Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Legit info during bidding
167 views
Skip to first unread message
Jennifer Murphy
May 11, 2013, 3:33:53 AM5/11/13
to
At our monthly social duplicate game this evening, we had a sub for one
of our regulars. On one early hand at my table, with the sub sitting
East, the bidding went like this:
E S W N
- Pass 1NT Pass
2H Pass
When West paused, looking puzzled, East (the sub), said, "May I ask a
question?" I said, "that depends on who you ask and what the question
is." She then said, "In ACBL games, it is customary to announce
transfers."
To which, I said, "I haven't played in a sanctioned event in a long
time, but I'm quite sure that would never be proper to announce
transfers."
Her partner then said, "Well, that's how I was about to take it.", to
whioch I said, "Well, now we all know what it was."
It's a social game and we have a couple of players who regularly signal
each other in various ways, so I didn't say anything more about it, but
I was very annoyed by it.
Am I correct that announcing transfers has never been a part of ACBL
rules and regulations? In fact, it's a violation.
of our regulars. On one early hand at my table, with the sub sitting
East, the bidding went like this:
E S W N
- Pass 1NT Pass
2H Pass
When West paused, looking puzzled, East (the sub), said, "May I ask a
question?" I said, "that depends on who you ask and what the question
is." She then said, "In ACBL games, it is customary to announce
transfers."
To which, I said, "I haven't played in a sanctioned event in a long
time, but I'm quite sure that would never be proper to announce
transfers."
Her partner then said, "Well, that's how I was about to take it.", to
whioch I said, "Well, now we all know what it was."
It's a social game and we have a couple of players who regularly signal
each other in various ways, so I didn't say anything more about it, but
I was very annoyed by it.
Am I correct that announcing transfers has never been a part of ACBL
rules and regulations? In fact, it's a violation.
Dave Flower
May 11, 2013, 4:37:00 AM5/11/13
to
On Saturday, 11 May 2013 08:33:53 UTC+1, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
> At our monthly social duplicate game this evening, we had a sub for one of our regulars. On one early hand at my table, with the sub sitting East, the bidding went like this: E S W N - Pass 1NT Pass 2H Pass When West paused, looking puzzled, East (the sub), said, "May I ask a question?" I said, "that depends on who you ask and what the question is." She then said, "In ACBL games, it is customary to announce transfers." To which, I said, "I haven't played in a sanctioned event in a long time, but I'm quite sure that would never be proper to announce transfers." Her partner then said, "Well, that's how I was about to take it.", to whioch I said, "Well, now we all know what it was." It's a social game and we have a couple of players who regularly signal each other in various ways, so I didn't say anything more about it, but I was very annoyed by it. Am I correct that announcing transfers has never been a part of ACBL rules and regulations? In fact, it's a violation.
I can't speak about ACBL rules, but surely the answer to East's first question (May I ask a question) should have been 'When it is your next turn to bid'. This would have avoided any UI problem.
> At our monthly social duplicate game this evening, we had a sub for one of our regulars. On one early hand at my table, with the sub sitting East, the bidding went like this: E S W N - Pass 1NT Pass 2H Pass When West paused, looking puzzled, East (the sub), said, "May I ask a question?" I said, "that depends on who you ask and what the question is." She then said, "In ACBL games, it is customary to announce transfers." To which, I said, "I haven't played in a sanctioned event in a long time, but I'm quite sure that would never be proper to announce transfers." Her partner then said, "Well, that's how I was about to take it.", to whioch I said, "Well, now we all know what it was." It's a social game and we have a couple of players who regularly signal each other in various ways, so I didn't say anything more about it, but I was very annoyed by it. Am I correct that announcing transfers has never been a part of ACBL rules and regulations? In fact, it's a violation.
Dave Flower
David Goldfarb
May 11, 2013, 5:00:22 AM5/11/13
to
In article <n2sro8lebgpv480g5...@4ax.com>,
<http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html> you'll see that
after a natural notrump opening, a bid of diamonds showing hearts
or of hearts showing spades must indeed be announced with the
word "transfer". I don't remember exactly when that was introduced,
but it's been the case for some years now.
--
David Goldfarb |"Given enough time and the right audience,
goldf...@gmail.com | the darkest of secrets scum over into
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | mere curiosities."
| -- Neil Gaiman, _Sandman_ #53
Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>Am I correct that announcing transfers has never been a part of ACBL
>rules and regulations? In fact, it's a violation.
You are not correct. If you look on
>Am I correct that announcing transfers has never been a part of ACBL
>rules and regulations? In fact, it's a violation.
<http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html> you'll see that
after a natural notrump opening, a bid of diamonds showing hearts
or of hearts showing spades must indeed be announced with the
word "transfer". I don't remember exactly when that was introduced,
but it's been the case for some years now.
--
David Goldfarb |"Given enough time and the right audience,
goldf...@gmail.com | the darkest of secrets scum over into
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | mere curiosities."
| -- Neil Gaiman, _Sandman_ #53
Bertil
May 11, 2013, 7:09:38 AM5/11/13
to
card shows the transfer bids in blue, which means they must be announced.
Stig
Bertil
May 11, 2013, 7:16:54 AM5/11/13
to
would deprive the next opp the opportunity to double for lead direction and might then incur a penalty.
Stig
Jennifer Murphy
May 11, 2013, 10:42:19 AM5/11/13
to
On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:00:22 GMT, gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David
Goldfarb) wrote:
>In article <n2sro8lebgpv480g5...@4ax.com>,
>Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>>Am I correct that announcing transfers has never been a part of ACBL
>>rules and regulations? In fact, it's a violation.
>
>You are not correct. If you look on
><http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html> you'll see that
>after a natural notrump opening, a bid of diamonds showing hearts
>or of hearts showing spades must indeed be announced with the
>word "transfer". I don't remember exactly when that was introduced,
>but it's been the case for some years now.
Wow. This makes no sense to me. I always thought the Alert mechanism was
Goldfarb) wrote:
>In article <n2sro8lebgpv480g5...@4ax.com>,
>Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>>Am I correct that announcing transfers has never been a part of ACBL
>>rules and regulations? In fact, it's a violation.
>
>You are not correct. If you look on
><http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html> you'll see that
>after a natural notrump opening, a bid of diamonds showing hearts
>or of hearts showing spades must indeed be announced with the
>word "transfer". I don't remember exactly when that was introduced,
>but it's been the case for some years now.
intended to alert the opponents to "unusual" or "non-standard"
conventions so as to prevent secret conventions. Aren't Jacobi transfers
almost universal now? They are around here.
How did they decide where to draw the line? The four "required"
conventions seem very odd to me. (BTW: They have a formatting error.
Only the last one is numbered.)
The 15-17 NT is especially odd. Can a 1-point difference really make
that much difference?
The conventions that are excluded from alerts are also troubling. If
Jacobi is alertable, why not Stayman? Then I see that cue bids are
specifically not alertable. Surely there is more variation in cue bids
than in Jacoby transfers. The specific examples they give as not
alertable are orders of magnitude less common in our group than is
Jacobi. Isn't Jacobi at least as common as Michaels?
Alerting transfers seems to me to benefit the bidders far more than the
opponents. People in our group frequently forget or misunderstand their
own conventions. Transfers get passed or raised. This would eliminate
those errors, which, in my opinion, should be allowed to reap their own
rewards.
Or maybe we should go whole hog and just explain every bid, including
routine passes, as it's made.
Andrew B
May 11, 2013, 11:07:39 AM5/11/13
to
On 11/05/2013 15:42, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:00:22 GMT, gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David
> Goldfarb) wrote:
>
>> In article <n2sro8lebgpv480g5...@4ax.com>,
>> Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>>> Am I correct that announcing transfers has never been a part of ACBL
>>> rules and regulations? In fact, it's a violation.
>>
>> You are not correct. If you look on
>> <http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html> you'll see that
>> after a natural notrump opening, a bid of diamonds showing hearts
>> or of hearts showing spades must indeed be announced with the
>> word "transfer". I don't remember exactly when that was introduced,
>> but it's been the case for some years now.
>
> Wow. This makes no sense to me. I always thought the Alert mechanism was
> intended to alert the opponents to "unusual" or "non-standard"
> conventions so as to prevent secret conventions. Aren't Jacobi transfers
> almost universal now? They are around here.
AIUI, the purpose of announcing is that some artificial conventions such
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:00:22 GMT, gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David
> Goldfarb) wrote:
>
>> In article <n2sro8lebgpv480g5...@4ax.com>,
>> Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>>> Am I correct that announcing transfers has never been a part of ACBL
>>> rules and regulations? In fact, it's a violation.
