[lamford]

---

IMPS Lead A♥ Table Result E/W -800

East seemed a bit miffed with their opponents' approach to the game on this hand at a local club. NS had agreed to interchange 4C and 4H (and 4C and 4S over 1S-(dble)) because the EBU regulations did not require either to be alerted. They also interchanged 1M - X - 3M with 1M - X - 2NT (this time alerting the latter correctly) because opponents never asked.

The NS convention card was complete in all details, and the TD was forced to rule no infraction. 1H - X - 4C would have been a general pre-emptive raise to 4H. NS argued that OB5E4 was quite clear, and although they accepted that 4H had a potentially unexpected meaning, they would have been wrong to alert it. They also argued that the bad result was mainly unlucky, although West's takeout double was to blame, and East would have had an awkward bid if 4H was just pre-emptive. Do you agree with NS?

[ahydra]

Can't fault the ruling - esp because 5C is somewhat suicidal at that vulnerability. So yes, I agree with NS.

I notice you're getting better at hiding your artificially-made hands by not having each player hold runs of cards I'm guessing the point of this construction is to ask the question "why do we only alert 3NT and below, instead of all the bids?" And a very good question that is too. I'm thinking that it would definitely be better if all artificial bids were alerted, regardless of level - avoids people making assumptions and then falling into traps*, and is in keeping with the "full disclosure" attitude the Laws prefer a pair to have.

ahydra

* Yes they could ask, but that brings UI issues not to mention the problem of "do we have to ask about every single auction just in case there's something weird" - the game runs a lot smoother when people only ask about alerted calls instead of every single one (above 3NT)...

[RMB1]

lamford, on 2011-December-05, 09:04, said:

East seemed a bit miffed with their opponents' approach to the game on this hand at a local club.

I am not surprised that East was miffed. As a TD I would not change the score but I would record the hand, and record the fact that NS had adopted these methods because they were not alertable.

The club would be free to express their opinion that NS's approach was not the way they wanted bridge played at their club, or to change the club's regulations for permitted methods and alerting (including pre-alerting).

At County/National level, I would make a report of the hand in case the Regulating Authority thought it was evidence in favour of a change of regulation.

[Trinidad]

This is why I like the Dutch regulations better than the English. In The Netherlands one is not allowed to alert above 3NT, unless the bid is made in the first round, ignoring any passes before the opening bid.

(This means that both:
1♥-Dbl-4♣
and
Pass-Pass-1♥-Dbl;
4♣

are alerted.)

Rik

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2011-December-05, 11:30, said:

This is why I like the Dutch regulations better than the English. In The Netherlands one is not allowed to alert above 3NT, unless the bid is made in the first round, ignoring any passes before the opening bid.

That's ACBL's policy, too.

[Vampyr]

ahydra, on 2011-December-05, 09:38, said:

I'm thinking that it would definitely be better if all artificial bids were alerted, regardless of level - avoids people making assumptions and then falling into traps*, and is in keeping with the "full disclosure" attitude the Laws prefer a pair to have.

Do you play in the EBU? If not, you would be surprised at how popular the two-way 4NT convention was before the regulation was changed.

Trinidad, on 2011-December-05, 11:30, said:

This is why I like the Dutch regulations better than the English. In The Netherlands one is not allowed to alert above 3NT, unless the bid is made in the first round, ignoring any passes before the opening bid.

I believe that this is the sensible approach.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2011-December-05, 11:30, said:

This is why I like the Dutch regulations better than the English. In The Netherlands one is not allowed to alert above 3NT, unless the bid is made in the first round, ignoring any passes before the opening bid.

barmar, on 2011-December-05, 12:22, said:

That's ACBL's policy, too.

Not quite. ACBL's policy is that the alert is delayed until after the final pass, and before the opening lead is chosen. Not that I've ever seen anyone do it. OTOH, I haven't had occasion to do it myself, either. It just hasn't come up.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-05, 12:33, said:

Not quite. ACBL's policy is that the alert is delayed until after the final pass, and before the opening lead is chosen. Not that I've ever seen anyone do it. OTOH, I haven't had occasion to do it myself, either. It just hasn't come up.

True, although that doesn't help if the non-alert causes the opponents to go wrong during the auction (as in this thread), rather than the defense.

[blackshoe]

What did people do before there were alerts?

[barmar]

I think they griped quite a bit about those nefarious opponents and their tricky systems.

[ahydra]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-05, 12:23, said:

Do you play in the EBU? If not, you would be surprised at how popular the two-way 4NT convention was before the regulation was changed.

I do actually - I take it you mean "4NT is natural if not alerted, but Blackwood/RKC if alerted". But you can hardly fault the regulations for people cheating! No doubt people who did play this "convention" would also fall foul of partner passing when they intended it as RKC...

