[kenberg]

Rapping the table for a pass? It's been years since I have seen anyone do that. If one wants to go with paranoia about signaling by style of passing (I suppose that's the reason for this attention to an archaic practice) I often see the following: Last hand, instead of pulling a pass card simply scoops up his cards and puts them back in the box. I suppose this could mean lead a heart, while playing the pass card and then scooping them up shows lack of interest in a heart lead.

I do not lie awake worrying about this.

The alert procedure has been an ongoing embarrassment to the ACBL. I recall when they decided to address Walsh responses to 1C openings. At one point if a partnership would skip over 5432 of diamonds to bid 1H on AQJ9 an alert was expected. Then it was changed to depend on the quality of the diamonds. Then it was changed again so that you could skip over any four card diamond suit w/o an alert but not a five card diamond suit. And so on. I don't know what the current rule is. Possibly this history is slightly off but not by much. It was exhausting trying to keep up with the latest whim.

It seems to me that the ACBL rules committee is often dominated by people whose idea of a fun evening is reading government tax manuals. I realize these things can get tough but a little common sense would go a long way. For example, in the Walsh response case I would like to know whether after 1C-1D opener feels perfectly free to rebid 1NT holding two four card majors. If so, I would call that a Walsh style. If opener, holding 4-4-2-3 would usually rebid 1H, then they are not playing Walsh. I, an opponent, need to know that much about their style but beyond that there are issues of judgment that to my mind require no alert. Let them bid their hands as they see fit.


From reading the reference, we see that some prominent ACBL folks think no alert should be required if 1m-(1H)-X is played as denying four spades. This seems to me to be the triumph of legalism over common sense. Few people get any pleasure out of foxing the opponents by playing an unusual and concealed convention, as indeed the players themselves made clear in this case. I hope the ACBL can get their act together on all of this.

[blackshoe]

Last time I saw people rapping the table for a pass was last night. And again the day before yesterday. Do not fall into Britannicus' error.

In my opinion, it's not a matter of paranoia, it's a matter of simply doing things the right way. It did confuse me quite a bit at first, because I got into duplicate in England, where a tap on the table indicates an alert. In any case, it's certainly no cause to lie awake nights.

While I deplore the way the C&C committee appears to conduct its business, I have to say that crafting an alert procedure is not an easy job, particularly when it needs to cover a jurisdiction as large and diverse as the ACBL. I don't fault them (and I don't think anyone else should) for not getting it right the first time.

As I understand it, it has become common, at least in some circles, to bypass diamonds in favor of a four card major even if you don''t play Walsh. Still shouldn't need an alert in my opinion. As you say, it's a matter of style, and such things are not usually alertable in the ACBL.

As to who dominates the C&C committee (or were you talking about some other rules committee?) the members' names are on the acbl web site. I do note that 2 of the 3 members of the "convention and defense approval" subcommittee aren't actually on the committee itself, which makes me wonder how it can be a "subcommittee". And also that the membership information may be out of date, as it's labelled "for 2008".

[awm]

I think the generally correct way to do these things is to have two documents about alerts.

The first is intended as a primer for players. It gives general rules (like "bids with unexpected meanings should be alerted" and "when in doubt, alert") and also specifically handles very common methods (stayman, transfers, fourth suit forcing, etc). This document should be a page or two at most. What the ACBL currently has is not bad in this respect.

The second document should be primarily a reference for directors (although available to interested players as well). This should include as many relevant examples as possible, and should be periodically updated to reflect recent appeals cases and discussions. This allows a director to look something up (is a negative double that denies four spades an alert etc.) and make consistent rulings with other directors and the C&C members. The length of this second document is not a primary concern, as it is primarily a reference and not something that most players ever need to look at.

This second document seems not to exist in ACBL-land (EBU evidently has very good such documentation).

[blackshoe]

Actually, I suspect that the alert chart is intended to be your first "for players" document, and the "alert procedure" the second. It may be the procedure needs more examples, and that they both need some revision - I'm not sure the chart is all that clear in all cases.

Frankly, I think the EBU white and orange books do an outstanding job of making the regulations (and advice on how to apply them) accessible, and I wish the ACBL would do something similar. But they were "not invented here", and I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.

[awm]

Another funny one:

Pass - Pass - Pass - 2M

With what point range (if any) would 2M require an alert? I have seen people play this as any of 8-12, 11-15, 13-16, and 16+ and all of them seem to think it is "standard" and not alertable.

[blackshoe]

They're all wrong.

