Concern over new EBU regs

[blackshoe]

Or we could put each table in its own room or isolation booth.

[RMB1]

Each table would have card of common explanations to reduce disturbance to neighbouring tables.

 

And partnerships could collect their uncommon explanations on to one big card and give it to the opponents at the start of each round. :)

[jallerton]

this is fine for 1♠-4♣, but some pairs would play 1♠-4♥ as natural

 

You seem to be forgetting that the whole purpose of alerting is for the opponents' benefit! As the player in 4th seat, I want to know whether 4♥ is natural or not without having to give away information about my own hand by asking. If bids like 1♠-Pass-4♥ are not alertable, then the only way I can protect my interests is by asking on every hand. If I do that, the UI for the opening side will be more apparent, not less.

[Vampyr]

And partnerships could collect their uncommon explanations on to one big card and give it to the opponents at the start of each round. :)

 

Yes, and their common ones too. If only we had something like that...

[Cyberyeti]

You seem to be forgetting that the whole purpose of alerting is for the opponents' benefit! As the player in 4th seat, I want to know whether 4♥ is natural or not without having to give away information about my own hand by asking. If bids like 1♠-Pass-4♥ are not alertable, then the only way I can protect my interests is by asking on every hand. If I do that, the UI for the opening side will be more apparent, not less.

In theory this is true, in practice not so much. If you ask only when you need to ask and then pass, the chance of partner bidding is minimal. There may be a little UI in the play, but it's manageable.

 

This is a regulation that does nothing but good for serious players, but can cause havoc in clubs.

[paulg]

You seem to be forgetting that the whole purpose of alerting is for the opponents' benefit! As the player in 4th seat, I want to know whether 4♥ is natural or not without having to give away information about my own hand by asking. If bids like 1♠-Pass-4♥ are not alertable, then the only way I can protect my interests is by asking on every hand. If I do that, the UI for the opening side will be more apparent, not less.

 

In theory this is true, in practice not so much. If you ask only when you need to ask and then pass, the chance of partner bidding is minimal. There may be a little UI in the play, but it's manageable.

 

This is a regulation that does nothing but good for serious players, but can cause havoc in clubs.

Or, as I watched a pair bid last week,

 

2NT (Pass) 4♠

 

Natural or, as it actually was, a mild slam try in diamonds? Partner is never bidding but you might like to help him if he is on lead. Hard to do this with last week's regulations.

[suprgrover]

Or, as I watched a pair bid last week,

 

2NT (Pass) 4♠

 

Natural or, as it actually was, a mild slam try in diamonds? Partner is never bidding but you might like to help him if he is on lead. Hard to do this with last week's regulations.

 

Law 19G1 says "It is improper to ask a questions solely for partner's benefit."

[pran]

Law 19G1 says "It is improper to ask a questions solely for partner's benefit."

If after the auction

2NT - pass - 4 ♠ - pass

pass - "What is 4♠ please?" pass

 

a spade is lead with success I shall almost always adjust the result on the board to a likely result with a different lead.

More often than not shall I also impose a PP on the player asking the question, he should know better than asking a lead-directing question.

[gnasher]

Law 19G1 says "It is improper to ask a questions solely for partner's benefit."

But it's entirely proper to ask questions in order to find out whether a lead-directing double is a good idea, which is what Paul was talking about.

[mgoetze]

More tongue in cheek, what is the first round of bidding ?

From experience, people in Germany have trouble with the concept that 1♠-p-4♣ may be alertable when p-p-1♠-p; 4♣ is not.

[Cyberyeti]

From experience, people in Germany have trouble with the concept that 1♠-p-4♣ may be alertable when p-p-1♠-p; 4♣ is not.

 

Which at least is an absurdity the EBU have avoided by their definition of first round.

[aguahombre]

So, is a Pass a bid? Or is a bid a bid? It would seem clear to me, anyway, that a partnership both bidding is a round of bidding ---but one person passing and the other one bidding is not.

[blackshoe]

It may depend on how the regulation is worded. The ACBL's says "beginning with the opener's first rebid" so if there are passes before the opening bid, they don't count.

 

And no, "pass" is not a bid. It's a call, though.

[campboy]

It may depend on how the regulation is worded. The ACBL's says "beginning with the opener's first rebid" so if there are passes before the opening bid, they don't count.

The EBU regulation defines the first round as "the first bid and the next three calls".

[VixTD]

Under the new regulations a 3♣ Stayman response to a natural opening bid of 2NT is announceable, a 5-card / puppet Stayman or Baron response is alertable. Of all these responses, simple Stayman is by far the least common.

 

At Brighton one of the junior players suggested to me the following ruse:

 

• 
   
  
• If I open 2NT with a five-card major and partner responds 3♣ I alert, because we are playing puppet Stayman.
  
• If I open 2NT with a four-card major and partner responds 3♣ I announce "Stayman", because we are playing ordinary Stayman.
  

I said that they'll find this difficult in a tournament where the use of convention cards is stricly observed (although they might get away with it by saying they've changed their system recently and not got round to updating the card), and that they can't do it more than once in a round. I can see there could be some advantage to playing such a devious system.