>>
>> You are not correct. If you look on
>> <http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html> you'll see that
>> after a natural notrump opening, a bid of diamonds showing hearts
>> or of hearts showing spades must indeed be announced with the
>> word "transfer". I don't remember exactly when that was introduced,
>> but it's been the case for some years now.
>
> Wow. This makes no sense to me. I always thought the Alert mechanism was
> intended to alert the opponents to "unusual" or "non-standard"
> conventions so as to prevent secret conventions. Aren't Jacobi transfers
> almost universal now? They are around here.
as Jacoby are *so* common that if (in this case) 1NT-2D is alerted, the
opponents would tend to assume "that'll be Jacoby", and not bother to
ask, leading to problems when it *wasn't* Jacoby (or natural).
> The 15-17 NT is especially odd. Can a 1-point difference really make
> that much difference?
whether it be 15-17, 16-18, 12-14 or whatever, thus avoiding revealing
conversations along the lines of "How strong is your 1NT?" "15-17" "Pass".
> The conventions that are excluded from alerts are also troubling. If
> Jacobi is alertable, why not Stayman?
> Then I see that cue bids are
> specifically not alertable. Surely there is more variation in cue bids
> than in Jacoby transfers. The specific examples they give as not
> alertable are orders of magnitude less common in our group than is
> Jacobi. Isn't Jacobi at least as common as Michaels?
I assume the logic for not alerting/announcing Stayman and Michaels is
that hardly anyone uses them as natural bids.
> Alerting transfers seems to me to benefit the bidders far more than the
> opponents. People in our group frequently forget or misunderstand their
> own conventions. Transfers get passed or raised. This would eliminate
> those errors, which, in my opinion, should be allowed to reap their own
> rewards.
to announce it? You don't alert/announce your own bid.
Nick France
May 11, 2013, 11:10:00 AM5/11/13
to
On May 11, 10:42 am, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:00:22 GMT, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David
>
> Goldfarb) wrote:
> >In article <n2sro8lebgpv480g5h7ms5bbrvoklg9...@4ax.com>,
Trying to make sense of some of the ACBL rules for alerting will be a
lifetime job as they sometimes seem to contradict what they are trying
to do
In Anycase, in a social game and especially with a new player, I think
the better approach is to be more relaxed. It should be more about
having fun then worrying about what is techniqually correct.
Nick France
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:00:22 GMT, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David
>
> Goldfarb) wrote:
> >In article <n2sro8lebgpv480g5h7ms5bbrvoklg9...@4ax.com>,
lifetime job as they sometimes seem to contradict what they are trying
to do
In Anycase, in a social game and especially with a new player, I think
the better approach is to be more relaxed. It should be more about
having fun then worrying about what is techniqually correct.
Nick France
Co Wiersma
May 11, 2013, 7:06:39 AM5/11/13
to
Op 11-5-2013 9:33, Jennifer Murphy schreef:
If it was a social event where the rules are regularly broken
why were you "very annoyed"?
Co Wiersma
why were you "very annoyed"?
Co Wiersma
Jennifer Murphy
May 11, 2013, 12:35:29 PM5/11/13
to
players who like to "help" their partners make the right bid. They don't
make the effort to have well-established conventions. Then, when a
possible area of confusion comes up, they like to "clarify". This is
always to their advantage, of course. Another common practice is to make
little side comments that pretty clearly convey information. I'm just
trying to get a little (not much) rogor into our game. It's a losing
battle.
Barry Margolin
May 11, 2013, 12:38:05 PM5/11/13
to
In article <vnjso81ffic7l6hia...@4ax.com>,
sometime in the 90's transfers were alerted, as were NT ranges that
extended out of the 15-18 range. The problem was that transfers had
become so common that when anyone alerted these bids, the opponents
didn't bother to ask, they just assumed it was Jacoby. If someone were
playing something else, the opponents wouldn't find out.
They briefly experimented with an alert procedure that included "special
alert": if you were playing Jacoby Transfers you would say "alert", if
you were playing something really unusual you would say "special alert".
No one liked this.
So they replaced it with the announcement system: the alerts for
extremely common conventions were replaced with announcements. I don't
remember precisely when this happened, but it was at least a decade ago.
>
> The 15-17 NT is especially odd. Can a 1-point difference really make
> that much difference?
Not sure what you mean by this. You alert *all* NT ranges. The reason
for this is that many players use different overcall conventions over
strong NT (e.g. 15-17 and 16-18) than weak NT (10-12 and 12-14 are
common). That's more than just a 1-point difference.
I think they did this just to keep it simple. If there were a
"standard" range that was unannounced, a lack of announcement would be
presumed to mean they're playing that range, but experience shows that
players sometimes forget to announce things. So they decided to include
the standard range in the announcement. It doesn't usually cause
problems, because it's rare that opener forgets what his NT range is.
> The conventions that are excluded from alerts are also troubling. If
> Jacobi is alertable, why not Stayman? Then I see that cue bids are
Stayman wasn't alerted before they added announcements, so they didn't
make it alertable/announceable when they made that change. The general
progression is that as a convention becomes more common it will go from
being alerted to being announced to being assumed without saying
anything. Stayman and Blackwood are such old conventions that they're in
the latter category.
> specifically not alertable. Surely there is more variation in cue bids
> than in Jacoby transfers. The specific examples they give as not
> alertable are orders of magnitude less common in our group than is
> Jacobi. Isn't Jacobi at least as common as Michaels?
Cue bids aren't alerted because they're considered "self-alerting": you
couldn't possibly intend it them natural. Although I personally think
they would benefit from being included. Michaels should be either
announce or assumed, and any other meaning should be alerted. The alert
procedure does say that cue bids should be alerted if they have "highly
unusual and unexpected" meanings, but it's hard to know where that line
is (Top-and-Bottom is similar to Michaels, where does it fall?).
>
> Alerting transfers seems to me to benefit the bidders far more than the
> opponents. People in our group frequently forget or misunderstand their
> own conventions. Transfers get passed or raised. This would eliminate
> those errors, which, in my opinion, should be allowed to reap their own
> rewards.
Transfers are so common that no experienced player forgets them. They're
taught to beginners now.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:00:22 GMT, gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David
> Goldfarb) wrote:
>
> >In article <n2sro8lebgpv480g5...@4ax.com>,
> >Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> >>Am I correct that announcing transfers has never been a part of ACBL
> >>rules and regulations? In fact, it's a violation.
> >
> >You are not correct. If you look on
> ><http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html> you'll see that
> >after a natural notrump opening, a bid of diamonds showing hearts
> >or of hearts showing spades must indeed be announced with the
> >word "transfer". I don't remember exactly when that was introduced,
> >but it's been the case for some years now.
>
> Wow. This makes no sense to me. I always thought the Alert mechanism was
> intended to alert the opponents to "unusual" or "non-standard"
> conventions so as to prevent secret conventions. Aren't Jacobi transfers
> almost universal now? They are around here.
>
> How did they decide where to draw the line? The four "required"
> conventions seem very odd to me. (BTW: They have a formatting error.
> Only the last one is numbered.)
ACBL is very conservative about changes to the alert procedures. Until
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:00:22 GMT, gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David
> Goldfarb) wrote:
>
> >In article <n2sro8lebgpv480g5...@4ax.com>,
> >Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> >>Am I correct that announcing transfers has never been a part of ACBL
> >>rules and regulations? In fact, it's a violation.
> >
> >You are not correct. If you look on
> ><http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html> you'll see that
> >after a natural notrump opening, a bid of diamonds showing hearts
> >or of hearts showing spades must indeed be announced with the
> >word "transfer". I don't remember exactly when that was introduced,
> >but it's been the case for some years now.
>
> Wow. This makes no sense to me. I always thought the Alert mechanism was
> intended to alert the opponents to "unusual" or "non-standard"
> conventions so as to prevent secret conventions. Aren't Jacobi transfers
> almost universal now? They are around here.
>
> How did they decide where to draw the line? The four "required"
> conventions seem very odd to me. (BTW: They have a formatting error.
> Only the last one is numbered.)
sometime in the 90's transfers were alerted, as were NT ranges that
extended out of the 15-18 range. The problem was that transfers had
become so common that when anyone alerted these bids, the opponents
didn't bother to ask, they just assumed it was Jacoby. If someone were
playing something else, the opponents wouldn't find out.
They briefly experimented with an alert procedure that included "special
alert": if you were playing Jacoby Transfers you would say "alert", if
you were playing something really unusual you would say "special alert".
No one liked this.
So they replaced it with the announcement system: the alerts for
extremely common conventions were replaced with announcements. I don't
remember precisely when this happened, but it was at least a decade ago.