[kenberg]

awm, on Jan 17 2009, 01:35 PM, said:

Another funny one:

Pass - Pass - Pass - 2M

With what point range (if any) would 2M require an alert? I have seen people play this as any of 8-12, 11-15, 13-16, and 16+ and all of them seem to think it is "standard" and not alertable.

I think that I have no explcit point range with any partner. If asked, I explain to opponents that he expects 2H to be a makable contract more often than not, given the three passes.


The ACBL tends to get stuck on HCPs. I can't imagine counting my HCPs when deciding to open or not open 2H in fourth seat. I want a hand where I am pretty sure it belongs in hearts, probably I can take 8 tricks given that partner rates to have something, and probably not ten tricks, and some sort of defense if the opponents come in. I have been fairly successful in judging this. Not always of course.

One could alert this but what else might it mean? Well, I see you have some choices people have made so I guess there are other ways of playing it. But when I open 2H in fourth seat I expect to be happy if it is followed by three passes. I don't think it would be right to require a partnership to attach a specific HCP range to it, as I don't think HCPs are the way to judge such a call. HCPs are to be our servant, not our master.

[mycroft]

Lots of the "right" procedure are there for corner cases that never happen, but get really ugly when they do.

kenberg, on Jan 17 2009, 08:12 AM, said:

Rapping the table for a pass? It's been years since I have seen anyone do that. If one wants to go with paranoia about signaling by style of passing (I suppose that's the reason for this attention to an archaic practice) I often see the following: Last hand, instead of pulling a pass card simply scoops up his cards and puts them back in the box. I suppose this could mean lead a heart, while playing the pass card and then scooping them up shows lack of interest in a heart lead.

I do not lie awake worrying about this.

I do. Not because of the paranoia - I agree with you, I don't see anything like that - but I lie awake worrying about the day that I get called to the table because they're arguing a) whether it's -150 or -500 and b) as part of that, "I know it wasn't doubled because I would have run." The problem is that picking up the cards isn't a pass - except the 99+% of the time when it is. And when the auction ends 3H-X-P-P-pickup, nobody sees a problem, until it comes time for the scoring. Yeah, that's happened - there's at least two appeals over it in the books. No, it doesn't happen often; but it's a real bastard when it does. If you never do it, and you're pedantically known for never doing it, it makes your case better. So never do it.

Also, it leads to other patterns - people start picking up their cards after one pass when they expect it to pass out; one person I know flips over her scoresheet to write in the contract whenever she makes a call she intends to end the auction; I've heard reports of pairs whose opening calls are in the middle most of the time, but way over to the left with a strong hand, because they expect a long auction.

The "tap the alert strip" (which I do as "pull the alert card" - those <unprintable> strips are solely designed to tip over bidding boxes) is important for those of us with quiet normal voices and those (more than a few, and some you can't tell) hard of hearing, who have to see something. Similarly, you have to both "tap the alert strip" and say "Alert" because there are those with visual issues who can see the bidding runs, but don't see the alert card because they weren't expecting it (or in one of my partner's cases, if it's in that 15% of the table he can't see with his one good eye) - I will admit I tend to cheat on this, but I do put the Alert card out middle of the table in front of my bids, with a big motion; I think it's clear). Again, 99+% of the time, no problem. The times it is a problem - BIG problem, taking lots of time to work out.

Wait 10 seconds after a skip bid? Well, we all know the day when we actually needed the 10 seconds. *I* have 10 people I can call who will tell the TD or AC that yeah, he's that pedantic, he always does that, and isn't it so bloody annoying? Do you?

Don't get me started on Announcing NT (I'm sure I've done that spiel at least twice here, you can search for it. Let's just say that if two of the biggest clubs in the ACBL had to state, before Announcing strong NTs were required, that there is No Bridge Reason to need to know whether the opening was 15-17, 15-18, or 16-18, and therefore any question about the range would be considered Unauthorized Information that would put partner under restriction, that there is a reason for it. Other reason? 10-12 NV, 15-17 V. 1NT openings by N-S on boards 1 and 2).

Quote

The alert procedure has been an ongoing embarrassment to the ACBL. I recall when they decided to address Walsh responses to 1C openings. At one point if a partnership would skip over 5432 of diamonds to bid 1H on AQJ9 an alert was expected. Then it was changed to depend on the quality of the diamonds. Then it was changed again so that you could skip over any four card diamond suit w/o an alert but not a five card diamond suit. And so on. I don't know what the current rule is. Possibly this history is slightly off but not by much. It was exhausting trying to keep up with the latest whim.

