[blackshoe]

Cascade, on Sep 13 2009, 02:09 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Sep 14 2009, 05:57 AM, said:

That's what the regulation says.

I don't think that is what the alert chart says"

"Conventional overcalls by a passed hand"

Those don't require an alert

but

"A natural notrump overcall with an expected lower limit of less than 14 HCP and/or an upper limit of more than 19 HCP"

Those do require an alert.

There is no specific mention of natural overcalls by a passed hand.

True, but you left out a pertinent part of the regulation you quoted (regarding natural NT overcalls): the regulation applies to such calls by an unpassed hand. By inference then, such calls by a passed hand are not alertable.

I will grant that the regulation is poorly written and so its meaning is subject to debate — but reading it as plain English, I believe my interpretation is correct. OTOH, I've been surprised before to learn that the plain English of a law or regulation doesn't mean what it says.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Sep 13 2009, 04:57 PM, said:

A natural 1NT overcall that may by agreement be on fewer than 14 HCP is alertable, whether by a passed hand or not.

Mmm. I came to a different conclusion, David, so I'd be interested in hearing your logic.

[cherdanno]

bluejak, on Sep 13 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Sep 13 2009, 10:50 PM, said:

it is truly sad that you think that is a NT overcall. It is a balancing action. Overcalls are calls over the person on your right.  that is English language.

You are misusing terminology to come to an incorrect conclusion which seems to be part of ACBL regs only if you misuse the terms. a direct NT overcall, if less than....should be alerted.

Why do you need to write "a direct NT overcall"? Simple, because an overcall can be direct or balancing. Normal English usage in England, and in North America.

Still it's obvious that this is not what the authors of the ACBL regulations meant. It is impossible that they wanted to make 1C P P 1N alertable when it shows s.th. like 11-15 as everyone in the ACBL seems to be playing.

[dan_ehh]

cherdanno wrote:

Quote

Still it's obvious that this is not what the authors of the ACBL regulations meant. It is impossible that they wanted to make 1C P P 1N alertable when it shows s.th. like 11-15 as everyone in the ACBL seems to be playing.

You'd be surprised how many players play this as 15-17.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on Sep 14 2009, 01:33 AM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 13 2009, 04:57 PM, said:

A natural 1NT overcall that may by agreement be on fewer than 14 HCP is alertable, whether by a passed hand or not.

Mmm. I came to a different conclusion, David, so I'd be interested in hearing your logic.

I did not look up the reg but assumed Cascade had quoted it correctly and fully. If he had, I think the meaning is as I said.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Sep 14 2009, 12:29 PM, said:

Cascade, on Sep 13 2009, 02:09 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Sep 14 2009, 05:57 AM, said:

That's what the regulation says.

I don't think that is what the alert chart says"

"Conventional overcalls by a passed hand"

Those don't require an alert

but

"A natural notrump overcall with an expected lower limit of less than 14 HCP and/or an upper limit of more than 19 HCP"

Those do require an alert.

There is no specific mention of natural overcalls by a passed hand.

True, but you left out a pertinent part of the regulation you quoted (regarding natural NT overcalls): the regulation applies to such calls by an unpassed hand. By inference then, such calls by a passed hand are not alertable.

Where does it mention the passed hand bit?

[blackshoe]

I'm sorry, which passed hand bit are you asking about?

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Sep 14 2009, 03:39 PM, said:

I'm sorry, which passed hand bit are you asking about?

You said I left something out but as far as I am aware I quoted everything in the alert chart that related to this bid.

[Mbodell]

bluejak, on Sep 13 2009, 12:57 PM, said:

Incidentally, Mbodell, you said you would not alert it in part because:

Quote

2. I'd expect it to be the two suited hand since a passed hand 1nt doesn't make sense as a strong balanced hand.

Everyone around here that I know plays this sequence as a weak no-trump, and would double with the other two suits. But your #2 is irrelevant as to whether the bid should be alerted: it should be alerted if the ACBL alerting regulations say so.

Mostly true. You still have to alert it if it would be "highly unusual and unexpected" in light of historical usage. So it is slightly relevant if the bid is somewhat expected or not. But yes, here it is clearly not unusual since the ACBL chart clearly has "Conventional [notrump] overcalls by a passed hand" as not needing an alert.

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on Sep 14 2009, 12:15 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Sep 14 2009, 03:39 PM, said:

I'm sorry, which passed hand bit are you asking about?