[RMB1]

At Brighton one of the junior players suggested to me the following ruse:

• If I open 2NT with a five-card major and partner responds 3♣ I alert, because we are playing puppet Stayman.
  
• If I open 2NT with a four-card major and partner responds 3♣ I announce "Stayman", because we are playing ordinary Stayman.
  

 

Without wanting to take this suggestion seriously: a similar abuse is possible over 1NT where we have had announce 4-card / alert 5-card stayman for 7 years, and (strong) 1NT with possible 5-card major has become common.

[jeffford76]

The ACBL recently made 2C over 1NT and 3C over 2NT non-alertable regardless of whether they were asking for 4- or 5-card majors. Not that people were intentionally cheating, but that it made it quite a lot easier to remember which way you were playing it depending on whether partner alerted.

[mycroft]

...which has caused two problems (besides the education one because we're still using the "alertable" CCs):

 

- 1NT-3♣ Puppet is still Alertable. If what they hear is "Puppet Stayman isn't Alertable any more, but you Alert the responses", guess what the pairs that play the jump bid as GF Puppet think.

- They don't hear the "Responses to Puppet are still Alertable" bit.

 

The good news is, that when we Alert Keri 2♣, the opponents usually believe us! Also, still better than the Good Old Days of Last Year (of the "I can't remember if we play Puppet or not, let's see if partner Alerts" games).

[barmar]

...which has caused two problems (besides the education one because we're still using the "alertable" CCs):

Has it actually been causing these problems in practice, or are you hypothesizing?

- 1NT-3♣ Puppet is still Alertable. If what they hear is "Puppet Stayman isn't Alertable any more, but you Alert the responses", guess what the pairs that play the jump bid as GF Puppet think.

In my experience, most pairs that play this are relatively experienced, and are able to understand the part of the new regulation that says it only applies to non-jump ♣ bids.

- They don't hear the "Responses to Puppet are still Alertable" bit.

I think most Puppet players understand this. The logic of the regulation change seems pretty obviousl

[blackshoe]

In my experience, most pairs that play this are relatively experienced, and are able to understand the part of the new regulation that says it only applies to non-jump ♣ bids.

I agree with this, if they have read the regulation. Many have not, and the first time they hear about it is when an opponent, after the 2NT-3♣ (alerted) auction says "that no longer requires an alert." So if they take from this that 1NT-3♣ (Puppet) no longer requires an alert, I would not be at all surprised.

[mycroft]

No, this actually happens. Unlike your area, we have (as a result of a teacher who, while good, had massive conventionitis) many C+ pairs who play 1NT-3♣ Puppet, and hear "puppet stayman is not Alertable any more"...so don't. The second is less common, but still happens. Almost all of them, when hearing the justification for the change in the Alertability of the club call, understand completely. They only hear about it *after* the second TD call, though - because the first one, explaining that it isn't Alertable any more, doesn't happen - the opponents just surlily mention it (and none of the reasoning, and none of the follow-ups, and definitely not the "cheapest club call" bit, because they don't think about it).

[chrism]

I too have encountered a number of local players asserting that 1N=3C as Puppet is no longer alertable. These are often the same players who tell me that 1NT is no longer announceable if the range is 15-17, and that they no longer have to announce "could be short" for 1C openings that could be as short as 2 in a 4432 hand.

 

The first and last of these misconceptions are apparently the result of a garbled reading of the latest ACBL regulations. The 15-17 NT myth seems to stem from some clubs who have instituted this as a local policy, and "educated" their players to treat it as gospel, thus breeding a swarm of evangelists.

[mycroft]

...We get a rash of it every April-May, when the snowbirds come back. I think somewhere in Arizona is a hotbed of this.

 

They so want to be WeaSeL-ed out of existence, so as soon as they hear, once, "you don't have to Announce 15-17 any more", not only do they immediately stop, but they spread the infection.

 

I really wish my conscience allowed me to play WeaSeL vs. unAnnounced NTs.

[blackshoe]

I too have encountered a number of local players asserting that 1N=3C as Puppet is no longer alertable. These are often the same players who tell me that 1NT is no longer announceable if the range is 15-17, and that they no longer have to announce "could be short" for 1C openings that could be as short as 2 in a 4432 hand.

 

The first and last of these misconceptions are apparently the result of a garbled reading of the latest ACBL regulations. The 15-17 NT myth seems to stem from some clubs who have instituted this as a local policy, and "educated" their players to treat it as gospel, thus breeding a swarm of evangelists.

Yes. Just to make sure folks reading this come away with the right information:

 

1. The range of a natural 1NT opening always requires an announcement. Caveat: Clubs can do what they like here, but that only applies at the club in question.

2. 3♣ Puppet Stayman does not require an alert if and only if it is a response to a natural 2NT opening or a natural 2NT rebid after an artificial opening. 1NT-3♣ Puppet Stayman does require an alert.

3. 1♣ on a 4=4=3=2 hand is now defined as natural rather than artificial, in spite of having fewer than 3 clubs. The purpose of this is to limit the defenses available to the opponents. It has nothing to do with alert requirements. This opening bid still requires an announcement ("may be short").

[paulg]

Time for the OP to change the title - "Concern over new EBU and ACBL regs" :)