Non pre-alerted brown sticker convention

[sfi]

What Law or Regulation have the brown-sticker side broken? I have searched the VBA regulations and I can find no mention of brown sticker. As far as I can see, there is no requirement to attach brown stickers to the system card, and no special requirements on pre-alerting.

 

The regulation about pre-alerts. This is from the ABF Alert regulations:

 

3.1.2 This is the stage where you should draw the opponents’ attention to any unusual agreements you have which might surprise them, or to which they may need to arrange a defence. Examples: transfer preempts, unusual two level openings, canapé style bidding, very unusual doubles, unusual methods over the opponents’ 1NT or strong club openings, unusual cue bids of the opponents’ suit, etc. Pay particular attention to unusual self-alerting calls. These should appear on your system card, but should also be verbally pre-alerted.

[gnasher]

What Law or Regulation have the brown-sticker side broken? I have searched the VBA regulations and I can find no mention of brown sticker. As far as I can see, there is no requirement to attach brown stickers to the system card, and no special requirements on pre-alerting.

The final sentence of paragraph 1.1 of the ABF System Regulations

 

The regs define brown sticker as 'may require the opponents to prepare a defence'

The regulations seem to be rather more specific than that. Part of the definition of a Brown-Sticker convention (paragraph 2.5) is "Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades that: could be weak and does not promise at least four cards in a known suit".

[gnasher]

The final sentence of paragraph 1.1 of the ABF System Regulations

On reflection, I might be wrong about that. The VBA regulations say that the card should be an ABF card, system classifications are those of the ABF, and ABF Alerting Regulations apply. They don't actually say that ABF System Regulations apply. Is that intentional?

[sfi]

On reflection, I might be wrong about that. The VBA regulations say that the card should be an ABF card, system classifications are those of the ABF, and ABF Alerting Regulations apply. They don't actually say that ABF System Regulations apply. Is that intentional?

 

Almost certainly not. I believe that the senior TD in Victoria also heads up the committee that writes the ABF system and alerting regulations, so that's likely to be an oversight if it doesn't say that (I couldn't find it in my 2 minute search before I gave up).

[Cthulhu D]

The final sentence of paragraph 1.1 of the ABF System Regulations

 

 

The regulations seem to be rather more specific than that. Part of the definition of a Brown-Sticker convention (paragraph 2.5) is "Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades that: could be weak and does not promise at least four cards in a known suit".

 

Yeah there is a host of defintion - I was just getting at the question 'is it required to pre-alert brown sticker bids' and the part in common between the alert regulations and the system regulations is the may require a defence phrase.

[bluejak]

As far as I can see, the regs don't deal with whether or not the TD should allow us to discuss a defense; so I was wondering if there was anything in the Laws that did.

Nothing in the Laws allows communication between partners during a hand for fairly obvious reasons.

 

The reason I asked about the UI implications is that my RHO actually suggested at the end of the hand that my side may have used UI to get to our game as I apparently would only have called the TD if I had some values. I thought that was rubbish, and indeed a tad offensive, as if I had an absolute yarborough it probably would've been even more important to that clarify with partner how I'm going to distinguish between a weak hand and strong hand if partner doubles (e.g. would lebensohl still applied even though 2♠ is unanchored).

I believe you should have recalled the TD and told him what was said and told the TD that this remark was upsetting to you personally since it impugned your ethics. At this level I believe a DP should be automatic.

 

Australia might want to align more with the WBF BS:

Why? There is no reason that the American approach is best, and the fact that the WBF have been persuaded to adopt the American approach is no reason why anywhere else should.

 

I put this problem to one of Australia's top TDs who opined:

 

"I might let an unprepared pair confere if this came up in a 2 or 3-board Mitchell or Howell encounter. However in an environment involving longer matches, I would have expected any pair worth their salt to have already made themselves aware of the opponent's 2-level structure before they started the match and I would thus be much more reluctant, especially in respect to something as common as an RCO".

But you did, so the TD is wrong. It is not your responsibility to assume they have made a mistake in filling out their SC. You checked to see if there was a BS: there was not: thus you checked as far as you needed to about their Twos.

[mrdct]

I believe you should have recalled the TD and told him what was said and told the TD that this remark was upsetting to you personally since it impugned your ethics. At this level I believe a DP should be automatic.

Trust me, I called the TD back within about 3 nanoseconds of RHO making his remark.

 

Unfortunately, however, the TD was mainly interested in getting everyone to shut-up and play-on and I foolishly conceded the high moral ground when I used an expletive towards my RHO; but I would claim I was under significant duress as if there is one thing that I can't tolerate, it's people questioning my ethics.