The "alert only on the first round" approach is pretty good - but why not "alert if it's the first round and/or an opponent has made a call other than Pass in the preceding 3 calls" to cater for those situations where an extended competitive auction occurs. Indeed I remember seeing an auction on Vugraph that went something like

1H-2D-5D-7D (5D = exclusion RKC for hearts)
X-something

where the X here is conventional (namely, 0 aces). Not that it's likely anyone's bidding again here, but suppose the 7D had actually been 6D, second hand might have wanted to know about the X to decide whether to forward-sacrifice in 7D.

ahydra

[paulg]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-05, 12:23, said:

Do you play in the EBU? If not, you would be surprised at how popular the two-way 4NT convention was before the regulation was changed.

Two-way Gerber is far more common in the clubs (where 4NT is ALWAYS Blackwood, duh).

[StevenG]

I'd see the following several times a month before the regulation was introduced ...

4♣ - blank look - glare - "oh, sorry", alert as Gerber. Of course, the glare and alert were omitted when it was natural.

[jallerton]

RMB1, on 2011-December-05, 10:04, said:

I am not surprised that East was miffed. As a TD I would not change the score but I would record the hand, and record the fact that NS had adopted these methods because they were not alertable.

The club would be free to express their opinion that NS's approach was not the way they wanted bridge played at their club, or to change the club's regulations for permitted methods and alerting (including pre-alerting).

At County/National level, I would make a report of the hand in case the Regulating Authority thought it was evidence in favour of a change of regulation.

Good point, Robin.

Perhaps Paul could provide a compilation of these problem hands and send them to the Regulatory Authority for its advice and consideration.

[wank]

if the regulations are pony, make better regulations

[mrdct]

Are pre-alerts required in the EBU? If so, I'd be looking at awarding an adjusted score here as if this method had been pre-alerted East would not have bid 5♣ and this would've been played in 4♥ which I guess will make given that trumnps are 2-2 and you can set-up a couple of clubs.

In Australia you would be required to pre-alert the switching of 4♣ and 4M after a double of 1M. The ABF Alerting Regulations even go so far to say "Pay particular attention to unusual self-alerting calls" which in Australia includes all doubles, redoubles, bids of opps' suits and bids above 3NT. A good example is Rubens Advances where an unalerted cue of the opps' suit might be mistakenly assumed to be a cue raise in the absence of the pre-alert.

[barmar]

ahydra, on 2011-December-05, 13:48, said:

The "alert only on the first round" approach is pretty good - but why not "alert if it's the first round and/or an opponent has made a call other than Pass in the preceding 3 calls" to cater for those situations where an extended competitive auction occurs. Indeed I remember seeing an auction on Vugraph that went something like

1H-2D-5D-7D (5D = exclusion RKC for hearts)
X-something

where the X here is conventional (namely, 0 aces). Not that it's likely anyone's bidding again here, but suppose the 7D had actually been 6D, second hand might have wanted to know about the X to decide whether to forward-sacrifice in 7D.

ahydra

I don't think anyone would begrudge you asking about this call. Conventions like DOPI are sufficiently common that it's reasonable to wonder. And it's unlikely to result in UI problems.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2011-December-05, 13:31, said:

I think they griped quite a bit about those nefarious opponents and their tricky systems.

While at University my group was accused of cheating a few times. The reason? We were playing our 2♥ and 2♠ openings as weak.

mrdct, on 2011-December-05, 20:15, said:

Are pre-alerts required in the EBU? If so, I'd be looking at awarding an adjusted score here as if this method had been pre-alerted East would not have bid 5♣ and this would've been played in 4♥ which I guess will make given that trumnps are 2-2 and you can set-up a couple of clubs.

There is a space on the SC for items an opponent needs to know, and if these bids are not there that is MI. It is also required to exchange SCs at the start of the round: if this pair did not attempt to do so again I would penalise. That is the EBU pre-alerting method.

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2011-December-06, 03:06, said:

There is a space on the SC for items an opponent needs to know, and if these bids are not there that is MI. It is also required to exchange SCs at the start of the round: if this pair did not attempt to do so again I would penalise. That is the EBU pre-alerting method.

There is some space, if this is not the most common sequence where they play something weird, it might not make it on there legitimately.

[gnasher]

The relevant part of the EBU convention card reads "Aspects of system which opponents should note", not "As many aspects of system which opponents should note as you can fit into the available space." If there isn't enough space, you should find a way to deal with the problem that doesn't disadvantage the opponents. I would put it on another part of the card or on another sheet of paper, with a cross-reference from the front of the card.

It's not clear that this agreement belongs there, though. Maybe this section of the Orange Book:

Orange Book said:

4 L 1 The section on the front of the EBU 20B marked ‘Other Aspects of System which opponents should note’ should include brief details of such things as short minors, canapé, special doubles at a high level, 2-suited overcalls (eg ‘Ghestem’), matters of style which are uncommon (eg very weak pre-empts). Note that these names are sufficient in this section of the card so long as they are described in full inside the card.

should include the phrase "unusual competitive methods"?