Disclosing a nonstandard 1NT opening (ACBL)

[blackshoe]

There was a little discussion of this in the writeup. I think they felt it didn't quite rise to the level that ZT is intended to address.

When was ZT put in place? Before 2003? After? I don't remember.

 

The Committee was bothered by North’s behavior but decided against recommending a conduct hearing because of the uncertainty about whether an Announcement or an Alert was the correct procedure in this type of situation.

Apparently it didn't occur to the Committee that they could have awarded a PP or DP, even if North's actions didn't rise to the level required for a conduct hearing. And if ZT was in place, then they didn't need a conduct hearing for that, either.

 

Added: It seems I should have read all the comments before posting. From Jeff Goldsmith:

A ZT penalty for North is so obvious as to defy words.

Edited January 3, 2013 by blackshoe

[barmar]

I think the committee supposed that the right not to ask a question in the first place obviously implies the right to stop the answer.

 

This more often comes up when the opponent is unsure, and you'd rather he not speculate.

[blackshoe]

Well, I think the committee supposed wrong. It's certainly not obvious to me. Interrupting people is rude, and bridge players aren't supposed to be rude.

 

If you'd rather he not speculate, perhaps you should make that clear when you ask your question. Or, if he does speculate, establish agreement that the speculation is UI to his partner, and call the director after the hand if it appears the partner may have used the UI.

[CSGibson]

to the OP - a pair in my club has that same agreement. If they open 1N, they both announce the range and then say alert afterwards to indicate that there is additional unexpected information to disclose upon request.

[barmar]

You don't have to be rude when asking an opponent to stop answering. You can say something like "Never mind" in a graceful manner.

 

That's obviously not what happened in this instance, which is why some suggested that ZT applies. It's not the fact that he interrupted, but the beligerant manner in which he did so.

[gnasher]

The editor makes a good point in that writeup: "Announcements are reserved for disclosing a small handful of familiar agreements". This isn't specifically stated in the Alert Procedures, but it's well known that this was the intent of creating the announcement process in the first place, and it's pretty obvious from the list of announced agreements. So even if I accept the argument that the announcements in the Alert Procedure are just examples, I don't think anyone would consider "no 4-card major" to be a common agreement that merits just an announcement.

If something isn't stated in the Alert Procedures, it's not part of the Alert Procedures, regardless of what people think they know.

 

Of course, this isn't relevant to the present case. The rules make it clear that this opening is alertable. If it's alertable, it's not announceable.

[barmar]

If something isn't stated in the Alert Procedures, it's not part of the Alert Procedures, regardless of what people think they know.

Only someone used to the level of detail in regulations like the Orange Book could make such a statement.

 

The ACBL Alert Procedures are extremely lacking in detail. Trying to interpret them as if they're precise like the OB is a fool's errand.

 

They were written by Americans. We're used to the Supreme Court making reference to English Common Law and the Federalist Papers when trying to interpret the intent and extent of the Constitution and legislation, not restricting themselves to just the words in those documents.

[blackshoe]

You don't have to be rude when asking an opponent to stop answering. You can say something like "Never mind" in a graceful manner.

 

That's obviously not what happened in this instance, which is why some suggested that ZT applies. It's not the fact that he interrupted, but the beligerant manner in which he did so.

In this case, yes, I agree. But I've been interrupted all too many times in my life to not consider it rude, however it's done. IOW, you can say "Never mind" in as graceful a manner as you like, but if you do it while I'm talking, it's still rude.

[blackshoe]

Only someone used to the level of detail in regulations like the Orange Book could make such a statement.

 

The ACBL Alert Procedures are extremely lacking in detail. Trying to interpret them as if they're precise like the OB is a fool's errand.

 

They were written by Americans. We're used to the Supreme Court making reference to English Common Law and the Federalist Papers when trying to interpret the intent and extent of the Constitution and legislation, not restricting themselves to just the words in those documents.

I submit that the average American pays absolutely no attention to SC rulings, particularly at this level of detail.

