Proposed alert chart
Eric Landau
this month's Bulletin, and can scarcely believe my eyes.
After years of listening to complaints about how alerts have gotten out
of hand, how there are far too many alerts, how players can't be expected
to keep track of which of their natural bids are alertable, the ACBL
decides to attack the problem, and what do they come up with? A proposal
that would make large numbers of non-conventional, non-artificial and
previously unalertable perfectly natural bids alertable!
Opening 1NT on 12-14 HCP. Alertable!
Precision 2C opening. Alertable!
2H-P-2S non-forcing. Alertable!
1C-P-1NT on K10x/xxxx/KQx/Jxx. Alertable!
1C-P-1H-P-1NT on Jxxx/Kx/AQx/KJxx. Alertable!
1S-X-3S limit. Alertable!
1C-P-1S-2C natural. Alertable!
1H-P-3S-X for penalties. Alertable!
Intermediate jump overcalls. Alertable!
STRONG jump overcalls. Alertable! (Your elderly Aunt Tillie, who never
played a convention besides Blackwood in her life and doesn't know that a
jump can ever be anything but strong, has to alert, that's right, alert.
Just like she does when she "defends" against takeout doubles by ignoring
them!)
1NT-P-2C-P-2H-P-2NT not necessarily promising spades, which was recently,
in a rare fit of sanity, declared unalertable. Alertable again!
Whoever came up with this proposal probably heard the old joke about
curing the guy's cold by putting him in the shower with his clothes on
and then making him stand in front of a fan for half an hour so he'll
catch pneumonia, which the doctors do know how to cure, and didn't
understand why it was supposed to be funny.
Say it ain't so, Joe (or Roy, or Cecil, or whoever you are).
--
Eric Landau, APL Solutions, Inc. (ela...@cais.com)
"Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger." -- Abbie Hoffman
Richard Lighton
You can't believe your eyes, Eric? Why not? The chart in the
Bulletin is identical to the one that appeared in rgb
in mid-August!
Richard Lighton
(lig...@ios.com)
Donald Varvel
> I just finished looking over the proposed new alert chart that appears in
> this month's Bulletin, and can scarcely believe my eyes.
I had the same reaction, for exactly the opposite reason.
> After years of listening to complaints about how alerts have gotten out
> of hand, how there are far too many alerts, how players can't be expected
> to keep track of which of their natural bids are alertable, the ACBL
> decides to attack the problem, and what do they come up with? A proposal
> that would make large numbers of non-conventional, non-artificial and
> previously unalertable perfectly natural bids alertable!
There were several things that I had always thought were alertable that
are now clearly *not* alertable; bypassing diamonds over a 1C opening,
for example, and 2/1 game forcing. These things strike me as major
steps forward.
> Opening 1NT on 12-14 HCP. Alertable!
Hallelujah!!! This addresses *two* problems: first, the players who show
a good hand by fumbling and asking questions over the weak notrump; and
second, the players (like a recent partner of mine) who try to prevent
the opponents from finding out what the notrump range is.
I play a 12-14 or 11-14 with all partners who are willing to try to
handle it. I don't think this goes far enough. I think it should be
pre-alerted, so the opponents have no excuse for fumbling around when
it comes up. Some will anyway, of course.
> Precision 2C opening. Alertable!
I tend to agree with Eric about this one. Can't the opponents read the
convention card? But it doesn't seem like a big deal.
> 2H-P-2S non-forcing. Alertable!
This one frequently isn't marked on the convention card and makes a real
difference. I agree 100% with making it alertable. (This assumes it
is the less-frequent agreement, which I believe it is in most parts of
the country.)
> 1C-P-1NT on K10x/xxxx/KQx/Jxx. Alertable!
I have mixed feelings about this. Calling xxxx the equivalent of Kxx
is no big deal. What about KTx Kxxx QTx Jxx, though? *I* want to know
if people are responding 1NT with a decent 4-card major, and it's
certainly very unusual to do so.
> 1C-P-1H-P-1NT on Jxxx/Kx/AQx/KJxx. Alertable!
I rather like the alert here, especially if KJxx xx AQx KJxx is also
possible. KJxx xxx AQx KJx is another matter. I suspect most experts
bypass the spade suit with specifically 4-3-3-3.
> 1S-X-3S limit. Alertable!
I agree 95% with the alert. The standard meaning of this call has
been preemptive since early Goren. At least 3S preemptive should
*not* be alertable.
> 1C-P-1S-2C natural. Alertable!
While I believe the best use of this call is natural, I think the
alert is reasonable since the agreement is unusual (at least in the
circles I usually play in) and quite different from the usual agreement
(it may be the last bid in the auction).
> 1H-P-3S-X for penalties. Alertable!
I don't believe it's the *usual* meaning. Why *shouldn't* it be
alertable? (Hmm. What's 3S? If preemptive, the double should
clearly be takeout. If a splinter, it should clearly show spades
by default, although a conventional meaning makes some sense. Is
the point that it's alertable in the latter case? Doubles of
artificial bids should show the suit doubled, by default. This
may be an oversight in the writing of the rules.)
> Intermediate jump overcalls. Alertable!
I agree that anything clearly marked on the card should be exempt,
in a perfect world. (My comments on 12-14 notrump are based on
experience that suggests we live in a far from perfect world.)
> STRONG jump overcalls. Alertable! (Your elderly Aunt Tillie, who never
> played a convention besides Blackwood in her life and doesn't know that a
> jump can ever be anything but strong, has to alert, that's right, alert.
> Just like she does when she "defends" against takeout doubles by ignoring
> them!)
Don't get me started. If Aunt Tillie is competing for the same prizes
as I am (such as they are) she should abide by the same rules.
IMHO, ignoring a takeout double is a much better system (depending on
what your system was before, of course) than what many people use. It's
a serious recommendation in one of the early K-S books, with examples
to show all the things wrong with (then) "standard" methods. Since some
people still use those methods (XX with all 10+HCP hands, except possibly
those with support), Aunt Tillie may be beating the socks off the local
"experts" on those hands. I damn well think she should have to disclose
her methods.
Seriously, playing in club games and sectionals in rural northwestern
Pennsylvania, I have frequently found it impossible to find out what
opponents are doing. Some of them actually *have* well-developed
agreements, but by sounding vague and confused whenever anyone asks a
question they can get away with not answering. Several times I've been
fixed when an auction ended unexpectedly.
I hope you aren't advocating using different rules for different people,
or designating as "standard and non-alertable" whatever Aunt Tillie does;
but it seems like it must be one or the other.
> 1NT-P-2C-P-2H-P-2NT not necessarily promising spades, which was recently,
> in a rare fit of sanity, declared unalertable. Alertable again!
Not exactly. The 2C bid not necessarily promising a major was declared
unalertable, which it still is. No mention was made of this 2NT. I
appreciate the clearing up of the ambiguity, even though I agree with
Eric that it was done the wrong way.
