaches the subject at MIT and was delighted to be of assistance.

In both cases, we work out the meaning from the context, and what we are told of the people. It is better however to avoid the ambiguity which can be achieved by an alternative wording.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2015-March-26, 15:52, said:

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.

Because this thread indicates that understanding of the context is not a solution. We all understand the context quite well, yet we can't agree on what was meant.

So I thought maybe people with a better understanding of language in general might be able to point out some language-based guidelines for disambiguating it. Or they'd be able to confirm that it's really as ambiguous as it seems, which perhaps could be used to suggest to the EBU that they should clarify it in the next revision. At the very least, they mostly wouldn't have an agenda as a bridge player.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-March-26, 18:53, said:

then that stronly suggests that the EBU alert regulation is far from "simple and easy to apply" as was claimed by

yes, with doubles it's not that hard. With passes it is trickier, but the L&EC are probably going to make it clearer. What we have works and it can also be improved. Why let perfect be the enemy of good?

Quote

I can only notice that within a few weeks, there have been several EBU alert problem cases here that would not have existed if there would have been a simple "alert what your opponents might not understand" rule in force.

There have also been thousands of alerts that have been clear and correct. Do not forget that a large number, perhaps the majority, of the directors on these forums are in the EBU.

If your Dutch regulation makes Dutch players happy, then that is great. I personally would find it nightmarish to try and determine what each set of opponents, whether I knew them or not, might not understand.

Quote

But I simply won't buy it that all players at the table know that alert regulation by heart and understand it well enough to apply it properly. And that is demonstrated over and over again.

They do their best and it works for us.