 

The observation in the appeal writeup is correct, and can be inferred from what is written in the Alert Procedure. The extrapolation as to intent is also, afaik, correct, but it's also irrelevant, since it's not part of the regulation nor can it be inferred therefrom.

 

In principle, Andy is right. The fault lies with the ACBL's inability to write a decent regulation.

[Cthulhu D]

There was a little discussion of this in the writeup. I think they felt it didn't quite rise to the level that ZT is intended to address.

 

Obviously the definition of zero has changed at some point in crossing the pacific! Surely if it's worth discussion (See: Goldsmith's remarks), then it far exceeds 'zero'

[blackshoe]

There seems to be a great reluctance in North America to do anything at all about "ZT" violations, save ignore them. :( :(

[aguahombre]

Obviously the definition of zero has changed at some point in crossing the pacific! Surely if it's worth discussion (See: Goldsmith's remarks), then it far exceeds 'zero'

It is not the definition of zero; it is the threashhold of the behavior. Zero tolerance of unacceptable behavior is a good thing. Don't blame one jurisdiction for being unable to codify behavior.

[barmar]

In principle, Andy is right. The fault lies with the ACBL's inability to write a decent regulation.

Yeah, but it's the only regulation we have, and we have to make do. Trying to use it in the same way you would the OB is a mistake.

[fromageGB]

It seems US and England may go opposite ways on this. I posted a while ago about our natural weak 2s (which can be a 4 card suit and a zero count) where we didn't feel that "weak" was a sufficient announcement and were told we could modify the announcement in EBUland.

I am very surprised by this. I have been told by EBU directors that the only announcements allowed were those words quoted in the regulations. You can have "weak" or maybe by inference "zero to weak", but you can't mention the length or even the hcp range. I have had opponents upset that I didn't give sufficient detail as a result.

 

I have long wished for a regulation that allows you to announce a possibly uncommon bid in your own words, where you are merely giving the information that is already on the convention card. "Clubs" on 1NT 2♠, for example.

[campboy]

Of course, this isn't relevant to the present case. The rules make it clear that this opening is alertable. If it's alertable, it's not announceable.

Surely the rules make it clear that it is announceable, since they say that an announcement is required after a natural 1NT opening. I couldn't find anything saying that alertable and announceable are mutually exclusive; in fact one might argue that an announcement is merely a special type of alert, since the regulations also include the following definition.

Alert: A manner specified by the sponsoring organization by which opponents are notified of your pair's special agreements. These may be given aloud, in writing and/or by using an Alert card or strip.

[blackshoe]

If you both alert and announce, you're going to confuse the hell out of somebody. Particularly if you're in the ACBL and you follow proper procedure when announcing. That means that you tap the alert strip or show the alert card when you announce.

 

I do argue that an announcement is a special kind of alert. I also argue that when there are aspects of a call that would require an alert (over and above the announcement) the alert alone is sufficient, but the explanation of the alert must also include the information that would be conveyed by an announcement.

[gnasher]

Surely the rules make it clear that it is announceable, since they say that an announcement is required after a natural 1NT opening. I couldn't find anything saying that alertable and announceable are mutually exclusive

OK, I agree that it's clearly announceable:

"A notrump opening or overcall if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons) is considered natural. "

"Announcements are required in the following instances: After a natural one notrump opening bid."

 

But it's also clearly alertable:

"In general, when the use of conventions leads to unexpected understandings about suit length by negative inference, a natural call becomes Alertable."

 

So yes, one should do both. :)

[gnasher]

I don't agree that an announcement is a type of alert. The term "Announcement" is defined without reference to alerts. There is a section headed "Types of alerts" which doesn't mention announcements. There are lots of phrases like "How to alert", "How to announce", "Failure to alert or announce" which make it clear that they are two different actions.