> Whoever came up with this proposal probably heard the old joke about
> curing the guy's cold by putting him in the shower with his clothes on
> and then making him stand in front of a fan for half an hour so he'll
> catch pneumonia, which the doctors do know how to cure, and didn't
> understand why it was supposed to be funny.
> Say it ain't so, Joe (or Roy, or Cecil, or whoever you are).
I disagree with some of the decisions, but view it as a major step in
the right direction.
--
-- Don Varvel (dva...@alleg.edu)
"Excellent. Many mainlanders will suffer. You have done well."
Chip Martel
let me state that while I am not happy with every decision made,
overall I think it is a step forward. Also, I doubt anyone would
agree with every part of any alert procedure.
Personally I think many of the complaints Eric Landau made are against
good decisions (Donald Varvel already made a good defense to
most of them). What I want to address here is mostly a higher
level issue: what should alerts be accomplishing? My principles
for an alert policy are:
1. Make sure opponent's are not surprised by the meaning of normal
sounding bids.
2. Have clear and simple rules.
3. Avoid needing to ask questions which convey unauthorized information.
4. Reduce the total number of alerts
Many of the complaints Eric listed ignore the importance of item 3.
:Opening 1NT on 12-14 HCP. Alertable!
If you need to check your opponent's convention card to see their
range it can serious problems. As a weak notrumper I welcome this
change.
:2H-P-2S non-forcing. Alertable!
Again, it can cause a real problem if you have to ask in this type
of auction. With the new rule you can assume forcing without asking.
In fact, in general, the principle that any time you play as nonforcing
a bid most would play as forcing you must alert helps to cover this
type of situation,
:Precision 2C opening. Alertable!
This one is closer, but still nice to have covered. Yes it would be
nice to check out your opponents' general system at the start of
the round, but we have all been late in a pair game, and come
up against a pair with their card well hidden.
:Intermediate jump overcalls. Alertable!
This is clearly correct in my opinion. In addition to the unauthorized
information problem, this often does trick unsuspecting opponents who
just assume it is weak (as a player of IJO's on occasion I know this is
true).
:1C-P-1S-2C natural. Alertable!
This is marginal, but reasonable. Note that the alternative is that
you must ask about the 2C bid everytime it is made (how else could
you know if it is natural, or T/O)?
Now Eric, just to make it clear I don't reject all your complaints.
I agree that
:1C-P-1NT on K10x/xxxx/KQx/Jxx. Alertable!
is a mistake. I have suggeted this be changed so that only if it
is routine to bid 1N with a 4 card major is this an alert.
Chip Martel
PS: Please don't email complaints about the alert chart to me!
Send them to the ACBL: 74431...@compuserve.com
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Henk Uijterwaal (Oxford)
Pam Hadfield writes:
>Eric Landau writes:
>" Opening 1NT on 12-14 HCP. Alertable!
>To alert ANY range of NT is IMHO absolutely rediculous. Over here 12-14 is
>NORMAL! 15-17 or 16-18 is UNUSUAL. Should the EBU make strong no-trumps
>alertable? I think not!
Actually, I think that it makes a lot of sense to make some NT range
alertable. An alert immediately makes it clear if the NT is weak or
strong, so there is no need to ask questions about range anymore
before one can decide if one bids something and which defence applies
to this NT range. Also, if >90% of the players use X-Y, an alert
helps to warn them that this pair is one of the <10% that use Z-U.
Which range should be alertable is up to the NCBO. Except for an
island near the European coast, most players use 14-16, 15-17, 16-18
or something like that, so an alert for anything <14 or >18 makes
sense. In the UK, the alert should probably be for <12 or >14.
>" 2H-P-2S non-forcing. Alertable!
>Difficult, this one. Over here, a weak 2H is alertable as most people play
>2H as strong :)
Well, this is exactly the point: in the UK nobody plays a weak 2H, so
something unusual as that, should be an alert. In the USA, nobody
plays Acol 2's (a horrible way to waste an opening bid, but let's not
get into that), so it should be alertable there.
Henk.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: he...@desy.de
University of Oxford WWW: http://zow00.desy.de:8000/~uijter/TOP.html
DESY-F01 Phone: +49.40.89983133
Notkestrasse 85 Fax: +49.40.89983092
Hamburg, D22603, Germany Home: +49.40.3898954
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended.
Dave Eisen
>" Opening 1NT on 12-14 HCP. Alertable!
>"
>What about 10-12?
>To alert ANY range of NT is IMHO absolutely rediculous. Over here 12-14 is
>NORMAL! 15-17 or 16-18 is UNUSUAL. Should the EBU make strong no-trumps
>alertable? I think not!
Require alerts of what you think should require them.
I play weak NT in most of my partnerships and I always feel a
little slimy when they come up. It's clear that some of my
opponents have assumed my 1N opener was strong and have been
surprised later when they found out it wasn't. While I realize
it's their responsibility to check our range before acting, I
welcome the opportunity to alert my call to avert any possibly
problems.
>" 2H-P-2S non-forcing. Alertable!
>"
>Difficult, this one. Over here, a weak 2H is alertable as most people play
>2H as strong :)
To alert ANY range of opening 2 bid is IMHO absolutely rediculous. Over
here weak is NORMAL. Strong is UNUSUAL. Should the ACBL make strong two
bids alertable? I think not!
>Here we have the same problem as with weak NT. Intermediate jumps are normal
>here. I can see that I am going to have severe problems if I ever play in
>the US again! Surely there is a space on an ACBL convention card for
>marking the strenght of jump overcalls?
No doubt there is space on an EBU convention card for marking
the strength of opening two bids. Still, they are alertable.
And if you ever play in the US again, you'll have to learn what
is and is not alertable just like I would have to do in an EBU
event if I were to ever play in England. I don't see where that's
such a severe problem.
--
Dave Eisen Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
dke...@netcom.com FAX: (415) 967-5648
There's something in my library to offend everybody.
--- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
Michael Farebrother
Chip Martel <mar...@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>As a member of the drafting committee for the new alert procedure
>let me state that while I am not happy with every decision made,
>overall I think it is a step forward. Also, I doubt anyone would
>agree with every part of any alert procedure.
>
to inform us of that work. As an "intermediate" (at best) bridge player,
I hesitate to offer my own opinions, but as a bull-headed engineer-type :-),
I'm going to anyway. (and yes, I'm writing an equivalent note to the ACBL.
It won't spring directly off your post, as this one does - I haven't time
to ask your permission. It will, however, have your thoughts in mind).
>What I want to address here is mostly a higher
>level issue: what should alerts be accomplishing? My principles
>for an alert policy are:
>
>1. Make sure opponent's are not surprised by the meaning of normal
>sounding bids.
>
>2. Have clear and simple rules.
>
>3. Avoid needing to ask questions which convey unauthorized information.
>
>4. Reduce the total number of alerts
>
OK, all good to me. I might also add "reduce the amount of UI transmitted
to partner by alerts (wakeup UI?)", but that's just a factor in 4.
