Dealing with Announcements and non-Announcements

[barmar]

Although the ACBL regulation contains specific words to be used, I think most players, and many directors (including Flader, it seems) think there's an implicit "or words to that effect". So even though they specify "could be short", "may be short" or "could be as short as 2" are considered equivalent and people get away with it.

 

My pet peave is people who announce "transfer" when they transfer to clubs or diamonds. The ACBL transfer announcements are specifically just for Jacoby and Texas transfers to the majors.

[Vampyr]

 

My pet peeve is people who announce "transfer" when they transfer to clubs or diamonds. The ACBL transfer announcements are specifically just for Jacoby and Texas transfers to the majors.

 

Wrong thread. Pet peeves are in the Water Cooler :)

[mjj29]

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 regulations say:

Always use a consistent form of wording when announcing, preferably the recommended form.

Natural 1NT openings are announced by stating the range, eg by saying “12 to 14”.

Under rules for agreements we have:

A partnership may define the strength of a hand by using any method of hand

evaluation that will be understood easily by its opponents (eg High Card Points,

Playing tricks, Losing Trick Count, etc). Regardless, your agreements must meet the

permitted minimums defined in terms of HCP and Opening Points (as in 11 C 1 and 11

F 2, for example).

Which suggests, I think, that using an alternative method to define your range is acceptable (subject to being 'easily understood') and therefore it should be announced using that range. The question, I guess, is whether "at least the playing strength of an average 15 count balanced hand and at most a the playing strength of a good 18 count" is a range or not. I think it probably is.

 

Certainly the wording of announcements specified in the regulations is optional (per 5B8)

[bluejak]

While I do not think anyone minds bending the regulation a bit, it does say that you state a range, so announcements that do not are illegal.

[gnasher]

"15-17 or equivalent playing strength" does state a range. It states, in abbreviated form, the range "15 Milton Work points or equivalent playing strength" to "17 Milton Work points or equivalent playing strength".

 

If you're saying that instead of "Three honour tricks" one should say "3-3 honour tricks", you're probably right.

[blackshoe]

Although the ACBL regulation contains specific words to be used, I think most players, and many directors (including Flader, it seems) think there's an implicit "or words to that effect". So even though they specify "could be short", "may be short" or "could be as short as 2" are considered equivalent and people get away with it.

 

My pet peave is people who announce "transfer" when they transfer to clubs or diamonds. The ACBL transfer announcements are specifically just for Jacoby and Texas transfers to the majors.

 

People get away with a lot of things. They're still wrong. B-)

[mycroft]

I have to admit, I'm looking forward to the day my partnership goes 1NT-4♦ Alert!

 

On the other hand, announcing it as a transfer (which it is) would be *very misleading*; even if I was supposed to Announce it, I'd still Alert it. I'm very glad the regulations don't force me into that kind of ugly situation.

 

Oh, the explanation? We play SA Texas. "transfer to spades."

 

The odd thing? Since we agreed on this, I've needed to Texas 4 times - all of them in my other partnership. I've *almost* done the wrong thing once...

[aguahombre]

I have to admit, I'm looking forward to the day my partnership goes 1NT-4♦ Alert!

 

On the other hand, announcing it as a transfer (which it is) would be *very misleading*; even if I was supposed to Announce it, I'd still Alert it. I'm very glad the regulations don't force me into that kind of ugly situation.

 

Oh, the explanation? We play SA Texas. "transfer to spades."

 

The odd thing? Since we agreed on this, I've needed to Texas 4 times - all of them in my other partnership. I've *almost* done the wrong thing once...

Actually what you want to do is what you should do on SA Texas. Finally, way down there in item paren 7 under responses to NT openings, they spell it out precisely (ACBL Alert Procedures document).

 

Bids of 4D and 4H if transfers to hearts and to spades respectively are announced. That does not include your methods, and you would be correct to alert them. That word "respectively" does the job.