>
> The 15-17 NT is especially odd. Can a 1-point difference really make
> that much difference?
for this is that many players use different overcall conventions over
strong NT (e.g. 15-17 and 16-18) than weak NT (10-12 and 12-14 are
common). That's more than just a 1-point difference.
I think they did this just to keep it simple. If there were a
"standard" range that was unannounced, a lack of announcement would be
presumed to mean they're playing that range, but experience shows that
players sometimes forget to announce things. So they decided to include
the standard range in the announcement. It doesn't usually cause
problems, because it's rare that opener forgets what his NT range is.
> The conventions that are excluded from alerts are also troubling. If
> Jacobi is alertable, why not Stayman? Then I see that cue bids are
make it alertable/announceable when they made that change. The general
progression is that as a convention becomes more common it will go from
being alerted to being announced to being assumed without saying
anything. Stayman and Blackwood are such old conventions that they're in
the latter category.
> specifically not alertable. Surely there is more variation in cue bids
> than in Jacoby transfers. The specific examples they give as not
> alertable are orders of magnitude less common in our group than is
> Jacobi. Isn't Jacobi at least as common as Michaels?
couldn't possibly intend it them natural. Although I personally think
they would benefit from being included. Michaels should be either
announce or assumed, and any other meaning should be alerted. The alert
procedure does say that cue bids should be alerted if they have "highly
unusual and unexpected" meanings, but it's hard to know where that line
is (Top-and-Bottom is similar to Michaels, where does it fall?).
>
> Alerting transfers seems to me to benefit the bidders far more than the
> opponents. People in our group frequently forget or misunderstand their
> own conventions. Transfers get passed or raised. This would eliminate
> those errors, which, in my opinion, should be allowed to reap their own
> rewards.
taught to beginners now.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
Bertil
May 11, 2013, 1:19:52 PM5/11/13
to
Stig
Barry Margolin
May 11, 2013, 1:27:44 PM5/11/13
to
In article <5f00a56e-5855-4041...@googlegroups.com>,
transfers, which are announceable. And all NT ranges are announced, so
it doesn't matter what system you're playing.
Bertil <stigf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you were to play in an ACBL regulated game or on the internet,you may want
> to adopt the SAYC , where everything is standard and nonalertable
No it isn't. SAYC includes Jacoby 2NT, which is alertable, and Jacoby
> If you were to play in an ACBL regulated game or on the internet,you may want
> to adopt the SAYC , where everything is standard and nonalertable
transfers, which are announceable. And all NT ranges are announced, so
it doesn't matter what system you're playing.
Michael Angelo Ravera
May 11, 2013, 2:17:41 PM5/11/13
to
Cue bids, doubles, and redoubles are all self-alerting (but you must alert natural cue bids in the direct seat).
All forms of Stayman, 4NT Blackwood, 4C Gerber over a 1NT or 2NT opening bid, 2NT and 4NT jump overcalls, 2NT responses to weak 2-level openers are all specifically exempted.
The range for 1NT opening bids is announced unless you use it as a forcing opener (in which case it is alerted). 1NT direct overcalls that go outside of the 14-19 range must be alerted. I will check, but it may be that you can simply announce range, if your range is the only alertable thing about your overcall. (Many partners and I allow a soft doubleton in Opener's minor, if it doesn't promise 5+cards).
Michael Angelo Ravera
May 11, 2013, 2:31:25 PM5/11/13
to
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 12:33:53 AM UTC-7, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
If this is a recurring problem, you should adopt a set of alert procedures for your game.
They could be as simple as "All calls are Self-alerting. Ask, if you need to know."
The WBF has an equally simple "All artificial bids are alerted."
The ACBL and EBU have reasonable but far more elaborate alerting rules. Take your pick and agree.
Both organizations have tried to make alerts actually useful to the opponents of those who make them. This is far more complicated than "Alert nothing" or "Alert Everything Artificial". The more thought that goes into it, the more complicated it becomes.
Will in New Haven
May 11, 2013, 3:00:26 PM5/11/13
to
showing Hearts or 2H showing Spades, simply says "transfer." It not
only isn't a violation, it is mandatory. Other transfers are alerted.
The answer to "may I ask a question?" should be "when it is your turn
to bid you certainly may."
--
Will in New Haven
derek
May 11, 2013, 3:01:58 PM5/11/13
to
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 11:42:19 AM UTC-3, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:00:22 GMT, gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David
> Goldfarb) wrote:
>
> >In article <n2sro8lebgpv480g5...@4ax.com>,
> >Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>Am I correct that announcing transfers has never been a part of ACBL
> >>rules and regulations? In fact, it's a violation.
>
> >You are not correct. If you look on
> ><http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html> you'll see that
> >after a natural notrump opening, a bid of diamonds showing hearts
> >or of hearts showing spades must indeed be announced with the
> >word "transfer". I don't remember exactly when that was introduced,
> >but it's been the case for some years now.
>
> Wow. This makes no sense to me. I always thought the Alert mechanism was
> intended to alert the opponents to "unusual" or "non-standard"
> conventions so as to prevent secret conventions. Aren't Jacobi transfers
> almost universal now? They are around here.
No. Just try playing on Bridgebase once in a while. Huge numbers of non-transfer playing types. Few of them any good, but...
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:00:22 GMT, gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David
> Goldfarb) wrote:
>
> >In article <n2sro8lebgpv480g5...@4ax.com>,
> >Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>Am I correct that announcing transfers has never been a part of ACBL
> >>rules and regulations? In fact, it's a violation.
>
> >You are not correct. If you look on
> ><http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html> you'll see that
> >after a natural notrump opening, a bid of diamonds showing hearts
> >or of hearts showing spades must indeed be announced with the
> >word "transfer". I don't remember exactly when that was introduced,
> >but it's been the case for some years now.
>
> Wow. This makes no sense to me. I always thought the Alert mechanism was
> intended to alert the opponents to "unusual" or "non-standard"
> conventions so as to prevent secret conventions. Aren't Jacobi transfers
> almost universal now? They are around here.
> How did they decide where to draw the line? The four "required"
> conventions seem very odd to me. (BTW: They have a formatting error.
> Only the last one is numbered.)
>
> The 15-17 NT is especially odd. Can a 1-point difference really make
> that much difference?
> The conventions that are excluded from alerts are also troubling. If
> Jacobi is alertable, why not Stayman? Then I see that cue bids are
> specifically not alertable. Surely there is more variation in cue bids
> than in Jacoby transfers. The specific examples they give as not
>
> alertable are orders of magnitude less common in our group than is
> Jacobi. Isn't Jacobi at least as common as Michaels?
Much more so - but it's generally assumed that only people who are just learning transfers will forget them. When it comes to cue-bids, there are a huge number of even pretty decent players who forget which cue means what.
> alertable are orders of magnitude less common in our group than is
> Jacobi. Isn't Jacobi at least as common as Michaels?
> Alerting transfers seems to me to benefit the bidders far more than the
> opponents. People in our group frequently forget or misunderstand their
> own conventions. Transfers get passed or raised. This would eliminate
> those errors, which, in my opinion, should be allowed to reap their own
> rewards.
Bertil
May 11, 2013, 4:38:50 PM5/11/13
to
it's incumbent on you to look at it and realize that nothing is in red or blue
Thus you should not assume they know the difference between Alerts and
Announcement.
Besides, the ACBL SAYC System Booklet says: "There was no need to Alert or ask
questions , since everyone was playing the same system" The same idea should
apply to those using the SAYC at a regular club game.
Stig
Bertil
May 11, 2013, 4:57:17 PM5/11/13
to
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:42:19 AM UTC-4, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
never by the suit bidder. Thus if the NT bidder forgets that they are
using transfere bids and raises the suit, he might pay dearly for it.
Stig
Kenny McCormack
May 11, 2013, 5:00:45 PM5/11/13
to
In article <barmar-147C91....@news.eternal-september.org>,
Not when you are playing online, of course.
That was Bertil's point.
--
- Since the shootings on Friday, the ultra-defensive [maybe wrongly
- hyphenated, but that would be fitting] Roy "News" LIEberman has posted
- at least 90 times, and almost every single post is about his obsessive
- knee-jerk loonball [wacko] gun politics. How much longer before the
- authorities [police] finally disable the trip wires and confiscate the
- arsenal in his St. Louie hovel?
So true. So true.
That was Bertil's point.
--
- Since the shootings on Friday, the ultra-defensive [maybe wrongly
- hyphenated, but that would be fitting] Roy "News" LIEberman has posted
- at least 90 times, and almost every single post is about his obsessive
- knee-jerk loonball [wacko] gun politics. How much longer before the
- authorities [police] finally disable the trip wires and confiscate the
- arsenal in his St. Louie hovel?