>
>Many of the complaints Eric listed ignore the importance of item 3.
My major comment to this is to be agressive about convention cards. State
that a pair is required to have, at the table and *readily available to
the opponents* (this means without asking for it), two complete, clear,
matching convention cards. A procedural penalty of 1/2 board is assessed
for failure. Also, (at the discretion of the opponents) this must be
rectified before play continues, the offending pair taking 0 on every
board not playable due to time, the non-offending pair A+.
And then anything that has checkboxes or can be clearly marked as a
numerical, bid-level, or suit-length range is not alertable. I feel a little
uncomfortable about this, (due to things like Lebensohl over T/O X of Wk 2s,
for example, being on the card - not everyone would understand this, even
if they did see it) but I think it's clear and simple (rule 2), and would
reduce the number of alerts (4) and questions - if it's not Alertable, it's
trivially on the card. As a corollary, anything that needs to
be written down is an alertable convention (We've all met those convention
cards that could have been written in Cyrillic for all we knew - and maybe
made a few ourselves? or those which approach the theoretical minimum for
whitespace on the card).
So how do I rate with "Eric's Infamous List"?
>
> :Opening 1NT on 12-14 HCP. Alertable!
>
>If you need to check your opponent's convention card to see their
>range it can serious problems. As a weak notrumper I welcome this
>change.
>
I *always* check ranges on 1NT bids. At the same time, I check the
constructive system they're playing. Just a matter of course, takes 2-3
seconds, and can't transmit UI, because I do it if and only if my
hand has 13 cards. I check jump overcalls, overcall habits, and defences to
1NT openings as a matter of course, too.
And when I'm playing different defences to weak and strong NTs, I check the
card *before play* and agree which one we're playing. Every round. Again,
takes 2-3 seconds, and it's explicitly in the rules. As a weak notrumper,
I wish I wasn't the only one :-).
Also, now that 2/1 GF responses are non-alertable, we're going to have
to look at every pair's card before starting the round, for an equally
basic reason.
>:2H-P-2S non-forcing. Alertable!
>
Does not fit in the list, Alertable (even though RONF is so easy to write on
the new cards, so I'd probably make *that* alertable, common or no).
>
>:Precision 2C opening. Alertable!
>
>This one is closer, but still nice to have covered. Yes it would be
>nice to check out your opponents' general system at the start of
>the round, but we have all been late in a pair game, and come
>up against a pair with their card well hidden.
>
About being late, I have no defence (oops), but against the people who *do
not wish me to ethically find out what they're playing* (ok, so it's an
exaggeration in a majority of cases. But if my rule was used, very soon
it wouldn't be), I would have no compunction to call the director and have
her "restore equity". "11-16, 6+ clubs" is hard to make illegible.
>:Intermediate jump overcalls. Alertable!
>
>This is clearly correct in my opinion. In addition to the unauthorized
>information problem, this often does trick unsuspecting opponents who
>just assume it is weak (as a player of IJO's on occasion I know this is
>true).
>
I'm sure it does. I certainly would be caught if I didn't look. I also
expect there are those who play IJO's simply for the unethical advantage
they get. But if it's so uncommon as to be Alertable, AFAIam concerned,
make the checkboxes on the card [] Weak Other_____________ as has been done
with the 2-level openers on the new card.
>:1C-P-1S-2C natural. Alertable!
>
>This is marginal, but reasonable. Note that the alternative is that
>you must ask about the 2C bid everytime it is made (how else could
>you know if it is natural, or T/O)?
>
Ok, I agree this is reasonable. I hate to remove the restriction that "all
cue-bids are self-alerting" - it was such a simple rule - but I'm willing to
be convinced.
>
> :1C-P-1NT on K10x/xxxx/KQx/Jxx. Alertable!
>
>is a mistake. I have suggeted this be changed so that only if it
>is routine to bid 1N with a 4 card major is this an alert.
>
I agree. Good luck with it.
One final point: What does "very light" mean? I've seen it on the CC,
and VL "openings", "overcalls" on the Alert chart. Has anyone been given
an answer to that (or even asked it? Am I being lawyerly to a fault?)
Michael.
Jeff Goldsmith
I don't know about your experience, but in mine,
not many folks play these treatments, so it ought
not have much effect on life.
>Opening 1NT on 12-14 HCP. Alertable!
Not so terrible. Many other places require alerts
for non-"standard" notrump ranges. I can live with
it. In particular, I have no problem at all with
alerting 10-12s; when I encounter folks who might
be discomfited by a dual range, I ask them if they'd
like us to alert the weak ones. About 75% of the
folks I ask request that we do so, and they seem
to appreciate it.
>Precision 2C opening. Alertable!
>2H-P-2S non-forcing. Alertable!
>1C-P-1H-P-1NT on Jxxx/Kx/AQx/KJxx. Alertable!
>1S-X-3S limit. Alertable!
>1H-P-3S-X for penalties. Alertable!
>Intermediate jump overcalls. Alertable!
>STRONG jump overcalls. Alertable!
Not too many pairs play these in our local
regionals. I alert our intermediate jump
overcalls anyway, since they are not what
opponents expect, and I consider it to be
courteous to draw their attention to them.
Yes, they could look at our convention card,
but who'd think to look? After (1C)-3H-(p)-p; (?)
opener is going to reopen with a double an
awful lot if he thinks that preemptive, and
that's going to be disastrous for his side
more often than not.
>1C-P-1NT on K10x/xxxx/KQx/Jxx. Alertable!
No, that's not an alert. If you respond 1NT
with AQJx QJxx xx xxx, then you have to
alert. Not if you choose to bypass four junky
ones with 4333 shape.
>1C-P-1S-2C natural. Alertable!
This one is probably backwards. My guess is that
natural is the most common treatment.
I haven't checked your work; I don't know if you
have got the examples right, but I just assumed you did.
>(Your elderly Aunt Tillie, who never
>played a convention besides Blackwood in her life and doesn't know that a
>jump can ever be anything but strong, has to alert, that's right, alert.
>Just like she does when she "defends" against takeout doubles by ignoring
>them!)
Yeah, and that's a problem. What do we do about
Aunt Tillie? I think she can handle realizing that
rules in tournaments are not the same as they are
at home. She already realizes that it is no longer
mandatory that dummy get up and get cookies, for
example. I think the new alert chart is more focused
towards flight A events than novice games. I don't
know what is best as a solution to that. I am certainly
willing to see a different set of rules in each.
>1NT-P-2C-P-2H-P-2NT not necessarily promising spades, which was recently,
>in a rare fit of sanity, declared unalertable. Alertable again!
Who cares? Actually, you have your information a
little off. It was the 2C bid that was declared
non-alertable. No ruling was made about 2NT.