 

As it happens my partner was declaring the next hand in a partscore so with the permission of everyone at the table, I left the room to get some fresh air and make a cup of tea for myself as I was a litle bit flustered. When I returned, it appeared that RHO had misdefended and LHO then got stuck into me for my "antics" which apparently contributed to RHO's loss in concentration. So the TD was called back to the table, but he didn't do anything other than hover around the table as we played the next board in complete silence. Ironically, the 2♠ opening came up again on the next hand and we gained a big swing with them going a few more off than they needed to in a vulnerable misfit against our making partscore in the other room. Needless, to say, the remaining three boards of the match were played in icy conditions, but all pushes and we eventually won the match 21-0 and snuck into 2nd place.

[blackshoe]

Why? There is no reason that the American approach is best, and the fact that the WBF have been persuaded to adopt the American approach is no reason why anywhere else should.

I don't understand this. AFAIK, the "American approach" to Brown Sticker conventions is to not use the term at all. :blink: :unsure:

[mrdct]

[hv=pc=n&s=s54hat874dt832cj8&w=sk732hkqj63d6c952&n=sqj986hd954ckt764&e=sath952dakqj7caq3&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=2s(5-5%20blacks%20or%20reds)dp(pass%20or%20correct)3h(nat%20F1%20%5Bassuming%20leb%20situation%5D)p3s(undiscussed)p4s(undiscussed)p5hppp&p=sqsas4s2h2h4hkd4c2c4cqc8h5h7hqs6d6d5djd2h9hah3c6cjc5c7cadad3c9d9dkd8s3s8dqdts7ctd7hthjs9sksjsts5h6ckc3]399|300[/hv]

Here's the actual hand. A ruling wasn't sought at the time as I was actually quite relieved to make 5♥ against the 5-0 trump break and thought there was a good chance they would be in 6♥ going down in the other room (as it happens they played in 4♥ in the other room). It seems, however, that 6NT is unbeatable with ♦ breaking 4-3 and even 6♥ could've made if I'd played for the 5-0 break initially.

 

So, hypothetically, if a ruling was sought on the hand would you consider adjusting to 6NT making or at least some percentage thereof?

[gnasher]

So, hypothetically, if a ruling was sought on the hand would you consider adjusting to 6NT making or at least some percentage thereof?

Not on the basis of what you've told us so far. For you to get an adjusted score, there has to have been damage. The damage you're alleging is that with firm agreements you might have got to 6NT. So, tell us how you might have got there.

[mrdct]

Not on the basis of what you've told us so far. For you to get an adjusted score, there has to have been damage. The damage you're alleging is that with firm agreements you might have got to 6NT. So, tell us how you might have got there.

On the actual auction at the table, west could've raised 5♥ to 6♥ and then east converts to 6NT to protect the ♣AQ knowing that all suits are double-stopped, a ♠ ruff in east's hand would be at serious risk of an overruff and with a 5-5 shape in north 6NT will probably have some extra chances. At the table, I didn't really know what partner meant by 3♠ (she later opined that she presumed we were in a GF auction and just wanted to see what I did next and thought it might be interpreted as a cue agreeing ♥) and when she converted 4♠ to 5♥ I just adopted the precautionary principle.

[gnasher]

On the actual auction at the table, west could've raised 5♥ to 6♥ and then east converts to 6NT to protect the ♣AQ knowing that all suits are double-stopped, a ♠ ruff in east's hand would be at serious risk of an overruff and with a 5-5 shape in north 6NT will probably have some extra chances. At the table, I didn't really know what partner meant by 3♠ (she later opined that she presumed we were in a GF auction and just wanted to see what I did next and thought it might be interpreted as a cue agreeing ♥) and when she converted 4♠ to 5♥ I just adopted the precautionary principle.

If you'd known that 3♠ was a cue-bid for hearts, would you really have bid 4♠?

[mrdct]

If you'd known that 3♠ was a cue-bid for hearts, would you really have bid 4♠?

I knew there was a possibility that 3♠ was intended as a cue agreeing ♥, so I felt that 4♠ was a bit of an each-way bet catering for partner actually having a ♠ suit or, if ♥ has been agreed, cueing my ♠K and denying 1st or 2nd control in both minors (admittedly a slight lie re ♦). Similar to my partner, I was waiting to see what she did next and when it wasn't 4NT (to which would've shown one keycard and been right whatever trumps were) or 5m, I chickened-out.

 

I think 6♥ was bid at about 10% of the tables in the field (all going down), but nobody bid 6NT. We were, however, in a potential position to take advantage of the extra information about north's hand and bid the superior 6NT but the murky agreementless auction made that just a little bit too hard for us. If bidding the slam would've put into 1st place and some extra prize money, I probably would've sought a ruling - but we finished 9 VPs behind 1st so it was all academic.