So true. So true.
Nick France
May 11, 2013, 5:35:00 PM5/11/13
to
On May 11, 12:35 pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:10:00 -0700 (PDT), Nick France
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <gandal...@optimum.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:10:00 -0700 (PDT), Nick France
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 11, 10:42 am, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:00:22 GMT, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David
> >> Or maybe we should go whole hog and just explain every bid, including
> >> routine passes, as it's made.
>
> >> routine passes, as it's made.
>
> >Trying to make sense of some of the ACBL rules for alerting will be a
> >lifetime job as they sometimes seem to contradict what they are trying
> >to do
>
> >In Anycase, in a social game and especially with a new player, I think
> >the better approach is to be more relaxed. It should be more about
> >having fun then worrying about what is techniqually correct.
>
> (sigh) Yes, I completely agree. The problem is that we have a couple of
> players who like to "help" their partners make the right bid. They don't
> make the effort to have well-established conventions. Then, when a
> possible area of confusion comes up, they like to "clarify". This is
> always to their advantage, of course. Another common practice is to make
> little side comments that pretty clearly convey information. I'm just
> trying to get a little (not much) rogor into our game. It's a losing
> battle.
Wish I had a good answer. One way might be to allow a person to ask
> >lifetime job as they sometimes seem to contradict what they are trying
> >to do
>
> >In Anycase, in a social game and especially with a new player, I think
> >the better approach is to be more relaxed. It should be more about
> >having fun then worrying about what is techniqually correct.
>
> (sigh) Yes, I completely agree. The problem is that we have a couple of
> players who like to "help" their partners make the right bid. They don't
> make the effort to have well-established conventions. Then, when a
> possible area of confusion comes up, they like to "clarify". This is
> always to their advantage, of course. Another common practice is to make
> little side comments that pretty clearly convey information. I'm just
> trying to get a little (not much) rogor into our game. It's a losing
> battle.
their opponents if she/he can ask partner what they are playing. If
its a new player or a new partnership I'd certainly be for it but if
its an well established partnership that keeps playing "fancy"
agreements and keep forgetting them I wouldn't.
Of course this solution just leads to other problems (like the person
that will never allow it).
Nick France
David Goldfarb
May 11, 2013, 8:48:04 PM5/11/13
to
In article <kmmbht$8dl$2...@news.xmission.com>,
in which environment Barry is correct.
--
David Goldfarb | "Justice or immortality. An intriguing choice."
goldf...@gmail.com |
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Babylon 5, "Deathwalker"
Kenny McCormack <gaz...@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>In article <barmar-147C91....@news.eternal-september.org>,
>Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>In article <5f00a56e-5855-4041...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Bertil <stigf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you were to play in an ACBL regulated game or on the internet,you
>may want
>>> to adopt the SAYC , where everything is standard and nonalertable
>>
>>No it isn't. SAYC includes Jacoby 2NT, which is alertable, and Jacoby
>>transfers, which are announceable. And all NT ranges are announced, so
>>it doesn't matter what system you're playing.
>
>Not when you are playing online, of course.
>
>That was Bertil's point.
But he also said (as you can see above) "an ACBL regulated game",
>In article <barmar-147C91....@news.eternal-september.org>,
>Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>In article <5f00a56e-5855-4041...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Bertil <stigf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you were to play in an ACBL regulated game or on the internet,you
>may want
>>> to adopt the SAYC , where everything is standard and nonalertable
>>
>>No it isn't. SAYC includes Jacoby 2NT, which is alertable, and Jacoby
>>transfers, which are announceable. And all NT ranges are announced, so
>>it doesn't matter what system you're playing.
>
>Not when you are playing online, of course.
>
>That was Bertil's point.
in which environment Barry is correct.
--
David Goldfarb | "Justice or immortality. An intriguing choice."
goldf...@gmail.com |
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Babylon 5, "Deathwalker"
Ed Reppert
May 12, 2013, 12:14:03 AM5/12/13
to
In article <735ca429-1144-4d6a...@googlegroups.com>,
SAYC, or knows that system.
Bertil <stigf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Besides, the ACBL SAYC System Booklet says: "There was no need to Alert or ask
> questions , since everyone was playing the same system" The same idea should
> apply to those using the SAYC at a regular club game.
Why should it? After all, not everyone at a regular club game is playing
> Besides, the ACBL SAYC System Booklet says: "There was no need to Alert or ask
> questions , since everyone was playing the same system" The same idea should
> apply to those using the SAYC at a regular club game.
SAYC, or knows that system.
Barry Margolin
May 12, 2013, 3:16:46 AM5/12/13
to
> On Saturday, May 11, 2013 1:27:44 PM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In article <5f00a56e-5855-4041...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Bertil <stigf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > If you were to play in an ACBL regulated game or on the internet,you may
> > > want
> >
> > > to adopt the SAYC , where everything is standard and nonalertable
> >
> >
> >
> > No it isn't. SAYC includes Jacoby 2NT, which is alertable, and Jacoby
> >
> > transfers, which are announceable. And all NT ranges are announced, so
> >
> > it doesn't matter what system you're playing.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Barry Margolin
> >
> > Arlington, MA
>
> When an inexperienced pair sits down at your table with the Yellow Card,
> it's incumbent on you to look at it and realize that nothing is in red or
> blue
The colors on their CC are irrelevant. What matters are the alert
> > In article <5f00a56e-5855-4041...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Bertil <stigf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > If you were to play in an ACBL regulated game or on the internet,you may
> > > want
> >
> > > to adopt the SAYC , where everything is standard and nonalertable
> >
> >
> >
> > No it isn't. SAYC includes Jacoby 2NT, which is alertable, and Jacoby
> >
> > transfers, which are announceable. And all NT ranges are announced, so
> >
> > it doesn't matter what system you're playing.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Barry Margolin
> >
> > Arlington, MA
>
> When an inexperienced pair sits down at your table with the Yellow Card,
> it's incumbent on you to look at it and realize that nothing is in red or
> blue
procedures in force for the event. In ACBL sanctioned games, this is
almost always the ACBL Alert Procedures (a club could set their own
rules, but few do).
> Thus you should not assume they know the difference between Alerts and
> Announcement.
well?
> Besides, the ACBL SAYC System Booklet says: "There was no need to Alert or
> ask
> questions , since everyone was playing the same system" The same idea should
> apply to those using the SAYC at a regular club game.
where everyone was required to play that system. If everyone is playing
the same system, alerts should never be necessary. But those types of
events never really caught on, and SAYC has become just another system
that you can choose to play (it ended up being the most common system on
Internet bridge sites, I think because there was a short, convenient
write-up). The only time I ever played in a "Yellow Card only" event was
when they briefly tried to get a "Bridge Pro" series going -- these were
Individual tournaments that were mostly held at NABCs, and everyone was
required to use SAYC with no alerts (reasonable, since there were no
established partnerships or special partnership understandings).
But if you're using the Yellow Card in an unrestricted game, you alert
based on the normal alert procedures.
Barry Margolin
May 12, 2013, 3:20:31 AM5/12/13
to
In article <kmmbht$8dl$2...@news.xmission.com>,
addressing the ACBL part of that statement -- in non-ACBL games on the
Internet there are no common rules about what is and isn't alertable.
When I play in ACBL games on BBO, I announce our NT range even though
it's the usual 15-17. But I notice that few of my opponents do. Even
though it's safe to over-alert in online games, since your partner
doesn't see them.
gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
> In article <barmar-147C91....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >In article <5f00a56e-5855-4041...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Bertil <stigf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If you were to play in an ACBL regulated game or on the internet,you may
> >> want
> >> to adopt the SAYC , where everything is standard and nonalertable
> >
> >No it isn't. SAYC includes Jacoby 2NT, which is alertable, and Jacoby
> >transfers, which are announceable. And all NT ranges are announced, so
> >it doesn't matter what system you're playing.
>
> Not when you are playing online, of course.
>
> That was Bertil's point.
He said "in an ACBL regulated game *or* on the internet". I was mainly
> In article <barmar-147C91....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >In article <5f00a56e-5855-4041...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Bertil <stigf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If you were to play in an ACBL regulated game or on the internet,you may
> >> want
> >> to adopt the SAYC , where everything is standard and nonalertable
> >
> >No it isn't. SAYC includes Jacoby 2NT, which is alertable, and Jacoby
> >transfers, which are announceable. And all NT ranges are announced, so
> >it doesn't matter what system you're playing.
>
> Not when you are playing online, of course.