It seems clear to me that the philosophy behind
the new alert chart is "if it's the most common
Flight A treatment, it's not alertable, and if
it differs substantially from that it is." Whether
or not you like this tenet, at least it's pretty
easy to remember and guess about slightly unusual
cases. One problem I forsee is that basing such
regulations on the current "most popular" methods
will cause the system to need frequent tinkering,
leading to uninformed players. The main advantage
I see is that typical "forgets" or ignorance will
likely get it right.
--Jeff
--
His tale is told and done. Jerry Garcia
M & C Smith
in the past, it does seem that their approach to the question
"what should be alertable" is far more sensible than either the
ACBL's current policy or the new proposed one.
The EBU rule is simple -- if a bid is natural then it is not alertable,
whereas if it is artificial, then it requires an alert.
Of course, this does mean that 1NT-P-2c Stayman is alertable, but 2C
showing clubs and either forcing or weak is not. It also means that
any kind of Q-bid, response to Blackwood, splinter, fit-showing jump,
etc. is alertable. Also, 4NT unusual and 4NT Blackwood are alerts, whereas
4NT natural is not.
Penalty doubles are basically not alertable, and take out doubles are
except on the first round of the auction when partner has not made
a postitive bid.
The only basic requirement is that at the start of each round/match
you must ascertain the opponents' basic system, NT strength, and
whether they play strong or weak two bids. Not that hard when you
consider the plus side.
The major benefit of these rules, of course, is that they are very
easy to follow, and everyone understands then and knows which bids
are alertable.
Note the following situation that Chip Martel commented on in his
post:
> :1C-P-1S-2C natural. Alertable!
>
> This is marginal, but reasonable. Note that the alternative is that
> you must ask about the 2C bid everytime it is made (how else could
> you know if it is natural, or T/O)?
Why is this a problem. If it shows clubs, then it would not be
alertable. If it is take-out (ie. artificial) then it requires an alert.
Why is this such a difficult concept?
Marc
Richard Lighton
Chip Martel <mar...@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> As a member of the drafting committee for the new alert procedure
> let me state that while I am not happy with every decision made,
> overall I think it is a step forward. Also, I doubt anyone would
> agree with every part of any alert procedure.
>
> good decisions (Donald Varvel already made a good defense to
> level issue: what should alerts be accomplishing? My principles
> for an alert policy are:
>
> 1. Make sure opponent's are not surprised by the meaning of normal
> sounding bids.
>
> 2. Have clear and simple rules.
>
> 3. Avoid needing to ask questions which convey unauthorized information.
>
> 4. Reduce the total number of alerts
>
snipped from the rest of Chip's post, much of principles 3 and 4
can be achieved by the following:
Have as a requirement that at the beginning of the round you
exchange convention cards with opponents
Have as a requirement that you determine opponents' general methods
and notrump opening ranges.
Between them, these would get rid of all the notrump range problems
and at least would remove the need to ask about early auction alerts.
Incidentally, if anyone wants to get their 2 cents' worth considered
by the ACBL
GET YOUR COMMENTS IN BY FRIDAY NOV 10TH
> Send them to the ACBL: 74431...@compuserve.com
Richard Lighton
(lig...@ios.com)
Leonard Vishnevsky
Chris Willenken <97c...@williams.edu> wrote:
=In article <47e1hf$b...@zippy.cais.net>,
=Eric Landau <ela...@cais3.cais.com> wrote:
=>I just finished looking over the proposed new alert chart that appears in
=>this month's Bulletin, and can scarcely believe my eyes.
=
=>>>Precision 2C opening. Alertable!
=Precision 2C has always been alertable, I believe.
I don't think so. Most people alert as a courtesy.
=>>>2H-P-2S non-forcing. Alertable!
=Again, this alert solves a UI problem. No need to ask whether 2S is
=forcing if you're considering a call.
I've been told by several New York area directors that this is alertable.
Maybe they meant that it should be.
=>>>1C-P-1H-P-1NT on Jxxx/Kx/AQx/KJxx. Alertable!
=Again, you misinterpret the rule. You are always entitled to make a
=judgement call. Many "Walsh" players agree that 1C-P-1H-P-1S shows an
=unbalanced hand; they are forced to rebid 1NT with the above. That
=treatment always has been alertable, and rightly so.
I think the walsh agreement is that 1c-p-1d-p-1major shows an unbalanced
hand, and 1c-p-1h-p-1s could be any hand (or any non-4333 hand).
=>>>1NT-P-2C-P-2H-P-2NT not necessarily promising spades, which was recently,
=>>>in a rare fit of sanity, declared unalertable. Alertable again!
=Again, this alert eliminates potential UI problems. No need to ask if
=dummy promises spades if you're considering a spade lead.
I think the old method, of alerting 2c stayman for not promising a four
card major made more sense than having a natural 2n bid be alertable for
denying a four card major.
--
I sleep in a different position every night to avoid becoming magnetized.
The Evil Ganz
Michael Farebrother <mf...@crypto2.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>One final point: What does "very light" mean? I've seen it on the CC,
>and VL "openings", "overcalls" on the Alert chart. Has anyone been given
>an answer to that (or even asked it? Am I being lawyerly to a fault?)
>
Well, I can't give you a definitive answer, but with one partner, I play
that any 8-count with a 5-card major is opened, and we are required both
to pre-alert and to alert major-suit openings during the auction. With
another partner, we have the agreement to overcall on very poor suits at
the one-level when holding decent hands. We were told to pre-alert and
alert those during the auction as well. I don't know what the line
between alertable and non-alertable is, though.
I think intermediate 2-bid openings and jump overcalls should definitely
be alertable. I play those sometimes, and I alert them to avoid having
people think that I'm just using them to trap unsuspecting opponents.
People still often go for numbers randomly against them, though (usually
by preempting, which is just silly). They are unusual enough in modern
tournament play that they should be announced. For that matter, so are
strong two-bids, but I'm happy if I can even get a coherent explanation
out of "Aunt Tillie;" asking her to learn the alert chart is probably
futile. Of course, if everything weren't stratified, this wouldn't be
such a problem, but...
--
Craig Ganzer Arlington, VA
John Boeder
>
>
> What I want to address here is mostly a higher
>level issue: what should alerts be accomplishing?
This is what has been missing from previous alert debates
> My principles
>for an alert policy are:
>1. Make sure opponent's are not surprised by the meaning of normal
>sounding bids.
>2. Have clear and simple rules.
This is the key to success. There are four parties (potential) to every alert:
1) the alerter
2) the alertees
3) (possibly) the director
4) (possibly) a committee. All parties need to agree on what is
alertable or we have quarrels and problems (current situation)
>3. Avoid needing to ask questions which convey unauthorized information.
and authorized info to the opponents; partner is not allowed to use the info,
but the opponents are! If you hold xx, KQJ2, xxxx,xxx and the auction
begins 1S - P - 4H it might be artificial and you deserve an alert so
you can double for the lead; but it might be natural and you deserve the right
to pass in as smooth a tempo as you can, lest you get couped.
>4. Reduce the total number of alerts
specially style alerts and things which do not matter during the bidding.