Well, yes, but there has been two sets of changes (and one tweak, adding some announcements) in almost 20 years. Before that? Yeah, it was a mess, and yeah, it did change all the time; but I don't think people can complain any more that "it changes all the time, how can anyone keep up with it?" Now, more clarity, with more examples of the corner cases, a la Orange Book, would be very useful.

Quote

It seems to me that the ACBL rules committee is often dominated by people whose idea of a fun evening is reading government tax manuals.

Um, well, yeah. So are a lot of ACBL TDs. It's kind of a prerequisite for the job. It is fun - provided there's a use for it. Of course, I've never had any sympathy with people with 50 pages of system notes who won't read the rules because they're "too complicated" (especially when, as in one case I know, it's a lawyer complaining). Do you not know any accountants? Including one who actually enjoys her job?

And actually, the problem with the pronouncements of the ACBLLC is that they're not government tax manuals - they're more like TSA manuals. They're very good for Kaplanesque gaming; one can point to something in the procedure that makes "what we don't want" illegal (not impugning motive here; I'm not saying here either that they do play that game, or that they've deliberately set up the system to allow for it; but it does work). *They're* not interested in the corner cases; they want to make things make sense for 99% of the situations for 99% of players. And they do. It's only when one of the 1% falls into one of the 1% holes that there's even an issue. Case law would be useful, even if it's another 10 pages of random examples in the Alert Procedure, or making the GCC spread over (gasp!) TWO pages.

[Phil]

awm, on Jan 17 2009, 01:35 PM, said:

Another funny one:

Pass - Pass - Pass - 2M

With what point range (if any) would 2M require an alert? I have seen people play this as any of 8-12, 11-15, 13-16, and 16+ and all of them seem to think it is "standard" and not alertable.

We were discussing this the the other day in the context of 2♥ being around 11-14 or so.

Since 2M is natural, and the meaning isn't completely unexpected, we didn't think an alert was appropriate. Is this inconsistent with not alerting an 8-12 2♥ opener? I don't think so.

Do people really play a 4th chair 2 bid as 16+?

This post has been edited by Phil: 2009-January-19, 11:49

[ArtK78]

It is my understanding (not based on any authoritative pronouncement, but on what I have been told by one person who should know) that if an opening "weak" 2 bid is natural and does not show anything but length in the bid suit and some recognized point range, then it is not alertable. This is important to me as I play 3-9 HCP undisciplined weak 2 bids in 1st and 2nd seats nonvul. My partner and I always preannounce our methods (which include 10-12 1NT and 10 point opening 1 bids) but then do not alert the openings as they occur (except as a courtesy). When playing online, we alert all of these openings even after making the preannouncement.

As for fourth-seat natural 2 bids, I don't believe that they require any alert. They pretty much alert themselves. I happen to define them as showing an opening bid which would rebid the major over any response. Others might play a fourth-seat 2 bid in the same manner as a 2 bid in any other seat. But alertable? Not unless the bid has some very unusual meaning.

[blackshoe]

Heh. I'm either mellowing or giving up, I"m not sure which. Today at the club it was P-P to me, I opened, LHO overcalled, partner raised to 2, RHO passed, I passed, LHO doubled, partner passed, RHO started to pick up his bidding cards, and LHO said "Double! You have another bid!". RHO duly bid a new suit, which was passed around to partner, who bid 3 of our suit. Down 1. And I didn't say a word.

I see lots of the same stuff Mycroft does. It's very annoying. But if you say anything, what does it get you? The players don't like it, the TD thinks I'm over the top, and it just seems hardly worth the hassle. Frankly, though, if it were any more annoying I'd probably just quit playing.

[barmar]

Many times when I've been operating Vugraph, the players finish the auction by flipping the opening lead on the table before they've even removed the board that gets passed under the screens.

[JoAnneM]

This is a similar situation with direct cuebids (michaels). Try telling an 80 year old Goren player that they have to alert if they play 1c-2c as showing a club suit. Lots of pairs in my club do not play michaels, and I have even had one player quit playing because "natural" bids have now become alertable.

[FrancesHinden]

Phil, on Jan 19 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

Do people really play a 4th chair 2 bid as 16+?

In fourth seat I play 2M as strong (and 2D as a multi).

[barmar]

JoAnneM, on Jan 24 2009, 01:41 AM, said:

This is a similar situation with direct cuebids (michaels). Try telling an 80 year old Goren player that they have to alert if they play 1c-2c as showing a club suit. Lots of pairs in my club do not play michaels, and I have even had one player quit playing because "natural" bids have now become alertable.

Wasn't a direct cue bid a really strong takeout in Goren? I thought that was "standard" for decades until conventions like Michaels became popular (two-suiters are much more common than 19 HCP hands).