[mycroft]

I have to admit, I'm looking forward to the day my partnership goes 1NT-4♦ Alert!

even if I was supposed to Announce it, I'd still Alert it. I'm very glad the regulations don't force me into that kind of ugly situation.

Sorry, I thought it was clear. Unsurprisingly, I *have* read the Alert procedure, once or twice.

[barmar]

My partnership goes 1NT-2♦/♥ Alert! all the time, because we play a nonstandard variant of Jacoby Transfers (responder's first bid is normally a transfer to the next suit, but could be the start of a sequence to transfer to a minor).

 

But our Texas is normal.

[schulken]

Three things. First, I have played with partners who make a big deal of asking the point range (when NT opener's partner forgot to announce) while holding 3 HCP and a balanced hand. If it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. Second, following silence from the NT opener's partner, I have evolved (digressed, perhaps) to where I either pick up the NT opener's CC (I may have to ask for it if it's across the table) rather than asking the point range. No reason to wake the offender if it's not necessary. If you claim damage and you checked the CC and they were confused in their actions, I think that's a far better argument than assuming the HCP count is 15-17, even though the TD should be amenable in either case. Finally, there are players (I'm not one of them) who play different defenses against different NT opening ranges. Somehow, the defenders have to have some idea what they're defending against, and over caller's partner would need to know which system they're using. How else, unless you ask or look at the opponents' CC?

[Vampyr]

I have to admit, I'm looking forward to the day my partnership goes 1NT-4♦ Alert!

 

 

I play this as a transfer too, although Texas, not SA. The most recent EBU regulations on alerts are pretty good, but they have got this one wrong -- it is not subject to alert or announcement.

[mgoetze]

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

 

So I might potentially have to say "5 to 10 points, 6 hearts (or rarely 5) OR 5 to 10 points, 6 spades (or rarely 5) OR 23 to 25 balanced OR 28 or more, balanced OR game-forcing in a minor" whenever partner opens 2♦? (Semirandom example from German Team Trials.)

[Coelacanth]

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.

 

Not sure why I missed this post earlier, but this is not correct. There is no change to either the definition of "announceable" agreements nor to the form of the announcement. If you open 1♣ with 4=4=3=2, you announce "may be short" or "could be as short as two" or whatever. If you open 1♣ on 4=4=4=1, you Alert. (I have seen pairs announce this, which I find aggravating.)

 

The only change that came into effect on 1 January is that on the GCC it is no longer legal to play an artificial defense over the 4432 short club. In other words, a non-forcing 1♣ opener that may be as short as two cards is explicitly defined as natural for the purpose of which defenses are permitted.

[blackshoe]

Not sure why I missed this post earlier, but this is not correct. There is no change to either the definition of "announceable" agreements nor to the form of the announcement. If you open 1♣ with 4=4=3=2, you announce "may be short" or "could be as short as two" or whatever. If you open 1♣ on 4=4=4=1, you Alert. (I have seen pairs announce this, which I find aggravating.)

 

The only change that came into effect on 1 January is that on the GCC it is no longer legal to play an artificial defense over the 4432 short club. In other words, a non-forcing 1♣ opener that may be as short as two cards is explicitly defined as natural for the purpose of which defenses are permitted.

What I said was that "could be as short as two", which is what Flader said you should announce, is not in accordance with the regulation, which says the proper announcement is "may be short". This has nothing much to do with the change to the GCC. As for the 4=4=4=1 1♣ opening, if it is systemically not forcing, it requires the same announcement as the 4=4=3=2 hand: "may be short". Only if it is systemically forcing is "alert" correct.

[Vampyr]

The only change that came into effect on 1 January is that on the GCC it is no longer legal to play an artificial defense over the 4432 short club. In other words, a non-forcing 1♣ opener that may be as short as two cards is explicitly defined as natural for the purpose of which defenses are permitted.

 

This regulation is wrong in so many ways. And it worries me because even though it doesn't affect me personally, where the ACBL go the world tends to follow. See, eg, "could be short".