There are easy ways to achieve full disclosure before the play begins.
The proposed chart is a big step in the right direction.
John Boeder
John Boeder
AT&T Global Information Solutions
St. Paul, MN.
EMAIL: John....@StPaulMN.ATTGIS.COM
edwa...@cc5.crl.aecl.ca
>Although I have been known to critisize the EBU on many occasions
>in the past, it does seem that their approach to the question
>"what should be alertable" is far more sensible than either the
>ACBL's current policy or the new proposed one.
>The EBU rule is simple -- if a bid is natural then it is not alertable,
>whereas if it is artificial, then it requires an alert.
>Of course, this does mean that 1NT-P-2c Stayman is alertable, but 2C
>showing clubs and either forcing or weak is not. It also means that
>any kind of Q-bid, response to Blackwood, splinter, fit-showing jump,
>etc. is alertable. Also, 4NT unusual and 4NT Blackwood are alerts, whereas
>4NT natural is not.
>Penalty doubles are basically not alertable, and take out doubles are
>except on the first round of the auction when partner has not made
>a postitive bid.
[snip]
Sorry, but you can't make me believe that a system where Stayman, Blackwood
takeout doubles and cuebids are alertable is far more sensible than the the
ACBL policy. The number of alerts must make bridge in EBU-land resemble the
chirping of a field of crickets.
Anyway, just because a bid is natural doesn't mean you can't completely sucker
the opponents by having really non-standard agreements about the hand strength.
In fact, the absence of alerts for such bids seems to encourage the idea.
GeoffE
mhunt...@macalstr.edu
> most of them). What I want to address here is mostly a higher
> level issue: what should alerts be accomplishing? My principles
> for an alert policy are:
>
[steps 1-4 deleted]
How about adding:
5. Keeping beginners from being intimidated. This can happen by requiring
them to alert bids which are perfectly natural, such as limit jump overcalls.
The second time these people get penalized for not alerting an ordinary bid
they're going to switch to a more friendly game.
>
> Many of the complaints Eric listed ignore the importance of item 3.
>
> :Opening 1NT on 12-14 HCP. Alertable!
>
> If you need to check your opponent's convention card to see their
> range it can serious problems. As a weak notrumper I welcome this
> change.
>
How about we go one further? I think we should have pre-alerts of Generic
Strong bids (such as 1C 16+ and could have a long major) and weak no-trumps.
Then we wouldn't alert weak NTs during the bidding. This would allow convention
discussions in opposition to these styles and let people know that the meaning
of some unalerted bids (such as 1S) are more limited than normal. Yes, I know
people should notice this beforehand, but if everyone did that, we wouldn't
need alerting at all.
> :2H-P-2S non-forcing. Alertable!
>
> Again, it can cause a real problem if you have to ask in this type
> of auction. With the new rule you can assume forcing without asking.
> In fact, in general, the principle that any time you play as nonforcing
> a bid most would play as forcing you must alert helps to cover this
> type of situation,
Yeah, but *all* beginners play this as non-forcing, and they're not going to
appreciate the director calls. Besides, would this mean a director call
every time I pass partner's 2S with a 6-count 3-6-2-2?
I guess, new to the ACBL that I am, I have trouble with the concept of
"non-forcing" to begin with. If I'm playing precision, and partner opens
1C, and I have 0 points and five clubs, I'm going to pass. Does this mean
the bid is non-forcing? As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing
as a forcing bid for responder, no matter how artificial the bid.
Now, I can understand artificial, and I can understand point ranges, but
it seems somehow fake to say "non-forcing". If 2S is limited, then it
should be alerted: if not, then it shouldn't be, whther opener considers
him/herself "forced" or not.
> :Intermediate jump overcalls. Alertable!
>
> This is clearly correct in my opinion. In addition to the unauthorized
> information problem, this often does trick unsuspecting opponents who
> just assume it is weak (as a player of IJO's on occasion I know this is
> true).
I think it's better to force experts to alert than penalize beginners who
don't.
>
> :1C-P-1S-2C natural. Alertable!
>
> This is marginal, but reasonable. Note that the alternative is that
> you must ask about the 2C bid everytime it is made (how else could
> you know if it is natural, or T/O)?
Make T/O alertable: that was easy.
The new system just looks like one more way for experts to take advantage of
beginners, like the long pause pass with few points.
Why does the ACBL seem so concered about those crafty beginners taking points
away from those poor, hard working experts? How is a person who doesn't even
know what takeout double *means* going to know when to alert his/her penalty
double? Remember, these rules apply to both the Tuesday Night 0-5 MP Club
games as well as the Flight A Nationals.
Matthew Huntington
Whose rule is: if a beginner wouldn't know what it meant, alert it. An expert
will know what to look for on the card beforehand.
M & C Smith
> And if you ever play in the US again, you'll have to learn what
> is and is not alertable just like I would have to do in an EBU
> event if I were to ever play in England. I don't see where that's
> such a severe problem.
But surely this is the whole point, isn't it?
With the game becoming much more international, with cheaper and
easier travel meaning that players from around the world much more
often play in events outside their own NCBO, doesn't it make sense
to adopt an alert procedure that DOES NOT require players to learn
whole lists of alertable/non-alertable bids.
While of course the EBU policy does have drawbacks, at least it is
easy for anyone to play and understand -- if a bid is natural then
it is not alertable, whereas if it is conventional/artificial then
it requires an alert.
Is not one of the major requirements of the alert procedure that
everyone knows when they should alert and what non-alerted bids by
their opponents should mean?
Marc
Dr. P.J.Murphy
: Although I have been known to critisize the EBU on many occasions
: in the past, it does seem that their approach to the question
: "what should be alertable" is far more sensible than either the
: The EBU rule is simple -- if a bid is natural then it is not alertable,
: whereas if it is artificial, then it requires an alert.
: Of course, this does mean that 1NT-P-2c Stayman is alertable, but 2C
: showing clubs and either forcing or weak is not. It also means that
: any kind of Q-bid, response to Blackwood, splinter, fit-showing jump,
: etc. is alertable. Also, 4NT unusual and 4NT Blackwood are alerts, whereas
: 4NT natural is not.
: Penalty doubles are basically not alertable, and take out doubles are
: except on the first round of the auction when partner has not made
: a postitive bid.
: The only basic requirement is that at the start of each round/match
: you must ascertain the opponents' basic system, NT strength, and
: whether they play strong or weak two bids. Not that hard when you
: consider the plus side.
: The major benefit of these rules, of course, is that they are very
: easy to follow, and everyone understands then and knows which bids
: are alertable.
: Note the following situation that Chip Martel commented on in his
: post:
: > :1C-P-1S-2C natural. Alertable!
: >
: > This is marginal, but reasonable. Note that the alternative is that
: > you must ask about the 2C bid everytime it is made (how else could
: > you know if it is natural, or T/O)?
