Dealing with Announcements and non-Announcements

[Vampyr]

I hope it doesn't, since I always ask if they do not announce, and similarly in the ACBL.

 

I do too. I don't play much in the ACBL; in my limited experience they have rarely if ever announced strong NT, but this was years ago and maybe things have changed.

[blackshoe]

Announcement of the NT range in the ACBL has become the norm. It's not all that rare for a player to forget to announce, but it's not at all rare for them to announce it. Usually what happens is that the next player sits there waiting until the player wakes up, or somebody prompts him. Sometimes the prompter is his partner, but that's life. :blink:

 

It's true that those who don't play strong NT are generally much more careful to ensure they announce properly, so that almost all the "forgets" are by strong notrumpers.

[McBruce]

Announcement of the NT range in the ACBL has become the norm. It's not all that rare for a player to forget to announce, but it's not at all rare for them to announce it. Usually what happens is that the next player sits there waiting until the player wakes up, or somebody prompts him. Sometimes the prompter is his partner, but that's life. :blink:

 

It's true that those who don't play strong NT are generally much more careful to ensure they announce properly, so that almost all the "forgets" are by strong notrumpers.

 

An ACBL board for TDs contains a directive that a player who plays different defenses against different NT ranges will NOT be protected if he makes a call without finding out the range in the absence of a range announcement.

[blackshoe]

If I'm not mistaken that board is not available to TDs who are not ACBL employees. It seems to me the ACBL does club TDs a disservice in this respect. It is certainly the case that if the ACBL wants club TDs to rule the same way their employee TDs do, they damn sure need to tell the club TDs the same thing they tell their employees. They also need to notify players of these interpretations. To do otherwise is unfair to players.

[mycroft]

An ACBL board for TDs contains a directive that a player who plays different defenses against different NT ranges will NOT be protected if he makes a call without finding out the range in the absence of a range announcement.

Yes, but "unfortunately" they shot down explicit use of WeaSeL vs. strong, unannounced NT "pour encourager les autres".

 

Yes, I was joking, I would never do it. But the temptation is *so strong*, especially against the "why do we have to announce this? Everybody plays 15-17." people.

[lamford]

An ACBL board for TDs contains a directive that a player who plays different defenses against different NT ranges will NOT be protected if he makes a call without finding out the range in the absence of a range announcement.

I presume it is legal to have a different defence to an "unannounced" 1NT, unless the RA has stipulated otherwise.

 

40 B3: The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity.

 

Failing to annnounce is an irregularity, therefore the partnership can vary its understandings unless disallowed by the RA. Does anyone know which RAs have set out their stance on 40B3?

[blackshoe]

I don't know about other RAs, but the ACBL has, under "Elections" at the back of the ACBL version of the Law Book:

Law 40B3: A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its understanding during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question or any irregularity.

[gnasher]

Does anyone know which RAs have set out their stance on 40B3?

The EBU has (OB7D1, f-i).

[paulg]

The SBU says:

 

Law 40B3

Prior agreements by a partnership to vary its understanding during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question or an irregularity committed by its own side is prohibited.

[Vampyr]

The SBU says:

 

Law 40B3

Prior agreements by a partnership to vary its understanding during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question or an irregularity committed by its own side is prohibited.

 

So it is allowed (as in the EBU) to vary understandings following the opponents' irregularities. So a different defense to an unannounced 1NT opening is clearly permitted. Not that it would necessarily be worth very much.

[McBruce]

If I'm not mistaken that board is not available to TDs who are not ACBL employees. It seems to me the ACBL does club TDs a disservice in this respect. It is certainly the case that if the ACBL wants club TDs to rule the same way their employee TDs do, they damn sure need to tell the club TDs the same thing they tell their employees. They also need to notify players of these interpretations. To do otherwise is unfair to players.

 

I forgot to mention in the post that while typing it I predicted this response from blackshoe almost word for word. :)

 

But I do agree that the few policy items that come up should be made available to club TDs and players as well. So far there are only a handful, most of the board is taken up with tournament assignments and stories.

[blackshoe]

I forgot to mention in the post that while typing it I predicted this response from blackshoe almost word for word. :)

 

But I do agree that the few policy items that come up should be made available to club TDs and players as well. So far there are only a handful, most of the board is taken up with tournament assignments and stories.

 

ROFL! You know me too well. :lol: :lol:

[barmar]

It's true that those who don't play strong NT are generally much more careful to ensure they announce properly, so that almost all the "forgets" are by strong notrumpers.

And in my experience, most of them are by relatively inexperienced players. When an experienced player fails to announce, it's usually because he was simply distracted and didn't notice his partner open 1NT (sometimes I'm still sorting my cards, or thinking about the previous board).

[blackshoe]

And in my experience, most of them are by relatively inexperienced players. When an experienced player fails to announce, it's usually because he was simply distracted and didn't notice his partner open 1NT (sometimes I'm still sorting my cards, or thinking about the previous board).

 

Tru dat. B-)

[mycroft]

Funny, most of the ones who "forget" around here are the ones who then say "I don't know why we should have to do this" with that - and transfers, for that matter - and have been griping about it since 1991.

[barmar]

When the announcement system was started, there were lots of people who were confused and thought it wasn't needed for 15-17. I think it's been long enough that most of them have learned the proper procedure.

 

But maybe it depends on the club. I'll bet there are lots of lenient clubs where the players misunderstand. I just don't play in any of them.

