[blackshoe]

There seems to be a great reluctance in North America to do anything at all about "ZT" violations, save ignore them.

[aguahombre]

 Cthulhu D, on 2013-January-03, 20:54, said:

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'

It is not the definition of zero; it is the threashhold of the behavior. Zero tolerance of unacceptable behavior is a good thing. Don't blame one jurisdiction for being unable to codify behavior.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-January-03, 10:59, said:

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

Yeah, but it's the only regulation we have, and we have to make do. Trying to use it in the same way you would the OB is a mistake.

[fromageGB]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-January-02, 05:14, said:

It seems US and England may go opposite ways on this. I posted a while ago about our natural weak 2s (which can be a 4 card suit and a zero count) where we didn't feel that "weak" was a sufficient announcement and were told we could modify the announcement in EBUland.

I am very surprised by this. I have been told by EBU directors that the only announcements allowed were those words quoted in the regulations. You can have "weak" or maybe by inference "zero to weak", but you can't mention the length or even the hcp range. I have had opponents upset that I didn't give sufficient detail as a result.

I have long wished for a regulation that allows you to announce a possibly uncommon bid in your own words, where you are merely giving the information that is already on the convention card. "Clubs" on 1NT 2♠, for example.

[campboy]

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

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.

Surely the rules make it clear that it is announceable, since they say that an announcement is required after a natural 1NT opening. I couldn't find anything saying that alertable and announceable are mutually exclusive; in fact one might argue that an announcement is merely a special type of alert, since the regulations also include the following definition.

Quote

Alert: A manner specified by the sponsoring organization by which opponents are notified of your pair's special agreements. These may be given aloud, in writing and/or by using an Alert card or strip.

[blackshoe]

If you both alert and announce, you're going to confuse the hell out of somebody. Particularly if you're in the ACBL and you follow proper procedure when announcing. That means that you tap the alert strip or show the alert card when you announce.

I do argue that an announcement is a special kind of alert. I also argue that when there are aspects of a call that would require an alert (over and above the announcement) the alert alone is sufficient, but the explanation of the alert must also include the information that would be conveyed by an announcement.

[gnasher]

 campboy, on 2013-January-04, 14:48, said:

Surely the rules make it clear that it is announceable, since they say that an announcement is required after a natural 1NT opening. I couldn't find anything saying that alertable and announceable are mutually exclusive

OK, I agree that it's clearly announceable:
"A notrump opening or overcall if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons) is considered natural. "
"Announcements are required in the following instances: After a natural one notrump opening bid."

But it's also clearly alertable:
"In general, when the use of conventions leads to unexpected understandings about suit length by negative inference, a natural call becomes Alertable."

So yes, one should do both.

[gnasher]

I don't agree that an announcement is a type of alert. The term "Announcement" is defined without reference to alerts. There is a section headed "Types of alerts" which doesn't mention announcements. There are lots of phrases like "How to alert", "How to announce", "Failure to alert or announce" which make it clear that they are two different actions.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2013-January-05, 13:35, said:

I don't agree that an announcement is a type of alert. The term "Announcement" is defined without reference to alerts. There is a section headed "Types of alerts" which doesn't mention announcements. There are lots of phrases like "How to alert", "How to announce", "Failure to alert or announce" which make it clear that they are two different actions.

If announcements are not a kind of alert, why are they discussed at all in a regulation about alerts?

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2013-January-05, 18:59, said:

If announcements are not a kind of alert, why are they discussed at all in a regulation about alerts?

To distinguish between the two concepts in as good a place as any, without creating another Procedure document.

It also talks about delay disclosure...which other than using the word alert in discussing it, really isn't an alert at all and the players never say "alert".

Regardless of the word game, Andy's point is correct. People with highly unexpected agreements about their technically natural 1NT openings have something to "alert" AND the requirement to announce the range.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2013-January-05, 20:03, said:

To distinguish between the two concepts in as good a place as any, without creating another Procedure document.

It also talks about delay disclosure...which other than using the word alert in discussing it, really isn't an alert at all and the players never say "alert".

Regardless of the word game, Andy's point is correct. People with highly unexpected agreements about their technically natural 1NT openings have something to "alert" AND the requirement to announce the range.

Maybe. I would bet the people who drafted the regulation weren't thinking that way.

If people never say "alert" when making delayed alerts they're not following the proper procedure. And yes, it really is an alert.