[gnasher]

I knew there was a possibility that 3♠ was intended as a cue agreeing ♥, so I felt that 4♠ was a bit of an each-way bet catering for partner actually having a ♠ suit or, if ♥ has been agreed, cueing my ♠K and denying 1st or 2nd control in both minors (admittedly a slight lie re ♦). Similar to my partner, I was waiting to see what she did next and when it wasn't 4NT (to which would've shown one keycard and been right whatever trumps were) or 5m, I chickened-out.

 

You can't have it both ways. NS's infraction meant that you hadn't discussed what 3♠ meant, so you took a safety play by bidding 4♠ and then passing 5♥. Without NS's infraction, you would have discussed what 3♠ meant, so presumably you wouldn't have bid 4♠.

 

If you think you might have reached 6NT, give us a credible auction that you would have had with compete discussion.

[mrdct]

You can't have it both ways. NS's infraction meant that you hadn't discussed what 3♠ meant, so you took a safety play by bidding 4♠ and then passing 5♥. Without NS's infraction, you would have discussed what 3♠ meant, so presumably you wouldn't have bid 4♠.

 

If you think you might have reached 6NT, give us a credible auction that you would have had with compete discussion.

With my regular expert partner, the auction probably would've gone as follows:

[hv=d=n&v=e&b=9&a=2s(5-5%20blacks%20or%20reds)d(XXX%20def%20%5B1st%20dbl%20values%2C%202nd%20dbl%20t/o%2C%203rd%20dbl%20pen%5D)p(p/c)3h(F1%20natural)p4c(cue%20agreeing%20%21H)p4d(1st/2nd%20control%20in%20%21D)p4n(RKCB%20in%20%21H)p5c(1%20or%204)p5d(asks%20for%20%21HQ)p5n(%21HQ%20and%20%21SK%20no%20%21CK)p6nppp]133|100[/hv]

 

I freely admit, however, that in a pick-up partnership the only thing we probably would've discussed had we been pre-alerted was a range for the 2NT overcall and the applicability of lebensohl so we would only have got to slam if one of us took a bit more of an optomistic view. I'm confident, however, that my partner would've chosen 6NT over 6♥ knowing that at least three suits will be breaking badly.

[bluejak]

I don't understand this. AFAIK, the "American approach" to Brown Sticker conventions is to not use the term at all. :blink: :unsure:

The American approach to complicated opening bids [like Lucas, 2♠ is spades and a minor, yeah, real complicated, played by grannies in Australia and mediocre players in England but only super-duper experts in the USA] is to insist on written defences being made available to the poor opponents who will burst into tears and tell their mothers otherwise.

 

Not on the basis of what you've told us so far. For you to get an adjusted score, there has to have been damage. The damage you're alleging is that with firm agreements you might have got to 6NT. So, tell us how you might have got there.

This is why I approve of the English approach to illegal methods, ie to rule under a regulation based on Law 12C1D and give Average Plus - Average Minus. Either you make up an adjustment based on agreements the non-offending pair do not have, or you let them make up agreements [a 4♦ overcall shows precisely that hand, now 6NT by West is obvious] to suit the hand.

[blackshoe]

The American approach to complicated opening bids [like Lucas, 2♠ is spades and a minor, yeah, real complicated, played by grannies in Australia and mediocre players in England but only super-duper experts in the USA] is to insist on written defences being made available to the poor opponents who will burst into tears and tell their mothers otherwise.

Oh, that American approach. :P I see now, and agree with you in principle, although I would say "burst into tears" is a maybe, and "tell their mothers" is highly unlikely, because their mothers are mostly long dead.

 

We have a Regional coming up. Somewhere in one of these threads I said earlier that I would ask the Tournament Chair if there were any events in which the Mid-Chart would be allowed. Today I did so. She said "I haven't a clue. Ask the TD". I point out that this is a Tournament Organizer responsibility. She said "I wouldn't know where to begin; ask the TD". Hell, I had to explain to her what the Mid-Chart is! :o :rolleyes:

 

This is why I approve of the English approach to illegal methods, ie to rule under a regulation based on Law 12C1D and give Average Plus - Average Minus. Either you make up an adjustment based on agreements the non-offending pair do not have, or you let them make up agreements [a 4♦ overcall shows precisely that hand, now 6NT by West is obvious] to suit the hand.

Huh. I had thought the regulation in question pre-dated the current Law 12C1D. No matter, I understand the approach - it's just too hard to always find the right adjustment otherwise. And it's great that you have a regulation that points the way, but... is a regulation really necessary? Can't the TD just apply the relevant laws without it? Is this a case of "yes, but they don't"?