>
> That was Bertil's point.
addressing the ACBL part of that statement -- in non-ACBL games on the
Internet there are no common rules about what is and isn't alertable.
When I play in ACBL games on BBO, I announce our NT range even though
it's the usual 15-17. But I notice that few of my opponents do. Even
though it's safe to over-alert in online games, since your partner
doesn't see them.
Bertil
May 12, 2013, 7:22:25 AM5/12/13
to
bidding outlined in detail offered by a team? Just stating Precision is not
enough since there are many varieties of Precision. How can a social/on line
pair know all the intricacies of Alerts and Announcement?
How about extending a courtesy to those who are new to strict duplicate?
Stig
Jennifer Murphy
May 12, 2013, 11:14:51 AM5/12/13
to
On Sat, 11 May 2013 14:35:00 -0700 (PDT), Nick France
<gand...@optimum.net> wrote:
>On May 11, 12:35�pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:10:00 -0700 (PDT), Nick France
...snip...
<gand...@optimum.net> wrote:
>On May 11, 12:35�pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:10:00 -0700 (PDT), Nick France
>> >In Anycase, in a social game and especially with a new player, I think
>> >the better approach is to be more relaxed. �It should be more about
>> >having fun then worrying about what is techniqually correct.
>>
>> (sigh) Yes, I completely agree. The problem is that we have a couple of
>> players who like to "help" their partners make the right bid. They don't
>> make the effort to have well-established conventions. Then, when a
>> possible area of confusion comes up, they like to "clarify". This is
>> always to their advantage, of course. Another common practice is to make
>> little side comments that pretty clearly convey information. I'm just
>> trying to get a little (not much) rogor into our game. It's a losing
>> battle.
>
>Wish I had a good answer. One way might be to allow a person to ask
>their opponents if she/he can ask partner what they are playing. If
>its a new player or a new partnership I'd certainly be for it but if
>its an well established partnership that keeps playing "fancy"
>agreements and keep forgetting them I wouldn't.
>
>Of course this solution just leads to other problems (like the person
>that will never allow it).
rule, then follow it.
In our little group, there is little need for alerts and zero for
announcing transfers. Everyone plays transfers, or claims to. A few
routinely "forget". These are the same ones who can't remember what
trump is, whether they are in their hand or on the board, what the
bidding was (including the bid that was just made), what cards were just
played, and cannot point their cards in the right direction at the
conclusion of each trick.
We have way too much table talk already. Announcing transfers simply
allows them to get away with being lazy or careless.
Bertil
May 12, 2013, 1:51:01 PM5/12/13
to
On Sunday, May 12, 2013 11:14:51 AM UTC-4, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 14:35:00 -0700 (PDT), Nick France
>
> <gand...@optimum.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 11, 12:35�pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:10:00 -0700 (PDT), Nick France
>
>
>
> ...snip...
>
>
>
> >> >In Anycase, in a social game and especially with a new player, I think
>
> >> >the better approach is to be more relaxed. �It should be more about
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 14:35:00 -0700 (PDT), Nick France
>
> <gand...@optimum.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 11, 12:35�pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:10:00 -0700 (PDT), Nick France
>
>
>
> ...snip...
>
>
>
> >> >In Anycase, in a social game and especially with a new player, I think
>
Goren bidding.And a mixed group is no better. They refuse to learn.
Stu Goodgold
May 12, 2013, 2:28:22 PM5/12/13
to
On Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:14:51 AM UTC-7, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
>
> Yes, leaving it up to the opponents is too subjective. Have a reasonable
>
> rule, then follow it.
>
>
>
> In our little group, there is little need for alerts and zero for
>
> announcing transfers. Everyone plays transfers, or claims to. A few
>
> routinely "forget". These are the same ones who can't remember what
>
> trump is, whether they are in their hand or on the board, what the
>
> bidding was (including the bid that was just made), what cards were just
>
> played, and cannot point their cards in the right direction at the
>
> conclusion of each trick.
>
>
>
> We have way too much table talk already. Announcing transfers simply
>
> allows them to get away with being lazy or careless.
Either you play by certain rules and stick to them or you play a casual game where the rules are bent all the time.
>
> Yes, leaving it up to the opponents is too subjective. Have a reasonable
>
> rule, then follow it.
>
>
>
> In our little group, there is little need for alerts and zero for
>
> announcing transfers. Everyone plays transfers, or claims to. A few
>
> routinely "forget". These are the same ones who can't remember what
>
> trump is, whether they are in their hand or on the board, what the
>
> bidding was (including the bid that was just made), what cards were just
>
> played, and cannot point their cards in the right direction at the
>
> conclusion of each trick.
>
>
>
> We have way too much table talk already. Announcing transfers simply
>
> allows them to get away with being lazy or careless.
The bridge game you described is analogous to picnic volleyball. The game appears to be volleyball but the level of play and adherence to the rules is totally different than the competitive game.
From your own description it sounds as though your group wants the picnic version. Just let them have their fun.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
derek
May 12, 2013, 4:27:26 PM5/12/13
to
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 5:38:50 PM UTC-3, Bertil wrote:
>
> When an inexperienced pair sits down at your table with the Yellow Card,
> it's incumbent on you to look at it and realize that nothing is in red or blue
Fat chance that they would, since I have been unable to find Yellow Cards anywhere, at clubs or tournaments.
>
> When an inexperienced pair sits down at your table with the Yellow Card,
> it's incumbent on you to look at it and realize that nothing is in red or blue
> Thus you should not assume they know the difference between Alerts and
> Announcement.
> Besides, the ACBL SAYC System Booklet says: "There was no need to Alert or ask
> questions , since everyone was playing the same system"
> The same idea should
> apply to those using the SAYC at a regular club game.
derek
May 12, 2013, 4:34:00 PM5/12/13
to
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 6:00:45 PM UTC-3, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> >No it isn't. SAYC includes Jacoby 2NT, which is alertable, and Jacoby
> >transfers, which are announceable. And all NT ranges are announced, so
> >it doesn't matter what system you're playing.
>
> Not when you are playing online, of course.
Why "of course"? Even if you're playing online, I expect you to announce your transfers (the only difference of course being that you self-alert online). In fact, especially online I expect you to announce your transfers, because I only ever encounter people who don't play transfers at rookie-master games at the club (except for one expert pair who use 2D Forcing Stayman, and one non-expert pair who think they do). On BBO, players who never transfer are a dime a dozen. On BBO, players who say they play SAYC AND "no transfers" are at least 25 cents a dozen (not to mention the ones that claim to play SAYC and are then shocked when you make a transfer...).
> >No it isn't. SAYC includes Jacoby 2NT, which is alertable, and Jacoby
> >transfers, which are announceable. And all NT ranges are announced, so
> >it doesn't matter what system you're playing.
>
> Not when you are playing online, of course.
> That was Bertil's point.
Barry Margolin
May 12, 2013, 4:50:31 PM5/12/13
to
In article <cm9vo8ti92am79uh6...@4ax.com>,
alert rules that were designed for clubs and tournaments. You likely
have a tacit assumption that everyone is playing the same system. The
alert system was created for environments where you play against lots of
different opponents, who may be using very different systems from you.
Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> In our little group, there is little need for alerts and zero for
> announcing transfers. Everyone plays transfers, or claims to. A few
> routinely "forget".
In a social "kitchen table" bridge game, you don't need to follow the
> In our little group, there is little need for alerts and zero for
> announcing transfers. Everyone plays transfers, or claims to. A few
> routinely "forget".
alert rules that were designed for clubs and tournaments. You likely
have a tacit assumption that everyone is playing the same system. The
alert system was created for environments where you play against lots of
different opponents, who may be using very different systems from you.
Bertil
May 12, 2013, 5:06:54 PM5/12/13
to
On Sunday, May 12, 2013 4:27:26 PM UTC-4, derek wrote:
> On Saturday, May 11, 2013 5:38:50 PM UTC-3, Bertil wrote:
>
> >
>
> > When an inexperienced pair sits down at your table with the Yellow Card,
>
> > it's incumbent on you to look at it and realize that nothing is in red or blue
>
>
>
> Fat chance that they would, since I have been unable to find Yellow Cards anywhere, at clubs or tournaments.
>
>
The HBC in Hartford has a pile of Yellow cards.
> On Saturday, May 11, 2013 5:38:50 PM UTC-3, Bertil wrote:
>
> >
>
> > When an inexperienced pair sits down at your table with the Yellow Card,
>
> > it's incumbent on you to look at it and realize that nothing is in red or blue
>
>
>
> Fat chance that they would, since I have been unable to find Yellow Cards anywhere, at clubs or tournaments.
