[helene_t]

There are a few strong Dutch pairs that have the agreement that a t/o double can be almost any 13-16 balanced hand and that advancer, with a weak hand and no suit to bid at the 1-level, responds 1NT as a sort of nonforcing lebensohl so cater to that. I would expect such pairs to alert the double if playing in the EBU.

However, I don't think it is realistic to require an alert for pairs who double with a 4432 with 3 cards in the opening suit as long as advancer reacts as if it were a normal t/o double. It is a grey area when it is partnership agreement and when it is just double that took a calculated risk.

[gordontd]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-30, 04:32, said:

So why are sleeveless shirts not permitted but sleeveless blouses acceptable? Why are skorts allowed but shorts not? And what about those ripped jeans? And there are other aspects of dress code too that I would hope are addressed - I would much sooner face a man dressed in shorts than a woman wearing so much perfume that I can barely breathe, yet the latter is a mainstay at most bridge clubs. Has the EBU also listened and responded to such matters?

Finally, a link to the full regulation would be nice if you have it Gordon, as I did look around but was unable to locate the relevant document. It rather makes me wonder what the local regulations might be too.

Edit: I stuck Gordon's quote into the search engine and found this - I assume that must be the correct document so it appears that non-tailored shorts and sleeveless shirts are the only aspects of attire to be singled out for attention.

Indeed - which renders much of the earlier bit of your post incorrect.

I have not ever had any comments about perfume. I would listen to them if I did.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2016-March-30, 04:20, said:

It might be an anachronism if it were still true. Does it occur to you that the EBU might listen and respond to things its members draw to its attention?

I had heard nothing since I raised it at the time (not that many years ago) and was told by you, Jeremy and Mr Petrie that it wasn't going to change (indeed it was stiffened at the time, in that if you turned up without long trousers, and when asked to change you couldn't, you'd be thrown out of the tournament).

This change could have done with more publicity.

And no it hadn't occurred to me that the EBU ever listened to anybody under 70

[Zelandakh]

gordontd, on 2016-March-30, 05:13, said:

Indeed - which renders much of the earlier bit of your post incorrect.

Which parts? I found a few examples of sleeveless tops worn by women just on the EBU website and would be surprised if there were not plenty more to be seen regularly in many events. I am also confident that skorts (shorts with a wraparound that make them appear to be a skirt) would be allowed, indeed I daresay the majority of men would not even realise that this was a form of short trouser. Whether the ripped jeans come under the heading of appropriate dress is an open question that document does not answer either - they are certainly not specifically mentioned. And I am not sure which other parts of the post you might be referring to!

gordontd, on 2016-March-30, 05:13, said:

I have not ever had any comments about perfume. I would listen to them if I did.

You have now!

[gordontd]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-30, 07:40, said:

Which parts?

The second & third sentences. You seem to be answering regulations that once existed but don't any longer, which you know since I quoted the relevant regulation in its entirety and you went and found the source.

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-30, 07:40, said:

You have now!

Well if you draw it to my attention at an EBU event I'll look into it. So far you've just mentioned it as a "mainstay at most bridge clubs", and they make their own regulations.

[Zelandakh]

gordontd, on 2016-March-30, 08:02, said:

The second & third sentences. You seem to be answering regulations that once existed but don't any longer, which you know since I quoted the relevant regulation in its entirety and you went and found the source.

Not too sure we are not talking at cross purposes here. The regulations refer to sleeveless shirts being not allowed but it sppears that this is only enforced for men whereas women can wear sleeveless tops without question. Similarly, skorts are a type of non-tailored short that I am confident would not be questioned and, indeed, I would be surprised if any lady were asked to remove or cover up skirt-style vaguely smart shorts. The main question here is what makes the women's clothes different from those of the men and why such an enforcement can be seen by the powers that be as fair.

gordontd, on 2016-March-30, 08:02, said:

Well if you draw it to my attention at an EBU event I'll look into it. So far you've just mentioned it as a "mainstay at most bridge clubs", and they make their own regulations.

Sadly that is unlikely to happen as I emigrated to Germany a few years back. I would be seriously amazed if you had not come across plenty of ladies wearing ridiculous amounts of perfume in all of the years you have been officiating though, so I do not think you really need to hear it from me.

[gordontd]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-30, 08:45, said:

Not too sure we are not talking at cross purposes here. The regulations refer to sleeveless shirts being not allowed but it sppears that this is only enforced for men whereas women can wear sleeveless tops without question. Similarly, skorts are a type of non-tailored short that I am confident would not be questioned and, indeed, I would be surprised if any lady were asked to remove or cover up skirt-style vaguely smart shorts.

Despite having read the regulation, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that it prohibits the wearing of shorts. It doesn't, whether worn by women or men.

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-30, 08:45, said:

The main question here is what makes the women's clothes different from those of the men and why such an enforcement can be seen by the powers that be as fair.

I don't think they say anything about women versus men, and since I'm not aware of there having been any need to enforce them since they came into force, I don't think there can be any suggestion that they have been enforced differently in practice.

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-30, 08:45, said:

Sadly that is unlikely to happen as I emigrated to Germany a few years back. I would be seriously amazed if you had not come across plenty of ladies wearing ridiculous amounts of perfume in all of the years you have been officiating though, so I do not think you really need to hear it from me.

