Pre-Alerts

[aguahombre]

I don't think it is unsporting to follow the rules. The EBU does not mandate pre-alerts, maintaining that the exchange of convention cards is necessary and sufficient. I would agree that it would be nice of them to pre-alert you, but the EBU says it is up to them and not up to you.

If that is the case, then cudo's to EBU players who apparently have chosen a set of values to which the regulations have not caught up.

[bluejak]

I don't quite understand this last comment. The rules used to say that you told opponents your system at the start of the round, but there are certain problems and the rule was taken away. Some people follow it still, not everyone, but they tend to tell you the wrong things. If opponents tell us their system we always reply in kind but in fact I do not find it helpful at all, and rely on the mandatory exchange of SCs to tell me what I want to know. It is not that people are difficult, just ignorant: they tell you things that you do not need to know but not the important things.

 

The EBU pre-alert method is based on exchanging SCs and having opening 2-bids on the front plus a section for any other surprising things. This is far better and is helpful. Opponents telling me their no-trump range is very nice but of no help in these days of announcements, and since they tell you things like that they play "Acol" when they play five-cared majors - apparently believing "Acol with five card majors" to mean something - and tell you Benjamin when they are playing Lucas and so forth it seems to me totally pointless to describe system in the old way.

[aguahombre]

We would all agree that pre-alerting with misinformation is not helpful. I was thinking more about accurate stuff.

 

It seems verbally announcing certain key parts of one's overall system while at the same time exchanging CC's is much like alerting and tapping the alert card at the same time.

[bluejak]

If that is the case, then cudo's to EBU players who apparently have chosen a set of values to which the regulations have not caught up.

See below.

 

We would all agree that pre-alerting with misinformation is not helpful. I was thinking more about accurate stuff.

Sure. But players do it. There are no rules on how to tell opponents their system and they do it quite badly.

 

:ph34r:

 

I do not know who suggested Compatibility mode or even what it is, but it is true it makes MultiQuote work! Also the annoying method of highlighting the emoticons has not happened either. Interesting!

[aguahombre]

I do not know who suggested Compatibility mode or even what it is, but it is true it makes MultiQuote work! Also the annoying method of highlighting the emoticons has not happened either. Interesting!

Barmar would say, "you're welcome", I am sure. His suggestion and my reference to it were on different threads.

[Vampyr]

I don't think it is unsporting to follow the rules.

 

I disagree. When you are playing thirteen rounds you will examine each opponents' convention card for a limited time. If they are using the old-style cards, where the opening 2-bids are not listed on the front, you will probably not open it up. Not mentioning something that you are fully aware will catch many of your opponents unprepared follows the regulation but not the spirit, IMO, of full disclosure.

[paulg]

I don't think it is unsporting to follow the rules.

I disagree. When you are playing thirteen rounds you will examine each opponents' convention card for a limited time. If they are using the old-style cards, where the opening 2-bids are not listed on the front, you will probably not open it up. Not mentioning something that you are fully aware will catch many of your opponents unprepared follows the regulation but not the spirit, IMO, of full disclosure.

I think your frustrations are misplaced and should be directed to the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee, who write the regulations, and the EBU Tournament Committee who (presumably) decide which regulations apply to specific national tournaments. If they have decided that Level 4 is appropriate for a pairs tournament with two-board rounds, which permits a wide variety of opening two-bids (including many that the WBF would call Brown Sticker Conventions), then they have decided that playing these conventions without pre-alerting is perfectly acceptable.

[Vampyr]

I think your frustrations are misplaced and should be directed to the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee, who write the regulations, and the EBU Tournament Committee who (presumably) decide which regulations apply to specific national tournaments. If they have decided that Level 4 is appropriate for a pairs tournament with two-board rounds, which permits a wide variety of opening two-bids (including many that the WBF would call Brown Sticker Conventions), then they have decided that playing these conventions without pre-alerting is perfectly acceptable.

 

I don't have a problem with the regulations. Forget I said anything.

[jallerton]

I don't quite understand this last comment. The rules used to say that you told opponents your system at the start of the round, but there are certain problems and the rule was taken away. Some people follow it still, not everyone, but they tend to tell you the wrong things. If opponents tell us their system we always reply in kind but in fact I do not find it helpful at all, and rely on the mandatory exchange of SCs to tell me what I want to know. It is not that people are difficult, just ignorant: they tell you things that you do not need to know but not the important things.

 

The EBU pre-alert method is based on exchanging SCs and having opening 2-bids on the front plus a section for any other surprising things. This is far better and is helpful. Opponents telling me their no-trump range is very nice but of no help in these days of announcements, and since they tell you things like that they play "Acol" when they play five-cared majors - apparently believing "Acol with five card majors" to mean something - and tell you Benjamin when they are playing Lucas and so forth it seems to me totally pointless to describe system in the old way.

 

I disagree. In my expereience, most players are able to summarise the key features of their system in a sentence or two. By contrast, even if my opponents have mananged to bring both copies of the unfortunately designed EBU20B, which apparently considers the responses to 1NT the most important area to disclose, I have to look on two different pages just to work out what opening bids they are playing!