I do not think even the most pedantic TD would sanction a pair who alerts their unusual 1NT opening instead of announcing. I do think that doing both is likely to confuse opponents. If a player asked me for a recommendation as to what to do, I would not recommend they do both.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2013-January-05, 21:39, said:

If people never say "alert" when making delayed alerts they're not following the proper procedure. And yes, it really is an alert.

Indeed Declaring side is required to alert the defenders about a high-level call, before the lead is made. Indeed the defending side is required to alert the declarer about one of those after the opening lead is downfaced.

I can't imagine Declarer saying "alert" at that point. His objective is to provide the delay alert information, and prevent the opening lead being faced before the defenders get a chance to hear it. "Alert" doesn't cut it. Something like "Before you lead..." gets the job done. IMO, requiring declarer to sit there and just say "Alert" at that critical moment would truly be pedantic and unhelpful.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2013-January-05, 21:39, said:

Maybe. I would bet the people who drafted the regulation weren't thinking that way.

Would you bet that they were thinking at all?

Quote

I do not think even the most pedantic TD would sanction a pair who alerts their unusual 1NT opening instead of announcing. I do think that doing both is likely to confuse opponents. If a player asked me for a recommendation as to what to do, I would not recommend they do both.

I wasn't really suggesting that anyone should actually do both. Sometimes the best thing to do with the rules is ignore them and use your common sense instead.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2013-January-06, 02:01, said:

Indeed Declaring side is required to alert the defenders about a high-level call, before the lead is made. Indeed the defending side is required to alert the declarer about one of those after the opening lead is downfaced.

I can't imagine Declarer saying "alert" at that point. His objective is to provide the delay alert information, and prevent the opening lead being faced before the defenders get a chance to hear it. "Alert" doesn't cut it. Something like "Before you lead..." gets the job done. IMO, requiring declarer to sit there and just say "Alert" at that critical moment would truly be pedantic and unhelpful.

I can imagine, since I do it. If other people want to do something else, that's on them. If not following proper procedure causes no problem, even I would be unlikely to issue a procedural penalty, but that doesn't mean that not following proper procedure is not wrong. As for "alert doesn't cut it", that's your opinion. Mine is that the Alert Procedure clearly states that delayed alerts follow the procedure for alerts in general. The point that they are delayed simply refers to when the alert is made, not how it's made.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2013-January-06, 05:23, said:

Would you bet that they were thinking at all?


I wasn't really suggesting that anyone should actually do both. Sometimes the best thing to do with the rules is ignore them and use your common sense instead.

Heh. No, probably not.

"The Law is an ass." -- attributed to Charles Dickens' character Mr. Brumble, in Oliver Twist
"When the Law is an ass, the best thing to do is ignore it." -- unknown

[aguahombre]

The section: "How to Alert" explains the form the alert should take ---merely using the word, "Alert"...then disclosing when asked.

The section on immediate alerts reafirms that those alerts shall take the form specified in "How to Alert".

The section for delayed alerts does not mention the wording at all, only the timing. I assumed that was intentional ---recognizing something more than the mere word "alert" might be necessary to draw attention to the delay alert before it is too late.

I recognize that others simply believe the framers of the procedure just don't know how to write, and intended no such distinction. They might be correct.

[fromageGB]

I've never come across a delayed alert here in the UK, but I can see the purpose. While it is wrong to give reasons for an alert during the bidding (apart from being contrary to regulations, it may give unauthorised information) this does not apply when the bidding has stopped. So I can't see how an explanation as well as alert could upset anyone, even if not "required".

[blackshoe]

 fromageGB, on 2013-January-06, 12:46, said:

I've never come across a delayed alert here in the UK, but I can see the purpose. While it is wrong to give reasons for an alert during the bidding (apart from being contrary to regulations, it may give unauthorised information) this does not apply when the bidding has stopped. So I can't see how an explanation as well as alert could upset anyone, even if not "required".

You haven't come across it in the UK because under EBU regs it doesn't exist. As for the rest, either you follow correct procedure, or you don't. When you don't, either it causes problems or it doesn't. If it does, you should expect a PP, at least. Better, IMO, to follow correct procedure at all times than to decide the rules don't apply to you.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2013-January-06, 12:52, said:

Better, IMO, to follow correct procedure at all times than to decide the rules don't apply to you.

You make it sound like those who want to go the extra inch to make sure the opponents have an opportunity to be informed in a timely manner are somehow to be treated as anarchists or scofflaws trying to get away with something for their own advantage.

[blackshoe]

I wasn't talking about motives. I was talking about actions.