>
>
If you wish to discourage newbees from coming back, don't give them any slack.
Stig
David Goldfarb
May 13, 2013, 4:03:05 AM5/13/13
to
In article <a4ca6a82-4823-4060...@googlegroups.com>,
--
David Goldfarb |"My society worries about people getting their
goldf...@gmail.com | hands on illegal drugs but they'll sell any
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | idiot a bag of concrete."
| -- Teresa Nielsen Hayden
derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>I have been unable to find Yellow
>Cards anywhere, at clubs or tournaments.
I've seen them at the Houston Bridge Studio.
>I have been unable to find Yellow
>Cards anywhere, at clubs or tournaments.
--
David Goldfarb |"My society worries about people getting their
goldf...@gmail.com | hands on illegal drugs but they'll sell any
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | idiot a bag of concrete."
| -- Teresa Nielsen Hayden
Barry Margolin
May 13, 2013, 10:12:26 AM5/13/13
to
In article <e8542d41-065f-4e30...@googlegroups.com>,
When they make mistakes, you teach them the proper procedure, that's how
they learn.
Bertil <stigf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you wish to discourage newbees from coming back, don't give them any slack.
No one is suggesting that you throw the book at newcomers to duplicate.
> If you wish to discourage newbees from coming back, don't give them any slack.
When they make mistakes, you teach them the proper procedure, that's how
they learn.
Adam Beneschan
May 13, 2013, 11:47:05 AM5/13/13
to
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 7:42:19 AM UTC-7, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
> Wow. This makes no sense to me. I always thought the Alert mechanism was
> intended to alert the opponents to "unusual" or "non-standard"
> conventions so as to prevent secret conventions. Aren't Jacobi transfers
> almost universal now? They are around here.
Yes, Jacoby [the correct spelling] transfers are almost universal. However, it would probably be a bad idea to have the *natural* meaning of 2H (which a few die-hards still use, and maybe some weak notrumpers) and the transfer meaning non-alerted. This is an area that the ACBL has struggled with. At the time they started struggling with this, I think there were enough people still using 1NT-2H as natural that there would have been a lot of complaints if the ACBL started requiring them to alert it. So making the Jacoby transfer non-alertable wasn't an option. In the past, 2D and 2H transfers were just normal alerts. But the ACBL was facing a problem because some people were using 2D for something else, often part of a two-way Stayman convention. The problem was that if both 2D transfer and 2D with some other meaning were alerted, the opponents often assumed 2D was a transfer and then got into trouble when it was something else. The ACBL's first solution was the "Special Alert". Using this, 2D as a transfer was alerted with a normal alert, and 2D as something else was a "Special Alert". Nobody really liked this, and eventually the ACBL decided to get rid of Special Alerts, but make transfers "announcements". That's the system that they've stayed with. At the beginning, either transfers were the only announceable bids, or transfers and forcing 1NT response to a major. Eventually the ACBL decided to use the announcement mechanism for other purposes including notrump ranges.
> Wow. This makes no sense to me. I always thought the Alert mechanism was
> intended to alert the opponents to "unusual" or "non-standard"
> conventions so as to prevent secret conventions. Aren't Jacobi transfers
> almost universal now? They are around here.
It's all part of a balancing act. There are a number of goals that the ACBL has to keep in mind:
(1) making sure opponents are fully informed and not taken by surprise;
(2) preventing, as far as possible, pairs who use conventions from waking each other up by their alerts or non-alerts;
(3) preventing, as far as possible, the *opponents* from inadvertently communicating with each other by asking questions. For example, if we use two different overcall methods depending on the opener's notrump range, I need to know what their range is; and if I ask about it, I may be conveying information to partner that I have a hand that's interested in overcalling. The announcements were intended to help prevent this sort of thing.
(4) keeping the game moving (which it wouldn't if every bid had to be explained or questioned).
(5) keeping the alert rules simple enough that they can be followed.
(6) keeping the alert rules relatively stable so that players don't have to keep relearning the rules.
There's no way to do all of these perfectly. I think the ACBL has done a reasonable job of trying to balance all these priorities (although I wish they were more clear about when "highly unusual or unexpected" doubles and non-conventional bids need to be alerted).
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
May 13, 2013, 11:50:11 AM5/13/13
to
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 12:33:53 AM UTC-7, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
> At our monthly social duplicate game this evening, we had a sub for one
> of our regulars. On one early hand at my table, with the sub sitting
> East, the bidding went like this:
>
> E S W N
> - Pass 1NT Pass
> 2H Pass
>
> When West paused, looking puzzled, East (the sub), said, "May I ask a
> question?" I said, "that depends on who you ask and what the question
> is." She then said, "In ACBL games, it is customary to announce
> transfers."
My opinion: in ACBL games, it is customary for questions to end in question marks. In fact, I think that's true in most English-speaking countries, not just the ACBL. (In Spanish-speaking countries you also have to begin with an upside-down question mark ...) :) :) :)
> At our monthly social duplicate game this evening, we had a sub for one
> of our regulars. On one early hand at my table, with the sub sitting
> East, the bidding went like this:
>
> E S W N
> - Pass 1NT Pass
> 2H Pass
>
> When West paused, looking puzzled, East (the sub), said, "May I ask a
> question?" I said, "that depends on who you ask and what the question
> is." She then said, "In ACBL games, it is customary to announce
> transfers."
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
May 13, 2013, 11:59:37 AM5/13/13
to
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 8:07:39 AM UTC-7, Andrew B. wrote:
> I assume the logic for not alerting/announcing Stayman and Michaels is
> that hardly anyone uses them as natural bids.
In the ACBL, Stayman has never been alerted. It has been a really long time since anybody ever used it as natural (I read once that B. Jay Becker clung to the natural usage, but he was probably the last one).
The situation with Michaels is a bit different. Cue-bids were considered to be "self-alerting". That is, if you used a cue-bid, your opponent could assume that this would be some convention, so it would have the same effect as an alert. I believe that at the time this decision was made, there wasn't any one convention predominating--some people were playing Michaels, some were playing it as showing any strong hand, a few were using it as a weak takeout. Now that Michaels has become predominant, though, I think it would better if the rule changed, so that any meaning other than Michaels would be alertable. My "regular" partnership (i.e. the partner that I play with the two or three times a year that I can play) doesn't use Michaels; for us, (1C) 2C shows four spades and 5+ diamonds. This has confused some opponents who assume it's Michaels. But the rules say we're not supposed to alert it. That seems wrong, but on the other hand the ACBL has run into trouble before when they tried to change the alert rules too often, so I can understand their reluctance to making any more changes.
-- Adam
> I assume the logic for not alerting/announcing Stayman and Michaels is
> that hardly anyone uses them as natural bids.
In the ACBL, Stayman has never been alerted. It has been a really long time since anybody ever used it as natural (I read once that B. Jay Becker clung to the natural usage, but he was probably the last one).
The situation with Michaels is a bit different. Cue-bids were considered to be "self-alerting". That is, if you used a cue-bid, your opponent could assume that this would be some convention, so it would have the same effect as an alert. I believe that at the time this decision was made, there wasn't any one convention predominating--some people were playing Michaels, some were playing it as showing any strong hand, a few were using it as a weak takeout. Now that Michaels has become predominant, though, I think it would better if the rule changed, so that any meaning other than Michaels would be alertable. My "regular" partnership (i.e. the partner that I play with the two or three times a year that I can play) doesn't use Michaels; for us, (1C) 2C shows four spades and 5+ diamonds. This has confused some opponents who assume it's Michaels. But the rules say we're not supposed to alert it. That seems wrong, but on the other hand the ACBL has run into trouble before when they tried to change the alert rules too often, so I can understand their reluctance to making any more changes.
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
May 13, 2013, 12:02:22 PM5/13/13
to
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:38:05 AM UTC-7, Barry Margolin wrote:
> ACBL is very conservative about changes to the alert procedures. Until
> sometime in the 90's transfers were alerted, as were NT ranges that
> extended out of the 15-18 range.
I don't think this last is right. I don't recall any notrump ranges ever needing to be alerted (the really weak ones may have needed a pre-alert).
-- Adam
> ACBL is very conservative about changes to the alert procedures. Until
> sometime in the 90's transfers were alerted, as were NT ranges that
> extended out of the 15-18 range.
I don't think this last is right. I don't recall any notrump ranges ever needing to be alerted (the really weak ones may have needed a pre-alert).
-- Adam
Barry Margolin
May 13, 2013, 1:10:47 PM5/13/13
to
In article <b02074f0-b8e0-4d6b...@googlegroups.com>,
Was Victor Borge playing in this game? If not, how can you tell whether
the speaker ended her question with a question mark?
the speaker ended her question with a question mark?