[bluejak]

A TD might struggle to adjust, and the EBU thinks that is the wrong approach. Thus, the regulation.

 

The legal basis for the regulation was not clear before Law 12C1D. No matter, now it is.

[LH2650]

I said earlier that I would ask the Tournament Chair if there were any events in which the Mid-Chart would be allowed.

 

The tournament sanction application will list the allowed conventions. Ask the Tournament Chairman for a copy of that.

[blackshoe]

There's a thought. Hm. I wonder who's responsible for sending those in?

[sfi]

So, hypothetically, if a ruling was sought on the hand would you consider adjusting to 6NT making or at least some percentage thereof?

 

I posed the original question to the international director at our club this evening, putting myself in your position, and he said that he would have no sympathy for me with a random partner of similar standard. His opinion was that we have a responsibility to look at the main features on the card. He would consider a procedural penalty against the opposition though and would consider an adjustment if the non-offending side were inexperienced players. Once he knew the people involved, he would have been more likely to impose a PP (assuming I worked out your opponents correctly), but would not consider adjusting.

 

Curiously, the other day my (regular) partner and I sat down against a pair whose card was exactly as you describe. Myxo Twos with nothing in the pre-alert section and no brown sticker. Not that this proves anything at all, but I found it amusing.

[mrdct]

I posed the original question to the international director at our club this evening, putting myself in your position, and he said that he would have no sympathy for me with a random partner of similar standard. His opinion was that we have a responsibility to look at the main features on the card. He would consider a procedural penalty against the opposition though and would consider an adjustment if the non-offending side were inexperienced players. Once he knew the people involved, he would have been more likely to impose a PP (assuming I worked out your opponents correctly), but would not consider adjusting.

 

Curiously, the other day my (regular) partner and I sat down against a pair whose card was exactly as you describe. Myxo Twos with nothing in the pre-alert section and no brown sticker. Not that this proves anything at all, but I found it amusing.

That's all very well, but if the ABF want pre-alerting to be optional the regulations should say so. I'm sick and tired of TDs, including very senior ones who regularly get gigs at WBF events, making up their own rules. If no Australian directors are going to enforce the pre-alerting rules, they should take it out of the regs and formally put the onus back on the players to read their opponents system card thoroughly at the start of each match.

 

Your example does illustrate that, sadly, a lot of bridge players do not take their disclosure obligations seriously. At best it's just laziness, but at worst it intentionally trying to conceal some aspects of their system to retain the element of surprise.

[mrdct]

... international director at our club ... His opinion was that we have a responsibility to look at the main features on the card.

I wonder how that "international director" reconciles that opinion with the ABF Alerting Regulations:

 

3.1 Pre-alerts

3.1.1 At the start of a round or match, pairs should acquaint each other with their basic system, length of their one-level openings and the strength and style of their opening 1NT. Subsequent questions about these, whilst legal, may be regarded as unauthorised information.

3.1.2 This is the stage where you should draw the opponents’ attention to any unusual agreements you have which might surprise them, or to which they may need to arrange a defence. Examples: transfer preempts, unusual two level openings, canapé style bidding, very unusual doubles, unusual methods over the opponents’ 1NT or strong club openings, unusual cue bids of the opponents’ suit, etc. Pay particular attention to unusual self-alerting calls. These should appear on your system card, but should also be verbally pre-alerted.

3.1.3 Highly unusual carding (e.g. leading low from doubletons) should also be pre-alerted at this stage.

[sfi]

I wonder how that "international director" reconciles that opinion with the ABF Alerting Regulations:

 

That's where the procedural penalty for the offending side came in. And I suspect you can work out very easily who the director I asked is without needing to cast aspersions on their credentials.

[mrdct]

That's where the procedural penalty for the offending side came in. And I suspect you can work out very easily who the director I asked is without needing to cast aspersions on their credentials.

TDs, particularly senior ones on the international panel, should be applying the rules and regulations as written; not selectively determining which rules and regulations they agree with or not.

 

I'm pretty sure I know which TD you are talking about and I've generally found him or her to be quite good; although I did have an curious situation involving that TD earlier this year where he or she made-up a regulation that an appeal from the final round of the SWPT requires a monetary deposit due the fact that a potential AWM VP penalty is not really a disincentive for a team that has missed qualifying and is just throwing a Hail Mary to sneak into a qualifying position. As it happens, I think that's quite a sensible regulation; but it hasn't been written into the ABF Appeals Regs or the SWPT Supplementary Regs so it's inappropriate for TDs to be implementing it on the fly.

 

There will only be real improvement in compliance with ABF Alerting Regs if TDs actually enforce them.