jallerton Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Yes, I'm surprised that Ed hasn't split the topic yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 If I recall, there's a couple messages that could go in either thread, and I was trying to figure out if I could put them in both. I can't. I'll take another look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 On reflection, I'm not sure how much the comments about splitting the thread or changing the title are meant substantively, and how much they're meant to tweak me just a bit. As it turns out that folks seem to have stopped talking about EBU regs, the last page or so is all about ACBL regs, I'm inclined to just leave the thread alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted September 25, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 On the EBU front we had a sequence at the weekend where 3 of the 4 players at a goodish standard were unaware an alert was needed: P-(1♠)-2♥-(2♠)4♦(fit) So I'm not sure how well the information is getting across. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted September 25, 2013 Report Share Posted September 25, 2013 On the EBU front we had a sequence at the weekend where 3 of the 4 players at a goodish standard were unaware an alert was needed: P-(1♠)-2♥-(2♠)4♦(fit) So I'm not sure how well the information is getting across. I'm not sure *how* the information is getting across. In any case, here the confusion seems to have been caused by the fact that the 4♦ bidder had already called. I think that this is a minor hurdle in terms of getting used to the regulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted September 26, 2013 Report Share Posted September 26, 2013 I'm not sure *how* the information is getting across. In any case, here the confusion seems to have been caused by the fact that the 4♦ bidder had already called. I think that this is a minor hurdle in terms of getting used to the regulation.I am sure it is accidental, but it seems the ACBL has actually done something right. They say, "starting with the Opener's second turn..." --- avoiding "round of bidding" in case someone might think a Pass is a bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted September 26, 2013 Report Share Posted September 26, 2013 So I'm not sure how well the information is getting across.It's been less than two months, what do you expect? I probably would have failed to alert this at the table, and I'm not in any confusion as to what the alerting regulations say. I just haven't seen an alertable 4-level bid by opener's RHO come up yet so I wouldn't have even considered whether this might be one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted September 26, 2013 Report Share Posted September 26, 2013 I am sure it is accidental, but it seems the ACBL has actually done something right. They say, "starting with the Opener's second turn..." --- avoiding "round of bidding" in case someone might think a Pass is a bid.But do they define "Opener"? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted September 26, 2013 Report Share Posted September 26, 2013 The trend towards ever more complex alert rules means that more contests are decided by directors. Better to require alerts/announcements for all calls but allow players to switch off opponents' alerts/announcements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted September 26, 2013 Report Share Posted September 26, 2013 The trend towards ever more complex alert rules means that more contests are decided by directors. Can you give us examples where this has been the case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted September 26, 2013 Report Share Posted September 26, 2013 Can you give us examples where this has been the case It seems common sense that the more complex alert-rules become, the more alert irregularities occur, and the more results are decided by alert-rulings. Ordinary players don't have the access to ruling-records that Gordontd does. If you reassure me that my belief is mistaken then it will amaze me but, of course, I'll believe you. Unfortunately, now, with the phasing out of appeal-committees and the inhibiting effect of director-panels, it will be even harder for ordinary players to combat further sophistication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 26, 2013 Report Share Posted September 26, 2013 But do they define "Opener"?ROFL! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.