Barry Margolin
May 13, 2013, 1:13:14 PM5/13/13
to
In article <3c318cd0-0816-41b9...@googlegroups.com>,
Yeah, that sounds right. As you pointed out in another post (which
mostly just said the same stuff as I did in the one you quoted above),
those of us who played different defenses to strong and weak NT were
frequently asking "What's your NT range?".
mostly just said the same stuff as I did in the one you quoted above),
those of us who played different defenses to strong and weak NT were
frequently asking "What's your NT range?".
Adam Beneschan
May 13, 2013, 2:25:54 PM5/13/13
to
On Monday, May 13, 2013 10:10:47 AM UTC-7, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > > When West paused, looking puzzled, East (the sub), said, "May I ask a
> > > question?" I said, "that depends on who you ask and what the question
> > > is." She then said, "In ACBL games, it is customary to announce
> > > transfers."
>
> > My opinion: in ACBL games, it is customary for questions to end in question
> > marks. In fact, I think that's true in most English-speaking countries, not
> > just the ACBL. (In Spanish-speaking countries you also have to begin with an
>
> > upside-down question mark ...) :) :) :)
>
> Was Victor Borge playing in this game? If not, how can you tell whether
> the speaker ended her question with a question mark?
Hee, hee! I still love that routine. (But not as much as his one-piano-four-hands performance of Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody ...) Naaah, that was just my comment on East's "May I ask a question?" followed by something that clearly wasn't a question (which would have been clear even without the help of phonetic punctuation).
> > > When West paused, looking puzzled, East (the sub), said, "May I ask a
> > > question?" I said, "that depends on who you ask and what the question
> > > is." She then said, "In ACBL games, it is customary to announce
> > > transfers."
>
> > My opinion: in ACBL games, it is customary for questions to end in question
> > marks. In fact, I think that's true in most English-speaking countries, not
> > just the ACBL. (In Spanish-speaking countries you also have to begin with an
>
> > upside-down question mark ...) :) :) :)
>
> Was Victor Borge playing in this game? If not, how can you tell whether
> the speaker ended her question with a question mark?
-- Adam
derek
May 13, 2013, 2:52:26 PM5/13/13
to
On Monday, May 13, 2013 12:59:37 PM UTC-3, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> I think it would better if the rule changed, so that any meaning other than
> Michaels would be alertable. My "regular" partnership (i.e. the partner
> that I play with the two or three times a year that I can play) doesn't use
> Michaels; for us, (1C) 2C shows four spades and 5+ diamonds. This has
> confused some opponents who assume it's Michaels. But the rules say we're
> not supposed to alert it. That seems wrong, but on the other hand the ACBL
> has run into trouble before when they tried to change the alert rules too
> often, so I can understand their reluctance to making any more changes.
The rules don't actually say that. They say "any cuebid which conveys a very unusual or unexpected meaning still requires an Alert." I'm not sure that on an ACBL-wide basis meanings other than Michaels (especially two-suiters) could be "very unusual", but at many clubs they certainly could be.
> I think it would better if the rule changed, so that any meaning other than
> Michaels would be alertable. My "regular" partnership (i.e. the partner
> that I play with the two or three times a year that I can play) doesn't use
> Michaels; for us, (1C) 2C shows four spades and 5+ diamonds. This has
> confused some opponents who assume it's Michaels. But the rules say we're
> not supposed to alert it. That seems wrong, but on the other hand the ACBL
> has run into trouble before when they tried to change the alert rules too
> often, so I can understand their reluctance to making any more changes.
Barry Margolin
May 13, 2013, 3:05:23 PM5/13/13
to
In article <1502c40d-7bef-4d60...@googlegroups.com>,
Even if it had been phrased as a question, it would presumably have been
rhetorical, so the same intent was conveyed.
Or you can view it as there's an implicit "Don't you do the same?"
tacked on to the statement.
rhetorical, so the same intent was conveyed.
Or you can view it as there's an implicit "Don't you do the same?"
tacked on to the statement.
Barry Margolin
May 13, 2013, 3:16:52 PM5/13/13
to
In article <afd70055-3fae-423e...@googlegroups.com>,
When I learned bridge about 25 years ago, I was taught the old fashioned
big takeout meaning; I think it was something like 19+ HCP with classic
takeout shape -- a hand that comes up hardly ever. I'm not sure when I
learned Michaels, but these days I'll estimate that more than 95% of
ACBL players use it. I'll also guess that most of the ones who don't are
beginners who haven't yet been taught any particular meaning and it's
simply an impossible bid (if their partner made the bid and they were
asked for an explanation, they'd probably say they don't know and might
even assume it's natural). The ones like Adam, who assign a different
meaning (his agreement looks like Top & Bottom, but it's hard to be sure
with just one example) probably comprises about 1% of ACBL.
I'd personally consider that rare enough to merit "very unusual or
unexpected". On the other hand, if they intended that anything other
then Michaels should be alerted, they could have said so. They didn't
have a problem singling out Stayman and Jacoby in other parts of the
alert procedures, why be so vague about cue bids? So the alternate
interpretation is that any two-suited meaning falls into the Michaels
family, so is not "very unusual or unexpected" -- the only thing that's
unusual is which two suits are being shown.
big takeout meaning; I think it was something like 19+ HCP with classic
takeout shape -- a hand that comes up hardly ever. I'm not sure when I
learned Michaels, but these days I'll estimate that more than 95% of
ACBL players use it. I'll also guess that most of the ones who don't are
beginners who haven't yet been taught any particular meaning and it's
simply an impossible bid (if their partner made the bid and they were
asked for an explanation, they'd probably say they don't know and might
even assume it's natural). The ones like Adam, who assign a different
meaning (his agreement looks like Top & Bottom, but it's hard to be sure
with just one example) probably comprises about 1% of ACBL.
I'd personally consider that rare enough to merit "very unusual or
unexpected". On the other hand, if they intended that anything other
then Michaels should be alerted, they could have said so. They didn't
have a problem singling out Stayman and Jacoby in other parts of the
alert procedures, why be so vague about cue bids? So the alternate
interpretation is that any two-suited meaning falls into the Michaels
family, so is not "very unusual or unexpected" -- the only thing that's
unusual is which two suits are being shown.
Adam Beneschan
May 13, 2013, 3:50:37 PM5/13/13
to
On Monday, May 13, 2013 12:16:52 PM UTC-7, Barry Margolin wrote:
> The ones like Adam, who assign a different
> meaning (his agreement looks like Top & Bottom, but it's hard to be sure
> with just one example) probably comprises about 1% of ACBL.
For the record: a direct cue-bid over an opening bid shows four of the topmost unbid suit (always a major), although I've been known to use it with a weak five-card major; and five or more of the lowest unbid suit (always a minor); and about overcall strength or better. I think this is Top and Bottom, although that particular term has been used in more than one way (I think back in the 70s or 80s Max Hardy used it for a top & bottom overcall that showed 5-5), so I tend to avoid using the name.
> The ones like Adam, who assign a different
> meaning (his agreement looks like Top & Bottom, but it's hard to be sure
> with just one example) probably comprises about 1% of ACBL.
-- Adam
Barry Margolin
May 13, 2013, 5:42:20 PM5/13/13
to
In article <29ac0710-18c2-4f03...@googlegroups.com>,
I assume the "exactly 4 of the major" part is simply because with 5 you
would just overcall in the major rather than use the convention. That's
similar to the "minimax" agreement many have about Michaels -- it shows
5-5, but with weak or very strong hands, because with intermediate hands
you'd overcall and hope to get a chance to show your second suit with a
rebid if necessary.
would just overcall in the major rather than use the convention. That's
similar to the "minimax" agreement many have about Michaels -- it shows
5-5, but with weak or very strong hands, because with intermediate hands
you'd overcall and hope to get a chance to show your second suit with a
rebid if necessary.
Adam Beneschan
May 13, 2013, 6:17:22 PM5/13/13
to
On Monday, May 13, 2013 2:42:20 PM UTC-7, Barry Margolin wrote:
> I assume the "exactly 4 of the major" part is simply because with 5 you
> would just overcall in the major rather than use the convention.
I assume that's the reason, too, but as far as I know we didn't come up with that reason. I believe that this was how my partner read about the convention, or heard about it from someone else, and then he explained it to me. Where he read or heard about it, I don't know. I don't think the "exactly 4" was his own pet idea, though.
> I assume the "exactly 4 of the major" part is simply because with 5 you
> would just overcall in the major rather than use the convention.