: Why is this a problem. If it shows clubs, then it would not be
: alertable. If it is take-out (ie. artificial) then it requires an alert.
it depends if the original 1c bid was alerted :-)
: Why is this such a difficult concept?
Possibly because michael's cue bids are so popular these days and most
pairs (club level) forget to agree this as natural (but that is their
tough luck) :)
PAd
"in the muzzle flash of Roland's Thompson gun"
: Marc
PAD
Jeff Goldsmith
|>Although I have been known to critisize the EBU on many occasions
|>in the past, it does seem that their approach to the question
|>"what should be alertable" is far more sensible than either the
|>ACBL's current policy or the new proposed one.
Sounds like a "simple" policy. Sensible? I demur.
|>Of course, this does mean that 1NT-P-2c Stayman is alertable, but 2C
Pray tell, what's the point of alerting Stayman?
|>showing clubs and either forcing or weak is not. It also means that
|>any kind of Q-bid, response to Blackwood, splinter, fit-showing jump,
|>etc. is alertable. Also, 4NT unusual and 4NT Blackwood are alerts, whereas
|>4NT natural is not.
This is a really bad idea. When a somewhat ambiguous 4NT
appears, I get to alert to tell partner my answer was
aces, to fail to alert to say it was natural. Even better,
I get to alert slowly to tell him that it was takeout.
|>Penalty doubles are basically not alertable, and take out doubles are
|>except on the first round of the auction when partner has not made
|>a postitive bid.
Really? So 7NT-x requires an alert? That seems a little
off-the-wall to me.
|>The major benefit of these rules, of course, is that they are very
|>easy to follow, and everyone understands then and knows which bids
|>are alertable.
Yes, that's their benefit. I can think of many other
poorly-conceived schemes that have this benefit, too.
How about "all calls are alertable" or "no calls are?"
There is a point to the alert system. Such a simple
solution has the one benefit of being easy to understand.
It misses the boat when trying to accomplish
anything. I think "no calls are alertable" is a
superior system to what you describe.
What exactly is the point of alerts? That's a tough
question, but my opinion is approximately (I admit to
not being sure yet)
1) preventing the opponents from being surprised
by our methods, especially in cases that matter
2) reducing the flow of unauthorized information
3) speeding up the game by reducing the number of
questions that need to be asked
buddy hanby
bids should not be alerts. However, I do find the argument
that lack of alerts creates large problems with unauthorized
information.
Thus, assuming some sort of alert rules are needed, I think the
ACBL should change its approach somewhat. The attempt to
make an alert chart inherently involves instruction to
alert if a treatment is "unusual." What is "unusual" to
one Flight or one region of the country is daily practice elsewhere.
Things would be much better defined would identify a
consensus convention card (Let's call it Revised Yellow
Card). Rather than attempting to define what is alertable,
the League should define what is not alertable. If it's
on the Revised Yellow Card, no alert; otherwise, alert.
The treatments and conventions on the Revised Yellow
Card should be what the majority of the players at a
typical tournement play. I suspect that the current
Yellow Card may be very close. However, it should
be reviewed and, perhaps, a few almost universal
conventions (e.g., splinters) should be added. I have
only a vague notion of what is usual in Flights B and C, and
I suspect that the well known experts on the current committee
may be in the same boat, so I think it important to
have players who play regularly in these Flights on
the committee. In close cases (in my part of the
country inverted minors would be an example) where
there is no clear consensus, the committee should
lean toward the traditional treatment for inclusion
on the consensus card.
Yes, I know this will result in such anomalies as a
natural 2H response to 1NT being an alert, Strong Two
Bid, alert, etc. However, these treatments are quite
rare these days. Overall, the number of alerts will
be drastically reduced. Also, the need for these
silly "Special Alerts" will be largely eliminated.
For example: 1C (1H) X. Under my proposal no alert
if Neg, but alert if Pen or Neg denying Spades. There
is little tendency for an opponent to "tune out" the
routine alert of the Neg Dbl. Pen and denies spades
are both quite uncommon, so the alert really alerts.
My two cents.
Buddy
Pam Hadfield
In article <4801mk$d...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
je...@gg.caltech.edu "Jeff Goldsmith" writes:
Bits of prev posting deleted but all quotes correctly attributed
> M & C Smith <sp...@tcp.co.uk> writes:
>
> |>in the past, it does seem that their ( the EBU) approach to the question
> |>"what should be alertable" is far more sensible than either the
> |>ACBL's current policy or the new proposed one.
>
> Sounds like a "simple" policy. Sensible? I demur.
>
Of course you would, it's very un-american
> |>Of course, this does mean that 1NT-P-2c Stayman is alertable, but 2C
>
> Pray tell, what's the point of alerting Stayman?
>
Consistency - we ALWAYS know when a bid is natural. Do you?
> |>showing clubs and either forcing or weak is not. It also means that
> |>any kind of Q-bid, response to Blackwood, splinter, fit-showing jump,
> |>etc. is alertable. Also, 4NT unusual and 4NT Blackwood are alerts, whereas
> |>4NT natural is not.
>
> This is a really bad idea. When a somewhat ambiguous 4NT
> appears, I get to alert to tell partner my answer was
> aces, to fail to alert to say it was natural. Even better,
> I get to alert slowly to tell him that it was takeout.
Oh yes, and when the auction goes 1S p 4C, this is not alertable whether is
is a control bid, a splinter or gerber. Great system!
Part of our rules are that EVERYONE has to have a fully completed convention
card, something that ACBLers seem to think unnecessary. If you consider a
bid of 4NT ambiguous, I suggest you learn your bidding methods a little
better! If you really wish to cheat, I guess it's your loss.
>
> |>Penalty doubles are basically not alertable, and take out doubles are
> |>except on the first round of the auction when partner has not made
> |>a postitive bid.
>
> Really? So 7NT-x requires an alert? That seems a little
> off-the-wall to me.
>
What a fatuous comment!
> |>The major benefit of these rules, of course, is that they are very
> |>easy to follow, and everyone understands then and knows which bids
> |>are alertable.
>
> Yes, that's their benefit. I can think of many other
> poorly-conceived schemes that have this benefit, too.
> How about "all calls are alertable" or "no calls are?"
>
Our alert sceme works. Does yours? If you wish to get rid of alerts
(presumably so that you can bunnie bash with a complicated or unusual system)
be my guest. Just keep it on your side of the pond.
>
> What exactly is the point of alerts? That's a tough
> question, but my opinion is approximately (I admit to
> not being sure yet)
>
> 1) preventing the opponents from being surprised
> by our methods, especially in cases that matter
> 2) reducing the flow of unauthorized information
> 3) speeding up the game by reducing the number of
> questions that need to be asked
> --Jeff
The point of an alert is to inform the opposition that the bid you have made
may not mean what you expect. Your other 2 points are NOT what the alert system
is for. They may be a by-product, but that's all.
I have noticed that when playing in the US, hardly anyone bothers to fill out
a convention card. To get someone to even look at a card needs a large sheet
of yellow paper thrust under their noses! Is it laziness or the total
arrogance of believing that everyone should know and play THEIR system.