 

Many players find it helpful to know their opponents' no-trump range on all of the hands where they do not open 1NT!

[blackshoe]

IMO, the EBU 20B is infinitely better designed than the ACBL card. ACBL readers here should be aware that the EBU 20B has at least twice as much space available as the ACBL card for describing your system.

[paulg]

IMO, the EBU 20B is infinitely better designed than the ACBL card. ACBL readers here should be aware that the EBU 20B has at least twice as much space available as the ACBL card for describing your system.

IMO the EBU 20A card was twice as good as the EBU 20B, but still only infinitely better than than ACBL card. Pre-alerts and notrump range on the front page, everything else that you need visible on the two inside pages.

[jallerton]

IMO the EBU 20A card was twice as good as the EBU 20B, but still only infinitely better than than ACBL card. Pre-alerts and notrump range on the front page, everything else that you need visible on the two inside pages.

 

I agree. When I visited a Scottish congress last month, I was pleased to see that the blank SBU convention cards available outside the playing area looked a lot closer to the EBU20A than the EBU20B.

[trevahound]

ACBL card actually does have a place to mark very light openings (or separately, preempted) right below the spot for "general approach."

 

And near the top of the ACBL convention card, where it says "Very Light:", the available check boxes are in black. Other check boxes near there and elsewhere on the card are in red where they require an alert, and blue where they require an announcement. I believe this would be in red if it was expected to be alerted.

[barmar]

And near the top of the ACBL convention card, where it says "Very Light:", the available check boxes are in black. Other check boxes near there and elsewhere on the card are in red where they require an alert, and blue where they require an announcement. I believe this would be in red if it was expected to be alerted.

Light openings are a pre-alert, not an alert. The color coding currently seems to be all about alertable calls, not pre-alerts. Although leading low from small doubletons is a pre-alert and it's marked in red (but there's no such thing as alerting defensive carding, so the general scheme may not apply there).

 

You could write to the ACBL, maybe they'll come up with another color for pre-alerts.

[blackshoe]

I may be mistaken, but I seem to remember that at one point, this "low from doubleton" in red on the SC was noted, somebody raised a question about it with HQ, and the card was changed because, as you say, it doesn't require an alert. It now seems to have changed back. :blink:

 

The "Conventional Wisdom" series about filling out the card (in the ACBL Bulletin) says, in its first installment, that "items in red require an alert", and in its installment on the "opening leads" section, that if you lead low from a doubleton, you should circle the red x and pre-alert. I suspect the average person reading those two things will be confused.

 

I note in passing that there's no place on the card to list anything about leads after the opening lead. :(

[mrdct]

One thing that I'm not a great fan of is the requirement (in my jurisdiction at least) to verbalise your prealerts at the start of the round even though they are clearly written in the "pre-alerts" section on the first page of the convention card that I hand to each of my opponents. If they choose to not read my "pre-alerts" section, that's their problem. It would be far more time efficient if the respective players read their oppoenents' prealerts at the same time; particularly in short-round pairs events.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL regulation says "Pre-Alerts are given aloud by saying what the systems or methods are." Good thing, too, since few folks here ever look at an opponent's system card (and there is no regulatory requirement to do so). Also, the ACBL card has no specific "pre-alerts" section. Another design flaw.

[mjj29]

One thing that I'm not a great fan of is the requirement (in my jurisdiction at least) to verbalise your prealerts at the start of the round even though they are clearly written in the "pre-alerts" section on the first page of the convention card that I hand to each of my opponents. If they choose to not read my "pre-alerts" section, that's their problem. It would be far more time efficient if the respective players read their oppoenents' prealerts at the same time; particularly in short-round pairs events.

Do you say as you're handing it to them "We need to pre-alert some of our system, it's written on the front here" *point to section*. That would seem to save time while also obeying the spirit if not the letter of the rule. If they want they can ask you to tell them anyway - which is also fine.

[campboy]

I disagree. When you are playing thirteen rounds you will examine each opponents' convention card for a limited time. If they are using the old-style cards, where the opening 2-bids are not listed on the front, you will probably not open it up. Not mentioning something that you are fully aware will catch many of your opponents unprepared follows the regulation but not the spirit, IMO, of full disclosure.

If your opponents playing the methods you described in an earlier post were doing this then they were not following the letter of the regulation either. The smaller old-style card is not permitted when playing level-4 conventions and the larger one has a space for things opponents should note on the front.

[barmar]

The ACBL regulation says "Pre-Alerts are given aloud by saying what the systems or methods are." Good thing, too, since few folks here ever look at an opponent's system card (and there is no regulatory requirement to do so). Also, the ACBL card has no specific "pre-alerts" section. Another design flaw.

Since our CC doesn't have a place for this stuff, many players with pre-alerts have index cards (sometimes laminated) that they place on the table in front of the opponents. They also verbalize them as required, but the cards make things easier.