Perhaps a better reason is that this shows a hand type that's hard to show otherwise. It seems this was also part of a structure in which (1C)2D shows four hearts and 5+ diamonds, and (1D)3C shows four hearts and 5+ clubs [the last is a bad idea--(1D)2H is better]. We also started playing equal-level conversion so that over a 1M opening, we could show four of the other major and diamonds by doubling and correcting clubs to diamonds (although we do need an opening hand or so to be able to double). We adopted all of this at the same time, so I really suspect this came from a book or magazine article describing how to deal with all possible combinations of this hand type.
-- Adam
Stu Goodgold
May 13, 2013, 6:46:05 PM5/13/13
to
On Monday, May 13, 2013 1:03:05 AM UTC-7, David Goldfarb wrote:
> In article <a4ca6a82-4823-4060...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> >I have been unable to find Yellow
>
> >Cards anywhere, at clubs or tournaments.
>
>
>
> I've seen them at the Houston Bridge Studio.
We have a stack of them at our club in San Jose. One of my partners make use of them for private scores, stating that they will never get used otherwise.
> In article <a4ca6a82-4823-4060...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> >I have been unable to find Yellow
>
> >Cards anywhere, at clubs or tournaments.
>
>
>
> I've seen them at the Houston Bridge Studio.
-Stu Goodgold
Will in New Haven
May 13, 2013, 8:33:01 PM5/13/13
to
was told when I asked a director at a regional if we should alert our
cue-bid of an opponent's Major, which shows exactly the other Major
and Diamonds.
--
W
derek
May 13, 2013, 9:23:18 PM5/13/13
to
On Monday, May 13, 2013 4:16:52 PM UTC-3, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <afd70055-3fae-423e...@googlegroups.com>,
> derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, May 13, 2013 12:59:37 PM UTC-3, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > > I think it would better if the rule changed, so that any meaning other than
> > > Michaels would be alertable. My "regular" partnership (i.e. the partner
> > > that I play with the two or three times a year that I can play) doesn't use
> > > Michaels; for us, (1C) 2C shows four spades and 5+ diamonds. This has
> > > confused some opponents who assume it's Michaels. But the rules say we're
> > > not supposed to alert it. That seems wrong, but on the other hand the ACBL
> > > has run into trouble before when they tried to change the alert rules too
> > > often, so I can understand their reluctance to making any more changes.
> >
> > The rules don't actually say that. They say "any cuebid which conveys a very
> > unusual or unexpected meaning still requires an Alert." I'm not sure that on
> > an ACBL-wide basis meanings other than Michaels (especially two-suiters)
> > could be "very unusual", but at many clubs they certainly could be.
>
> When I learned bridge about 25 years ago, I was taught the old fashioned
> big takeout meaning; I think it was something like 19+ HCP with classic
> takeout shape -- a hand that comes up hardly ever. I'm not sure when I
> learned Michaels, but these days I'll estimate that more than 95% of
> ACBL players use it.
Maybe it's that high - I'm not sure what the grade is for "very unexpected" - but there's an increasing number of people who would use the cue-bid to show _some_ 2-suiter, but not necessarily Michaels.
> In article <afd70055-3fae-423e...@googlegroups.com>,
> derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, May 13, 2013 12:59:37 PM UTC-3, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > > I think it would better if the rule changed, so that any meaning other than
> > > Michaels would be alertable. My "regular" partnership (i.e. the partner
> > > that I play with the two or three times a year that I can play) doesn't use
> > > Michaels; for us, (1C) 2C shows four spades and 5+ diamonds. This has
> > > confused some opponents who assume it's Michaels. But the rules say we're
> > > not supposed to alert it. That seems wrong, but on the other hand the ACBL
> > > has run into trouble before when they tried to change the alert rules too
> > > often, so I can understand their reluctance to making any more changes.
> >
> > The rules don't actually say that. They say "any cuebid which conveys a very
> > unusual or unexpected meaning still requires an Alert." I'm not sure that on
> > an ACBL-wide basis meanings other than Michaels (especially two-suiters)
> > could be "very unusual", but at many clubs they certainly could be.
>
> When I learned bridge about 25 years ago, I was taught the old fashioned
> big takeout meaning; I think it was something like 19+ HCP with classic
> takeout shape -- a hand that comes up hardly ever. I'm not sure when I
> learned Michaels, but these days I'll estimate that more than 95% of
> ACBL players use it.
> I'd personally consider that rare enough to merit "very unusual or
> unexpected". On the other hand, if they intended that anything other
> then Michaels should be alerted, they could have said so. They didn't
> have a problem singling out Stayman and Jacoby in other parts of the
> alert procedures, why be so vague about cue bids? So the alternate
> interpretation is that any two-suited meaning falls into the Michaels
> family, so is not "very unusual or unexpected" -- the only thing that's
> unusual is which two suits are being shown.
Steve Willner
May 13, 2013, 9:55:19 PM5/13/13
to
On 2013-05-11 12:35 PM, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
> The problem is that we have a couple of
> players who like to "help" their partners make the right bid. They don't
> make the effort to have well-established conventions. Then, when a
> possible area of confusion comes up, they like to "clarify".
Realistically, you are going to have to decide whether the social
> The problem is that we have a couple of
> players who like to "help" their partners make the right bid. They don't
> make the effort to have well-established conventions. Then, when a
> possible area of confusion comes up, they like to "clarify".
advantages of including these people are worth the aggravation. You
could try having a quiet word with them about what's proper and what's
not, but I wouldn't bet on any success. The alternative is to invite
different players to replace the troublesome ones, but you'll have to
decide whether that's a good idea or even possible at all.
In the original case, your substitute player was in an awkward position,
but she didn't handle it at all well. Best, of course, would have been
to find out in advance whether her partner used transfers or not and
also what alerting rules (if any) were in effect in your game. Failing
that, she might have asked the opponents before she bid "Do people play
transfers here?" The opponents are not obliged to answer, of course,
but I expect in the circumstances most would do so. Saying after the
bid "That was a transfer," (in effect) strikes me as a little much, as
also does the reference to ACBL rules, which are irrelevant. Even so, I
think you have to make allowance for the conditions, but you would be
justified in finding a different substitute next time you need one.
Other people have explained the ACBL alert/announcement rules well
enough. The only thing I might add is that those rules are the result
of long and somewhat irregular evolution, not any well-thought-out
logical system.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Barry Margolin
May 13, 2013, 10:32:05 PM5/13/13
to
In article <kms5b4$phq$1...@dont-email.me>,
is even a question that needs to be asked. In her experience, transfers
are just part of standard bidding.
Steve Willner <swil...@nhcc.net> wrote:
> In the original case, your substitute player was in an awkward position,
> but she didn't handle it at all well. Best, of course, would have been
> to find out in advance whether her partner used transfers or not and
> also what alerting rules (if any) were in effect in your game. Failing
> that, she might have asked the opponents before she bid "Do people play
> transfers here?"
Someone used to playing in ACBL games could easily not realize that this
> In the original case, your substitute player was in an awkward position,
> but she didn't handle it at all well. Best, of course, would have been
> to find out in advance whether her partner used transfers or not and
> also what alerting rules (if any) were in effect in your game. Failing
> that, she might have asked the opponents before she bid "Do people play
> transfers here?"
is even a question that needs to be asked. In her experience, transfers
are just part of standard bidding.
Mark Brader
May 27, 2013, 2:13:26 PM5/27/13
to
While I was away, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > ACBL is very conservative about changes to the alert procedures. Until
> > sometime in the 90's transfers were alerted, as were NT ranges that
> > extended out of the 15-18 range.
And Adam Beneschan responded:
> > ACBL is very conservative about changes to the alert procedures. Until
> > sometime in the 90's transfers were alerted, as were NT ranges that
> > extended out of the 15-18 range.
> I don't think this last is right. I don't recall any notrump ranges
> ever needing to be alerted (the really weak ones may have needed a
> pre-alert).
What Barry is actually thinking of is this: at the time when the ACBL
> ever needing to be alerted (the really weak ones may have needed a
> pre-alert).
first introduced announcements, they required any natural 1NT opening
or overcall that extended out of the 15-18 range to be *announced*.
(Personally, I've never liked the principle of announcements and would
have preferred them to be alerted, but that's me; as Adam says, it was
never an ACBL rule.)
I think this rule didn't last very long, maybe about 2 years, before
they switched to the present system -- -- no announcement for a natural
1NT overcall, but always announce the range for a natural 1NT opening.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Well, I'm back", he said.
m...@vex.net -- Tolkien (The Lord of the Rings)
My text in this article is in the public domain.
0 new messages