[mycroft]

When the announcement system was started, there were lots of people who were confused and thought it wasn't needed for 15-17. I think it's been long enough that most of them have learned the proper procedure.

Not quite correct. When the announcement system was started, it *wasn't* required for a NT range wholly within 15-18.

 

And then people found that WeaSeL vs NT works against a strong NT. "But I needed to know if it were 15-17, 16-18, or 15-18. I would have done something different against 16-18." Yes, and partner always seemed to do the right thing when you did and did not ask, too. Purely coincidentally and without any conscious thought.

 

So, a year and a bit after the introduced Announcements, they did minor tweaks to them - and "announcing all ranges" was one of them (IIRC, the other one was "any red-suit transfer to the major above over any natural NT call is Announced" rather than just Jacoby over 1NT and 2NT openings).

 

And for the next 15 years there were annual motions in the BoD meetings to remove the Announcement for "strong" NTs, roundly failing every year - because they remember the bad old days when clubs like Kate Buckman's and the Barrington in LA had to create a club regulation that "you do not need to know. If you ask, you are deemed to have passed UI and partner's subsequent action will be judged against Law 16."

 

Having said that, it's still been over 20 years. And I had to ask about unAnnounced NTs twice last night in the club game - and our club is pretty good about it.

[pran]

Not quite correct. When the announcement system was started, it *wasn't* required for a NT range wholly within 15-18.

[...]

Quite funny how different jurisdictions manage to implement different regulations, not in principle but by specifying (complex?) differences in the details.

 

Our Norwegian regulation on announcements went into force as late as July 1st. 2011 and it simply specifies that an opening bid in the range 1NT to 2Sp shall be announced (by partner) regardless of the agreement on the bid.

[blackshoe]

Hm. Does the Norwegian regulation specify the form of the announcement?

[mycroft]

Well, that's what happens with innovators. They make their best guess at what would work, and then modify things based on what happens in the field. 20 years of others' experience later, other organizations are likely to avoid some of those mistakes...

[pran]

Hm. Does the Norwegian regulation specify the form of the announcement?

I am not sure what you mean with "form of the announcement", whether it is the manner or the contents.

 

Announcement is made by opener's partner saying [...] the same information as is given on the system card.

 

For 1NT this will be the interval (e.g. "12-14" or "14 good to 17") and possible deviating distribution.

 

For opening at the two-level a convention name might be sufficient if it is well known and the partnership has no deviations. Safest is to say clearly what the bid implies rather than just the name.

[blackshoe]

I was alluding to the ACBL and EBU regulations, both of which, if I'm not mistaken, specify the word(s) to use when making an announcement. Here's what the ACBL says:

 

Announcements are required in the following instances:

 

After a natural one notrump opening bid.

 

EXAMPLE: A 15-17 1NT opening bid is made. The partner of the bidder will say aloud, "fifteen to seventeen."

 

After a ♦ or ♥ transfer response at any level to any level natural notrump opening, overcall or rebid.

 

An Announcement also is used for those methods that initially treat the bid as a transfer even though rarely the bidder will have a strong hand without the next higher suit. When the message is sent that the transfer was not a transfer, just the first step in showing another type of game-going hand, the call that sends that message must be Alerted.

 

EXAMPLES: 1NT-P-2♦ and 1♦-1NT-2♦-4♥

The 1NT bidder will say aloud, "Transfer."

 

After a 1NT forcing or semi-forcing response to a 1♥ or 1♠ opening bid with no interference.

 

EXAMPLE: 1♥-P-1NT The opening bidder will say aloud, "Forcing" or "Semi-forcing," if there was no other meaning attached to the agreement (such as showing four or more spades).

 

4. After a non-forcing opening 1♣ or 1♦ for which the opener could have fewer than three cards in the suit opened.

After the opening bid, the opening bidder's partner says, "May be short."

 

An aside: Mike Flader, in his January "Ruling the Game" column in the ACBL Bulletin, says that if your "could be short" 1♣ opening is now natural per the 1 January change in the General Convention Chart, you should announce "could be as short as two", but this contradicts the alert regulation.

[gnasher]

I was alluding to the ACBL and EBU regulations, both of which, if I'm not mistaken, specify the word(s) to use when making an announcement.

The EBU regulations merely require you to state the range, without prescribing a particular wording for doing so. In the EBU, it would be permissible to announce a 1NT opening as "15-17 or equivalent playing strength", "18-20 on the 6-4-2-1 scale", "three honour tricks", or "a six-loser hand".

 

Curiously, the EBU regulations do specify a particular wording for explaining that you might have a singleton. That would be OK if the required wording weren't so ugly.

[bluejak]

EBU regulations require you to state the range, so "15-17 or equivalent playing strength" is illegal, "three honour tricks" is illegal, and "a six-loser hand" is illegal.

 

I suppose you could argue you could get away with "18-20 on the 6-4-2-1 scale", but there are a lot of problems created by that even being on the SC.

[gnasher]

EBU regulations require you to state the range, so "15-17 or equivalent playing strength" is illegal, "three honour tricks" is illegal, and "a six-loser hand" is illegal.

 

I suppose you could argue you could get away with "18-20 on the 6-4-2-1 scale", but there are a lot of problems created by that even being on the SC.

The relevant part of the EBU regulations reads "Natural 1NT openings are announced by stating the range, eg by saying '12 to 14'." There is nothing there to say you must use the Milton Work Count, or any point-count method.

 

I've quite sure of my ground here: not only is the wording unambiguous, but I have also had this confirmed in correspondence with the L&EC.