What I haven't come across is people complaining about them. I've had complaints about men who smell, men who scratch themselves inappropriately, men with dirty clothes or trousers showing off builder's bums, people who eat oranges, people who eat peanuts, but I don't actually recall a complaint about women with too much perfume. However, while you're picking me up on what you perceive as an unequal enforcement of regulations, is it only women whose perfume you object to?

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2016-March-30, 04:41, said:

It is a grey area when it is partnership agreement and when it is just double that took a calculated risk.

That would be true of any deviation from an agreement, would it not?

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2016-March-30, 05:13, said:

I have not ever had any comments about perfume. I would listen to them if I did.

The Daily Bulletins at ACBL NABCs have had a "Be Scentsitive" box for the past few years, reminding people that some people are allergic to strong perfumes.

[blackshoe]

I would imagine it works about as well as the boxes that remind people of the requirement to have two convention system cards.

I wonder — could a player having an adverse reaction to perfume (in the US) invoke the ADA? How about a restraining order (players wearing perfume are not permitted within 50 feet)?

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2016-March-30, 09:35, said:

The Daily Bulletins at ACBL NABCs have had a "Be Scentsitive" box for the past few years, reminding people that some people are allergic to strong perfumes.

Yes, I've seen those. I think like many things, concerns that are expressed in North America take some time to become issues over here. I've certainly encountered perfumes I find too strong or unpleasant, but it wouldn't have occurred to me to try to get a regulation made about it. Sometimes it's useful to be able to avoid the wearer without having seen them!

[Zelandakh]

gordontd, on 2016-March-30, 09:28, said:

Despite having read the regulation, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that it prohibits the wearing of shorts. It doesn't, whether worn by women or men.

i was under the impression that shorts should be of the "tailored" variety and was giving an example of non-tailored shorts that would presumably be allowed. Once we cover that we can move over to the wider question of the functional difference between non-tailored shorts and non-tailored skirts.

gordontd, on 2016-March-30, 09:28, said:

I don't think they say anything about women versus men, and since I'm not aware of there having been any need to enforce them since they came into force, I don't think there can be any suggestion that they have been enforced differently in practice.

The picture from Helene was of a lady and all of the examples of sleeveless tops I found by looking at a selection of pictures at the EBU website were of women. Perhaps mean are also allowed to wear sleeveless tops in practise and the regulation is not enforced at all but that is something I am not in a position to know.

gordontd, on 2016-March-30, 09:28, said:

What I haven't come across is people complaining about them. I've had complaints about men who smell, men who scratch themselves inappropriately, men with dirty clothes or trousers showing off builder's bums, people who eat oranges, people who eat peanuts, but I don't actually recall a complaint about women with too much perfume. However, while you're picking me up on what you perceive as an unequal enforcement of regulations, is it only women whose perfume you object to?

I daresay I might also complain about men flashing their "bits" while wearing kilts. If you want to complain about men (or women) being sweaty then turn the heating down to somewhere below 40 degrees, not that the LOLs would ever allow that. As for men wearing too much after shave, yes that would be a problem too if it got to the "cannot breathe" stage but there are a number of reasons why that tends not to happen, the most obvious of which being that eau de cologne is many times weaker than parfum and rarely reaches such a level of concentration during a bridge evening.

[barmar]

It's not just in bridge that there's a clothing double standard. About a decade ago I was working in an office that announced that men couldn't wear T-shirts, they had to wear polo shirts or button-down shirts. I pointed out that there was no similar prohibition for women. They said that's just the way it is.

Clothing acceptability is based on fashions, and fashions for men and women differ. I'm just happy that they didn't make us wear suits and ties.

[jallerton]

moderators: please can we change the topic title from Take-out double, what does this actually mean?" to "Dress code: what does this actually mean"?

[Cyberyeti]

jallerton, on 2016-March-31, 17:29, said:

moderators: please can we change the topic title from Take-out double, what does this actually mean?" to "Dress code: what does this actually mean"?

Well yes it should be two threads, but if I can't hijack my own thread ...

[blackshoe]

Threads drift. Threads get hijacked - even by their originators. Is it really that big a deal?

[campboy]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-30, 09:50, said:

i was under the impression that shorts should be of the "tailored" variety and was giving an example of non-tailored shorts that would presumably be allowed. Once we cover that we can move over to the wider question of the functional difference between non-tailored shorts and non-tailored skirts.

The thing is, dress codes are about what constitutes acceptable appearance. So they don't really mean "you can't wear a certain type of item", so much as "you can't appear a certain way".

That being the case, it is no surprise that a skort, being (so far as I can tell from your description) a pair of shorts designed to look like something else, would be permitted despite a rule against "non-tailored shorts". Similarly, at clubs which have a "no denim" rule, I doubt I could get away with trousers that were designed to look like jeans, even if technically they were not made of denim.

[blackshoe]

All I know is if the rule goes back to "gentlemen must wear a coat and tie at all times", I'm gonna quit playing.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-01, 07:30, said:

All I know is if the rule goes back to "gentlemen must wear a coat and tie at all times", I'm gonna quit playing.

I just admit I am not a gentleman.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2016-April-01, 07:35, said:

I just admit I am not a gentleman.

I thought of that, but I don't think I can get away with it. The US Senate made me a gentleman when they confirmed my commission.