You said I left something out but as far as I am aware I quoted everything in the alert chart that related to this bid.

Ah. This is what I see in Part V of the Alert Procedure, just above "Responses to 1NT Openings":

Quote

Natural 1NT overcalls in the range of 14 to 19 HCP require neither an Alert nor an Announcement. If the top or bottom limit of the natural notrump overcall is out of that range or conventional by an unpassed hand, an Alert is required.

The emphasis is mine.


Added: The ACBL doesn't seem to have said one way or 'tother, but it seems to me the actual regulation (the "Procedure") takes precedence over the chart, which in my view is a summary of the procedure.

[peachy]

dan_ehh, on Sep 13 2009, 08:02 PM, said:

cherdanno wrote:

Quote

Still it's obvious that this is not what the authors of the ACBL regulations meant. It is impossible that they wanted to make 1C P P 1N alertable when it shows s.th. like 11-15 as everyone in the ACBL seems to be playing.

You'd be surprised how many players play this as 15-17.

I would be surprised to find even one that is playing 1C-P-P-1NT as 15-17.

[gordontd]

cherdanno, on Sep 14 2009, 01:52 AM, said:

Still it's obvious that this is not what the authors of the ACBL regulations meant.

It's an established principle, in bridge law as in other laws, that we don't guess what the authors intended but instead we follow what was written. If they got it wrong, they need to correct it.

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on Sep 13 2009, 03:57 PM, said:

The trouble with assuming what the regulations say and ignoring what they do say [as was normal for 60%+ of English players where alerting of doubles was concerned: it is getting better, but slowly] is that you just put yourself in the wrong.

A conventional 1NT by a passed hand is not alertable.  A hand that passes one round and bids 1NT the next is a passed hand.  Whether the ACBL intended this rule to be so in this position is irrelevant.

A natural 1NT overcall that may by agreement be on fewer than 14 HCP is alertable, whether by a passed hand or not.

Now, you may not approve of that, but that is not the point: if you are playing in the ACBL, that is how you should alert and can be penalised if you do not, and if you are directing in the ACBL you must rule on that basis.

So

P P 1♣ P
1♠ P P 1NT

is alertable if it shows a weak no-trump, and is not alertable if it shows the other two suits.

Incidentally, Mbodell, you said you would not alert it in part because:

Quote

2. I'd expect it to be the two suited hand since a passed hand 1nt doesn't make sense as a strong balanced hand.

Everyone around here that I know plays this sequence as a weak no-trump, and would double with the other two suits. But your #2 is irrelevant as to whether the bid should be alerted: it should be alerted if the ACBL alerting regulations say so.

OK, call me confused, to me a passed hand is one that has passed before anybody has bid (ie denied opening values), not one that has passed over a one level bid.

So

P P 1♣ P
1♠ P P 1NT

is not a passed hand auction, but it would be if this hand had dealt and passed at the start of the auction.

Is there an official definition anywhere ?

[Cascade]

gordontd, on Sep 14 2009, 06:59 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Sep 14 2009, 01:52 AM, said:

Still it's obvious that this is not what the authors of the ACBL regulations meant.

It's an established principle, in bridge law as in other laws, that we don't guess what the authors intended but instead we follow what was written. If they got it wrong, they need to correct it.

My experience is that bridge laws and regulations are often not interpreted in that way.

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on Sep 14 2009, 10:26 AM, said:

[OK, call me confused, to me a passed hand is one that has passed before anybody has bid (ie denied opening values), not one that has passed over a one level bid.

So

P P 1♣ P
1♠ P P 1NT

is not a passed hand auction, but it would be if this hand had dealt and passed at the start of the auction.

Is there an official definition anywhere ?

http://www.bridgehands.com/P/ & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_c...ct_bridge_terms
appear to take opposite sides on the question.

[jillybean]

peachy, on Sep 13 2009, 11:39 PM, said:

dan_ehh, on Sep 13 2009, 08:02 PM, said:

cherdanno wrote:

Quote

Still it's obvious that this is not what the authors of the ACBL regulations meant. It is impossible that they wanted to make 1C P P 1N alertable when it shows s.th. like 11-15 as everyone in the ACBL seems to be playing.

You'd be surprised how many players play this as 15-17.

I would be surprised to find even one that is playing 1C-P-P-1NT as 15-17.

I think this is quite common, atleast with B/I's. I see this more than 12-14 nt's.