There are a myriad of systems - how can an alert system that only takes one
into account be any good? Do ACBLers really want to live in their own little
NY to LA world?
Pam Hadfield
Dave Eisen
>
>I guess, new to the ACBL that I am, I have trouble with the concept of
>"non-forcing" to begin with. If I'm playing precision, and partner opens
>1C, and I have 0 points and five clubs, I'm going to pass. Does this mean
>the bid is non-forcing? As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing
>as a forcing bid for responder, no matter how artificial the bid.
I know you didn't ask for advice, but I'm going to give it
anyway. Please pardon the insolence.
Don't pass forcing bids. Forcing bids are forcing for a reason ---
there are many hands that can't be described with just one call. If
partner can't trust you to respect his forces, there's no way to
have anything resembling partnership bidding.
In the example you gave, passing 1C is likely to be disastrous, BTW.
>Now, I can understand artificial, and I can understand point ranges, but
>it seems somehow fake to say "non-forcing". If 2S is limited, then it
>should be alerted: if not, then it shouldn't be, whther opener considers
>him/herself "forced" or not.
Actually, this makes some sense in light of the fact that "forcing" is
telling you what is coming up in the auction after your call, not a
description of the hand making the bid you are asking about. It's not
clear to me whether or not you're entitled to this information.
>Why does the ACBL seem so concered about those crafty beginners taking points
>away from those poor, hard working experts? How is a person who doesn't even
>know what takeout double *means* going to know when to alert his/her penalty
>double? Remember, these rules apply to both the Tuesday Night 0-5 MP Club
>games as well as the Flight A Nationals.
Which is the main difficulty with alerting rules.
I see no reason to have the same rules for the two types of games. The
major leagues use different rules than what little league uses --- the
rules that are appropriate for the best in the world at baseball are
not necessarily those that are appropriate for beginners. And the same
thing is true at bridge.
Beginners play and expect one set of methods, experts play and expect a
different one. What is "surprising" to one group is commonplace to the
other and vice versa. Alerts, a mechanism to indicate that a specific
call is "surprising" should be different when addressing the different
groups.
We play different convention charts in different games. We should also
play different alert charts in different games.
Jeff Goldsmith
>But surely this is the whole point, isn't it?
[suggesting that the primary point of alert systems
is that they ought to be easy to learn and understand,
sufficiently so that a foreign visitor would not have
to consider any possible differences. He also suggests
the adoption of what he claims is the EBU's system.]
No, it isn't. When I was thinking about what an alert
system ought to do, "allowing foreign players to participate
without bothering to check out our rules" never made the
list. Upon hearing that as a suggestion, I still think it
ought to bear extremely minimal importance. I'm more
concerned about Aunt Millie the novice than about someone
from overseas. Such travellers know to expect differences,
can obtain written copies of them, and have long plane rides
to study them. At least they can for ACBL rules. I don't
know about EBU ones, but I'm sure it's not hard. I've
played in two international
tournaments with rules different from the ACBL's. I did
not feel as if it were an undue imposition to find out the
rules that were in place. Indeed, I found it interesting
and fun to learn other approaches and used the knowledge
so gained to reevaluate the methods I was used to. That
seems healthier than the goofy arguments you are spouting.
Rob Graves
In article 815739...@pamhad.demon.co.uk, Pam Hadfield <P...@pamhad.demon.co.uk> () writes:
> In article <47e1hf$b...@zippy.cais.net>
> ela...@cais3.cais.com "Eric Landau" writes:
>
> " I just finished looking over the proposed new alert chart that appears in
> "
> " of hand, how there are far too many alerts, how players can't be expected
> " to keep track of which of their natural bids are alertable, the ACBL
> " decides to attack the problem, and what do they come up with? A proposal
> " that would make large numbers of non-conventional, non-artificial and
> " previously unalertable perfectly natural bids alertable!
>
> "
> "
> To alert ANY range of NT is IMHO absolutely rediculous. Over here 12-14 is
> NORMAL! 15-17 or 16-18 is UNUSUAL. Should the EBU make strong no-trumps
> alertable? I think not!
>
Here's one thing about the _present_ alert chart that doesn't make sense to
me: 12-14 1NT opening is not alertable, but the sequence 1m - 1M - 1NT
showing 15-17 IS alertable. And these two treatments go HAND IN HAND!
Yet the second sequence is considered unusual, but the first is not?
>
> " Precision 2C opening. Alertable!
> "
> This I have to agree with. Until the "kitchen bridge" players of this world
> play 2C as precision style as a matter of course, anything other than a
> strong 2C should be alerted.
>
>
> " 2H-P-2S non-forcing. Alertable!
> "
> Difficult, this one. Over here, a weak 2H is alertable as most people play
> 2H as strong :)
>
>
> " 1C-P-1NT on K10x/xxxx/KQx/Jxx. Alertable!
> "
> ** No - bridge :)
>
> " 1C-P-1H-P-1NT on Jxxx/Kx/AQx/KJxx. Alertable!
> "
> See ** above
>
When I was a beginner, a couple of times I bypassed 4-card majors on
balanced hands to bid notrumps. Instead of us missing 4-4 major fits, our
opponents misdefended believing that I couldn't have a 4-card major for
the bidding, and they got very upset. Nowadays this sort of thing
happens to me and now I get upset when it does. Fortunately, the times
when the bid actually does miss a 4-4 major fit balances these times
out.
Should these bids be alertable? If these bids are judgment calls --
you don't want to bid ratty 4-card majors with balanced hands -- then
I don't think so. But if this is normal (i. e. you will ALWAYS bypass
4-card majors to bid notrumps, and partner will go out of his way to
check back and find the 4-4 major fit) then I think it should.
> " 1S-X-3S limit. Alertable!
> "
> Coo - what do you lot play the unalerted 3S bid as :)
>
The ACBL considers weak jump shifts and preemptive double raises to be
standard and non-alertable over opponents' takeout doubles (but my
regular partner forgets and alerts them anyway!!!).
> " 1C-P-1S-2C natural. Alertable!
> "
??? So the ACBL is going back and making cuebids alertable again??
> Might as well be, for sure I'd ask if it was done to me :)
>
> " 1H-P-3S-X for penalties. Alertable!
> "
> If "penalties" means "it shows spades" then see ** above
>
This must be a misprint. Most people play 1H-P-3S as a splinter, so
it's only normal that the double would show spades.
I think, perhaps, he meant 1H-3S(overcall)-X. I guess I can see why
this sort of penalty double MIGHT be considered unusual (alertable)
since so many people play negative doubles. But -- the negative double
is also alertable!! So just what is NOT alertable??
>
> " Intermediate jump overcalls. Alertable!
> "
>
> Here we have the same problem as with weak NT. Intermediate jumps are normal
> here. I can see that I am going to have severe problems if I ever play in
> the US again! Surely there is a space on an ACBL convention card for
> marking the strenght of jump overcalls?
