[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-January-02, 14:36, said:

The "plus" and "minus" apparently are due to upgrading/downgrading due to distribution, and you would presumably explain this if asked for a more detailed explanation, but you're not expected to announce it immediately.

The categorical shape constraints in the OP have nothing to do with upgrading/downgrading.

[Siegmund]

So far the thread has confirmed nicely that a disclosure problem exists and it is not clear how best to fix it Somehow I am not surprised that the answer from rulings@acbl.org appears to be the worst of all possible worlds.

It will certainly be featured on the CC (replacing the 5-card major common line, which can be done with a good computer editor, is a good place for it.) It does feel to me like it doesn't rise to the level of requiring a pre-alert -- though when I played modified Polish Club (and had a 3-line description of 1C pasted over the 'general approach' block on my CC) I did have people (not directors) wanting me to pre-alert that.

[3for3]

See case 30 from New Orleans, 2003. Bottom line is that one should alert.

[gnasher]

3for3, on 2013-January-02, 21:45, said:

See case 30 from New Orleans, 2003. Bottom line is that one should alert.

Thanks, that was an entertaining story. It's here, in case anyone has trouble finding it:
http://web2.acbl.org...eans_Fall03.pdf

[Cthulhu D]

gnasher, on 2013-January-03, 03:01, said:

Thanks, that was an entertaining story. It's here, in case anyone has trouble finding it:
http://web2.acbl.org...eans_Fall03.pdf

How did north not get a ZT penalty for those antics? What an idiot.

[Cthulhu D]

gnasher, on 2013-January-03, 03:01, said:

Thanks, that was an entertaining story. It's here, in case anyone has trouble finding it:
http://web2.acbl.org...eans_Fall03.pdf

How did north not get a ZT penalty for those antics? What an idiot.

[barmar]

The editor makes a good point in that writeup: "Announcements are reserved for disclosing a small handful of familiar agreements". This isn't specifically stated in the Alert Procedures, but it's well known that this was the intent of creating the announcement process in the first place, and it's pretty obvious from the list of announced agreements. So even if I accept the argument that the announcements in the Alert Procedure are just examples, I don't think anyone would consider "no 4-card major" to be a common agreement that merits just an announcement.

[mgoetze]

Cthulhu D, on 2013-January-03, 09:16, said:

How did north not get a ZT penalty for those antics? What an idiot.

Isn't ZT an abbreviation for "Plenty of Tolerance, unless we actually dislike you"?

[barmar]

Cthulhu D, on 2013-January-03, 09:16, said:

How did north not get a ZT penalty for those antics? What an idiot.

There was a little discussion of this in the writeup. I think they felt it didn't quite rise to the level that ZT is intended to address.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Ultimately, the Committee concluded that an Alert was correct, or at least not incorrect, and that, as with all Alerts, the opponents have the right to refuse the information.

This is interesting. First, this "right" does not exist, or at least is not mentioned in any regulation, AFAIK. Second, East was asked to explain his alert, and only when he started with the range did North attempt to shut him up. Seems to me that if this alleged right exists, it requires the alerted side to not ask in the first place, not to interrupt the explanation in the middle.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-January-03, 10:03, said:

There was a little discussion of this in the writeup. I think they felt it didn't quite rise to the level that ZT is intended to address.

When was ZT put in place? Before 2003? After? I don't remember.

Quote

The Committee was bothered by North’s behavior but decided against recommending a conduct hearing because of the uncertainty about whether an Announcement or an Alert was the correct procedure in this type of situation.

Apparently it didn't occur to the Committee that they could have awarded a PP or DP, even if North's actions didn't rise to the level required for a conduct hearing. And if ZT was in place, then they didn't need a conduct hearing for that, either.

Added: It seems I should have read all the comments before posting. From Jeff Goldsmith:

Quote

A ZT penalty for North is so obvious as to defy words.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2013-January-03, 10:29

[barmar]

I think the committee supposed that the right not to ask a question in the first place obviously implies the right to stop the answer.

This more often comes up when the opponent is unsure, and you'd rather he not speculate.

[blackshoe]

Well, I think the committee supposed wrong. It's certainly not obvious to me. Interrupting people is rude, and bridge players aren't supposed to be rude.

If you'd rather he not speculate, perhaps you should make that clear when you ask your question. Or, if he does speculate, establish agreement that the speculation is UI to his partner, and call the director after the hand if it appears the partner may have used the UI.

[CSGibson]

to the OP - a pair in my club has that same agreement. If they open 1N, they both announce the range and then say alert afterwards to indicate that there is additional unexpected information to disclose upon request.

[barmar]

You don't have to be rude when asking an opponent to stop answering. You can say something like "Never mind" in a graceful manner.

That's obviously not what happened in this instance, which is why some suggested that ZT applies. It's not the fact that he interrupted, but the beligerant manner in which he did so.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2013-January-03, 09:18, said:

The editor makes a good point in that writeup: "Announcements are reserved for disclosing a small handful of familiar agreements". This isn't specifically stated in the Alert Procedures, but it's well known that this was the intent of creating the announcement process in the first place, and it's pretty obvious from the list of announced agreements. So even if I accept the argument that the announcements in the Alert Procedure are just examples, I don't think anyone would consider "no 4-card major" to be a common agreement that merits just an announcement.

If something isn't stated in the Alert Procedures, it's not part of the Alert Procedures, regardless of what people think they know.

Of course, this isn't relevant to the present case. The rules make it clear that this opening is alertable. If it's alertable, it's not announceable.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2013-January-03, 10:44, said:

If something isn't stated in the Alert Procedures, it's not part of the Alert Procedures, regardless of what people think they know.

Only someone used to the level of detail in regulations like the Orange Book could make such a statement.

The ACBL Alert Procedures are extremely lacking in detail. Trying to interpret them as if they're precise like the OB is a fool's errand.

They were written by Americans. We're used to the Supreme Court making reference to English Common Law and the Federalist Papers when trying to interpret the intent and extent of the Constitution and legislation, not restricting themselves to just the words in those documents.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-January-03, 10:40, said:

You don't have to be rude when asking an opponent to stop answering. You can say something like "Never mind" in a graceful manner.

That's obviously not what happened in this instance, which is why some suggested that ZT applies. It's not the fact that he interrupted, but the beligerant manner in which he did so.

In this case, yes, I agree. But I've been interrupted all too many times in my life to not consider it rude, however it's done. IOW, you can say "Never mind" in as graceful a manner as you like, but if you do it while I'm talking, it's still rude.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-January-03, 10:51, said:

Only someone used to the level of detail in regulations like the Orange Book could make such a statement.

The ACBL Alert Procedures are extremely lacking in detail. Trying to interpret them as if they're precise like the OB is a fool's errand.

They were written by Americans. We're used to the Supreme Court making reference to English Common Law and the Federalist Papers when trying to interpret the intent and extent of the Constitution and legislation, not restricting themselves to just the words in those documents.

I submit that the average American pays absolutely no attention to SC rulings, particularly at this level of detail.

The observation in the appeal writeup is correct, and can be inferred from what is written in the Alert Procedure. The extrapolation as to intent is also, afaik, correct, but it's also irrelevant, since it's not part of the regulation nor can it be inferred therefrom.

In principle, Andy is right. The fault lies with the ACBL's inability to write a decent regulation.

[Cthulhu D]

barmar, on 2013-January-03, 10:03, said:

There was a little discussion of this in the writeup. I think they felt it didn't quite rise to the level that ZT is intended to address.

Obviously the definition of zero has changed at some point in crossing the pacific! Surely if it's worth discussion (See: Goldsmith's remarks), then it far exceeds 'zero'