[aguahombre]

This regulation is wrong in so many ways. And it worries me because even though it doesn't affect me personally, where the ACBL go the world tends to follow. See, eg, "could be short".

Actually the regulation ---the scope of which is accurately stated by Coelacanth --- is just fine. It simply eliminates the excuse some pairs had for using a Mid Chart defense against what has always been considered by players to be a fairly natural opening bid....the choice to open 1♣ with a balanced hand which contains no five-card major and only 3 diamonds.

 

The players who still use this very specific 4-4-3-2 "short club" dwindle in number as they progress in skill. It is not a big deal with extended ramifications; it might be a mild annoyance to the even smaller group of pairs who had jumped on the opportunity to confound and confuse the little old ladies who play short club.

 

Experienced pairs who have other uses for the short (perhaps shorter than 2) club, are still subject to Mid Chart defenses.

[Vampyr]

It simply eliminates the excuse some pairs had for using a Mid Chart defense against what has always been considered by players to be a fairly natural opening bid....the choice to open 1♣ with a balanced hand which contains no five-card major and only 3 diamonds.

 

Humpty Dumpty would like this definition of "natural". What players consider does not have to be enshrined in regulation if it is in fact wrong; this is another example of the players' tail wagging the ACBL regulatory dog.

[blackshoe]

Wouldn't be the first time the ACBL has imposed a "Humpty Dumpty" definition. See, for example, "strong".

[mgoetze]

The players who still use this very specific 4-4-3-2 "short club" dwindle in number as they progress in skill.

 

Does the regulation not cover those who open 1♣ on 3=3=5=2?

[gnasher]

Humpty Dumpty would like this definition of "natural". What players consider does not have to be enshrined in regulation if it is in fact wrong; this is another example of the players' tail wagging the ACBL regulatory dog.

Isn't a good thing that the people who administer bridge are responsive to the wishes of the members?

[Vampyr]

Isn't a good thing that the people who administer bridge are responsive to the wishes of the members?

 

Yes, in general; but as I mentioned I worry that the ACBL will impose its will on others (is there anyone outside of the US who thinks that saying "having none" is a good idea or even that it is not cheating?)

 

Leaving that issue aside, the ACBL could have achieved their intention in some other way than by calling an opening in one's shortest suit "natural"; there seems no good reason to distort the meaning of that word. The fact that a method is popular does not mean that it is natural. Does it mean that it should be protected? I guess, but where does it end? The ACBL are already pretty far removed from the rest of the world where system regulations are concerned; it would be a shame if two very different, mutually incompatible, forms of the game were to develop.

[aguahombre]

Humpty Dumpty meets Chicken Little.

[gnasher]

(is there anyone outside of the US who thinks that saying "having none" is a good idea or even that it is not cheating?)

No, of course it's not cheating. It's explicitly permitted by the rules.

 

As for whether it's a good idea to allow it, I think it has both advantages and disadvantages. It reduces the number of established revokes, which means that a higher proportion of results are bridge results rather than absurd artefacts of the rules. Against that, it can create UI problems, though in my experience this is uncommon.

[Coelacanth]

What I said was that "could be as short as two", which is what Flader said you should announce, is not in accordance with the regulation, which says the proper announcement is "may be short". This has nothing much to do with the change to the GCC. As for the 4=4=4=1 1♣ opening, if it is systemically not forcing, it requires the same announcement as the 4=4=3=2 hand: "may be short". Only if it is systemically forcing is "alert" correct.

 

Again, I think the distinction between "could be as short as two" and "may be short" is not particularly meaningful and is more likely down to careless editing of the notice in the Bulletin than anything else.

 

I have always been told that a non-forcing, ostensibly natural 1♣ or 1♦ call that may be a singleton (or void!) is an alert, not an announcement. On checking the Alert Chart this is not made explicit, so perhaps I am mistaken. I will ask Mr. Flader for a clarification when I see him tomorrow.