>
> " STRONG jump overcalls. Alertable! (Your elderly Aunt Tillie, who never
> " played a convention besides Blackwood in her life and doesn't know that a
> " jump can ever be anything but strong, has to alert, that's right, alert.
> " Just like she does when she "defends" against takeout doubles by ignoring
> " them!)
> "
> Its a perfectly good defence :)
>
Hey, if your elderly Aunt Tillie plays NO conventions besides Blackwood, she
already has to alert something. She has to alert her natural 2C response to
1NT. My father (not a duplicate player) still plays it that way!
>
> " 1NT-P-2C-P-2H-P-2NT not necessarily promising spades, which was recently,
> " in a rare fit of sanity, declared unalertable. Alertable again!
> "
> Oh boy!
>
Actually, the 2NT bid never was alertable -- it's the 2C Stayman bid that
was. Now that the 2C bid is no longer alertable, the opponents perhaps
should be warned if the sequence still may not have a major. And the
sequence you showed, at least in my language, not only "not necessarily
promises" 4 spades, it SPECIFICALLY DENIES 4 spades. (That is, assuming
I play a conventional 1NT-p-2NT sequence.)
[rest snipped]
Rob Graves
gra...@vitro.com
Neil Morgenstern
Suffice to say it relates to methods played by a large section of bridge
players, if not the majority, which have to be alerted.
I think the alert was originally brought in to help the novices to know that
a bid may not mean what they thought it would mean.
So if the bidding went 1NT-p-2H the novice (of the opposition) would assume
the hand held hearts. The bid was alerted to alert the novice that this bid
in fact showed spades and had nothing to do with a heart holding at all.
I think the idea has got out of hand.
This is particularly caused by the fact that failure to alert is used by
certain "experts" feel they have a right to good boards against certain
players they consider weaker than themselves, whose methods they disapprove
of, and therefore to win back at the appeals committee what we lose at the
table.
After all, we all feel our own methods are superior. Otherwise we wouldn't
be playing them would we? (Unless it is our partner who insists on playing
them, in which case we will probably use our bad results to try to convince
partner to play our methods, rather than calling director).
I feel the time has come for a world review on alerting, and perhaps this
procedure should be done away with altogether. What was quite reasonable at
the time has just got to be out of place in the present game.
Neil
alan d frank
> I propose (with some seriousness) that the ACBL institute a system of
> bond deposits for director calls
No thanks. I have occasionally been confused & called the director when
in fact there was no infraction. Also there would just be too many
decisions that would have to be made. A director call usually wastes
less than 5 person-minutes, versus a committee which might be 5 hours.
On that basis, maybe $1 is about right, if you really have to do it.
do...@wsnet.com
an auction from the Atlanta nationals that really aggravated me:
N E S W
1NT = 11+-14 P 2S (1) Dbl
3C (2) P 3NT (3)
(1) alerted and explained upon inquiry as a transfer to clubs
(2) alerted and but not queried by E
(3) W now queries 3C and N says, "S has a superaccept available [2NT], so he
denies holding both a maximum weak 1NT and good club support (HHx or A/Kxxx),
the kind of hand he would accept a direct invitational 3C bid". W now asks, "What
would it have meant if he had passed the dbl?" N now says, "What dbl?" W now says
"My dbl". N now says, "I didn't see your dbl." W now calls for the director and asks
for protection against unauthorized information. The director arrives at the table and
hears W's desire to be protected. The director scratches his head and claims (rightly)
not to understand what protection is necessary. W claims that N has given S unauthorized
information (didn't see the dbl, I guess - W was never specific). Director instructs play
to continue. The dbl induces a spade lead for making 5.
If this is bridge in the 90's, I want no part of it! And it is exactly the players who are not good
enough to win at the table, and who therefore try to take advantage of the alert system and
its foibles, who make the game so maddening. But since these players will try to take
advantage of any system, it is not the system which is at fault, it is then players themselves.
Hence, I propose (with some seriousness) that the ACBL institute a system of bond
deposits for director calls, analogous to the bond for appeals, which is forfeited if the
director feels that the call is substantially without merit. A $10 bond would be adequate,
I think, if a $50 bond is posted for appeals.
If it hurts the players who take advantage in the wallet, then those players will call the
director less (one hopes!), and consequently the game will be spoiled less as time
passes.
Henry Sun via...
--------------...@WSNET.COM---------------------------------
Watch what you say -
they'll be calling you a radical...liberal...fanatical...criminal....
- SuperTramp
Dean Hildebrandt
>Well, I don;t think that the alert procedure needs to be eliminated, but let me provide
>an auction from the Atlanta nationals that really aggravated me:
>N E S W
>1NT = 11+-14 P 2S (1) Dbl
>3C (2) P 3NT (3)
>(1) alerted and explained upon inquiry as a transfer to clubs
>(2) alerted and but not queried by E
>(3) W now queries 3C and N says, "S has a superaccept available [2NT], so he
>denies holding both a maximum weak 1NT and good club support (HHx or A/Kxxx),
>the kind of hand he would accept a direct invitational 3C bid". W now asks, "What
>would it have meant if he had passed the dbl?" N now says, "What dbl?" W now says
>"My dbl". N now says, "I didn't see your dbl." W now calls for the director and asks
>for protection against unauthorized information. The director arrives at the table and
>hears W's desire to be protected. The director scratches his head and claims (rightly)
>not to understand what protection is necessary. W claims that N has given S unauthorized
>information (didn't see the dbl, I guess - W was never specific). Director instructs play
>to continue. The dbl induces a spade lead for making 5.
You seem to have directions confused, unless West is asking North about his
own bids. Some people would assign meanings to pass and redouble at this
point, so the inferences are now different. If 3N is unambiguously not
interested in slam regardless, then there isn't any damage, but how are EW
supposed to know all the details of your system. ACBL policy, which is
generally ignored, is that the director must be called immediately.
>If this is bridge in the 90's, I want no part of it! And it is exactly the players who are not good
>enough to win at the table, and who therefore try to take advantage of the alert system and
>its foibles, who make the game so maddening. But since these players will try to take
>advantage of any system, it is not the system which is at fault, it is then players themselves.
Or you could try paying attention to the bidding. I don't see what this
case has to do with the alert procedure, by the way.
>Hence, I propose (with some seriousness) that the ACBL institute a system of bond
>deposits for director calls, analogous to the bond for appeals, which is forfeited if the
>director feels that the call is substantially without merit. A $10 bond would be adequate,
>I think, if a $50 bond is posted for appeals.
>
>If it hurts the players who take advantage in the wallet, then those players will call the
>director less (one hopes!), and consequently the game will be spoiled less as time
>passes.
Unless you simply object to having to deal with director calls, the main
objection to rules-lawyering is that bad rulings are frequently made. If
director's can't give competent rulings, though, why do you want to give
them discretion in imposing fines.