[blackshoe]

I don't agree that an announcement is a type of alert. The term "Announcement" is defined without reference to alerts. There is a section headed "Types of alerts" which doesn't mention announcements. There are lots of phrases like "How to alert", "How to announce", "Failure to alert or announce" which make it clear that they are two different actions.

If announcements are not a kind of alert, why are they discussed at all in a regulation about alerts?

[aguahombre]

If announcements are not a kind of alert, why are they discussed at all in a regulation about alerts?

To distinguish between the two concepts in as good a place as any, without creating another Procedure document.

 

It also talks about delay disclosure...which other than using the word alert in discussing it, really isn't an alert at all and the players never say "alert".

 

Regardless of the word game, Andy's point is correct. People with highly unexpected agreements about their technically natural 1NT openings have something to "alert" AND the requirement to announce the range.

[blackshoe]

To distinguish between the two concepts in as good a place as any, without creating another Procedure document.

 

It also talks about delay disclosure...which other than using the word alert in discussing it, really isn't an alert at all and the players never say "alert".

 

Regardless of the word game, Andy's point is correct. People with highly unexpected agreements about their technically natural 1NT openings have something to "alert" AND the requirement to announce the range.

Maybe. I would bet the people who drafted the regulation weren't thinking that way.

 

If people never say "alert" when making delayed alerts they're not following the proper procedure. And yes, it really is an alert.

 

I do not think even the most pedantic TD would sanction a pair who alerts their unusual 1NT opening instead of announcing. I do think that doing both is likely to confuse opponents. If a player asked me for a recommendation as to what to do, I would not recommend they do both.

[aguahombre]

If people never say "alert" when making delayed alerts they're not following the proper procedure. And yes, it really is an alert.

Indeed Declaring side is required to alert the defenders about a high-level call, before the lead is made. Indeed the defending side is required to alert the declarer about one of those after the opening lead is downfaced.

 

I can't imagine Declarer saying "alert" at that point. His objective is to provide the delay alert information, and prevent the opening lead being faced before the defenders get a chance to hear it. "Alert" doesn't cut it. Something like "Before you lead..." gets the job done. IMO, requiring declarer to sit there and just say "Alert" at that critical moment would truly be pedantic and unhelpful.

[gnasher]

Maybe. I would bet the people who drafted the regulation weren't thinking that way.

Would you bet that they were thinking at all?

 

I do not think even the most pedantic TD would sanction a pair who alerts their unusual 1NT opening instead of announcing. I do think that doing both is likely to confuse opponents. If a player asked me for a recommendation as to what to do, I would not recommend they do both.

I wasn't really suggesting that anyone should actually do both. Sometimes the best thing to do with the rules is ignore them and use your common sense instead.

[blackshoe]

Indeed Declaring side is required to alert the defenders about a high-level call, before the lead is made. Indeed the defending side is required to alert the declarer about one of those after the opening lead is downfaced.

 

I can't imagine Declarer saying "alert" at that point. His objective is to provide the delay alert information, and prevent the opening lead being faced before the defenders get a chance to hear it. "Alert" doesn't cut it. Something like "Before you lead..." gets the job done. IMO, requiring declarer to sit there and just say "Alert" at that critical moment would truly be pedantic and unhelpful.

I can imagine, since I do it. If other people want to do something else, that's on them. If not following proper procedure causes no problem, even I would be unlikely to issue a procedural penalty, but that doesn't mean that not following proper procedure is not wrong. As for "alert doesn't cut it", that's your opinion. Mine is that the Alert Procedure clearly states that delayed alerts follow the procedure for alerts in general. The point that they are delayed simply refers to when the alert is made, not how it's made.

[blackshoe]

Would you bet that they were thinking at all?

 

 

I wasn't really suggesting that anyone should actually do both. Sometimes the best thing to do with the rules is ignore them and use your common sense instead.

Heh. No, probably not.

 

"The Law is an ass." -- attributed to Charles Dickens' character Mr. Brumble, in Oliver Twist

"When the Law is an ass, the best thing to do is ignore it." -- unknown