Do you alert cue bids (Michaels, UCB etc)

[Vampyr]

I seem to remember reading that psyches were once banned in other RAs too, and I assure you that when playing without psyches it still feels much like bridge. I think the WBF tolerates decidedly more important deviations than this from RAs, even if less direct in law terms. But I hope and am sure that Italy will get into line on club level psyches sooner or later.

 

I believe that the ACBL ban some psyches, so they are also playing a non-bridge trick-taking game.

[Vampyr]

My own preference would be for clearly formalised announcements for a few very common conventional bids, such as "Asks for majors, does not promise a major or strength" , "Shows hearts", "Shows spades and a minor, at least 4-5". But I could live with going back to the old days. I think either is better than the current ACBL Alert chart.

 

The trouble with the old days is that Stayman was alerted along with other non-Stayman 2♣ bids. Major-suit transfers similar. But these other treatments are rare, so it wouldn’t occur to people to ask, when they might benefit from knowing; if not in the auction, in the play.

[pescetom]

Had a case on Sunday where the 2♣ response was announced as Stayman and I was called because the opponent thought that Stayman promised a 4-card major (promissory) whereas the person who bid it hadn't a 4-card major at all. (They didn't ask).

 

More interesting is the fact that the 1NT bidder thought that they played promissory Stayman, but the Stayman bidder thought they didn't (or forgot - as he plays non-promissory with other partners). Had there been a requirement to state "Promissory Stayman" or "Non Promissory Stayman", I would have had more work to do than just quote from the Blue Book)

This is the first year of announcements in Italy and one thing that is not working well is Stayman. Use of name aside, the intention of the RA is that the announcement indicates non-promissory, whereas almost everyone plays promissory, so really should be alerting instead. Also there is an announcement for Puppet Stayman, but no definition of what that promises or means. Last but not least, it seems one can not announce Stayman or transfers when 1nt was bid in interference rather than as an opening, even if Systems On is the written agreement. Hopefully we will clear all this up in a review before next year.

[barmar]

I believe that the ACBL ban some psyches, so they are also playing a non-bridge trick-taking game.

Law 40B2(a)(v) permits an RA to restrict the use of psychic artificial calls. All of ACBL's psychic prohibitions are artificial.

 

That clause was added in the 2007 version of the Laws. Prior to that ACBL prohibited psyching strong, artificial openings, which was not legal; rather than getting ACBL to change, they changed the Law to allow it.

[pescetom]

Law 40B2(a)(v) permits an RA to restrict the use of psychic artificial calls. All of ACBL's psychic prohibitions are artificial.

 

That clause was added in the 2007 version of the Laws. Prior to that ACBL prohibited psyching strong, artificial openings, which was not legal; rather than getting ACBL to change, they changed the Law to allow it.

 

So that's how it happened - I always thought that allowance was incoherent. Something similar to the exception granted to Multicolor in the WBF Brown Sticker definition. Of course it wasn't ACBL that wanted that, and that may be an excuse for them deciding to impose their own definition of Destructive Methods (which ironically enough seems more liberal than Brown Sticker).

[pescetom]

There is a committee working on the new alert rules - I am chairing it. As you suspect, the main goal is not to make major changes, but rather to make the rules more clear, and to make rulings more predictable. It's still too early for me to have any estimate of when a draft might be finished. I'm sure we will provide it for comments once we have it as we did with the new convention charts.

 

Best of luck, please keep us informed.

On bridgewinners I just read the following surreal quote, which I think indicates some rethinking is necessary :

 

"I don't want to win by violating the rules, but the only alerted meaning of 2♦ here is a genuine offer to play in diamonds. I have been told and confirmed again and again that Bailey isn't an alertable convention (as much as some people would like to make it one). You are free to question the wisdom of the alert procedure (and you are sometimes even in a position to change it). I am not.

 

If I alert the 2♦ bid, opponents have every right to assume that the bid shows long diamonds. That WOULD be quite misleading."

[Vampyr]

Law 40B2(a)(v) permits an RA to restrict the use of psychic artificial calls. All of ACBL's psychic prohibitions are artificial.

 

That clause was added in the 2007 version of the Laws. Prior to that ACBL prohibited psyching strong, artificial openings, which was not legal; rather than getting ACBL to change, they changed the Law to allow it.

 

Why does this always happen?

[weejonnie]

This is the first year of announcements in Italy and one thing that is not working well is Stayman. Use of name aside, the intention of the RA is that the announcement indicates non-promissory, whereas almost everyone plays promissory, so really should be alerting instead. Also there is an announcement for Puppet Stayman, but no definition of what that promises or means. Last but not least, it seems one can not announce Stayman or transfers when 1nt was bid in interference rather than as an opening, even if Systems On is the written agreement. Hopefully we will clear all this up in a review before next year.

Yep - we don't announce in a competitive auction either. In fact in the EBU very few bids are announceable.

 

1. Only bids are announceable.
   
2. Only announce your partner's bids, not your own
   
3. It is only your first bid that might be announceable.
   
4. Once both sides have made a 'non-pass' no bids are announceable
   

[blackshoe]

Why does this always happen?

Steph, where does a 500 pound canary sit?

[Vampyr]

Steph, where does a 500 pound canary sit?

 

Yes, quite. And so the rest of us must live in fear wondering what the ACBL will come up with next.

 

I honestly don’t understand about the “having none” thing, because The ACBL already had it as an election. So why did they need the rest of the world to do as they did? Luckily, it has not caught on here; well it has a bit, but not to the extent that I have sometimes seen it when playing in America. Of course, if you don’t ask about every suit on every hand (or never) you are passing UI. I think all we can really do is hope that this doesn’t matter too often.

 

I do hope that the ACBL do not manage to change the lawbook enough that the only way to instruct dummy to follow suit is to say “play”. Luckily, this has not caught on at all here, and I will probably quit the game if it ever does. Because it drives me spare.

[blackshoe]

I do hope that the ACBL do not manage to change the lawbook enough that the only way to instruct dummy to follow suit is to say “play”. Luckily, this has not caught on at all here, and I will probably quit the game if it ever does. Because it drives me spare.

I understand. I feel the same way. I argued for a while that "play" is equivalent to "play anything", but I got nowhere, so I gave up. Law 46A is very simple. If players would just follow it, there would be a lot fewer problems at the table — and no need for Law 46B.

 

Come to think of it, the evolution of "play" as an instruction, at least around here, is a prime example of how people are like sheep. We have a pretty good player here who went off to Florida one winter. When he came back he brought "play" with him, and soon after "everybody" was doing it. :(

[Vampyr]

I understand. I feel the same way. I argued for a while that "play" is equivalent to "play anything", but I got nowhere, so I gave up. Law 46A is very simple. If players would just follow it, there would be a lot fewer problems at the table — and no need for Law 46B.

 

Come to think of it, the evolution of "play" as an instruction, at least around here, is a prime example of how people are like sheep. We have a pretty good player here who went off to Florida one winter. When he came back he brought "play" with him, and soon after "everybody" was doing it. :(

 

Yeses, I think that “play”means play anything.

 

I have an American friend whom I broke out of the habit, at least when playing with me, whenever he said “play” I would ask, “which one”. It was very effective. Anyway, maybe “play” will fall out of vogue. If everyone is doing it, then it is no longer too cool for words.

[jeffford76]

I don’t understand getting worked up about “play”. No one using it thinks it means “play anything”. It is shorthand for “follow suit with your lowest card”.

[blackshoe]

If you say so.

[jeffford76]

If you say so.

 

Are you seriously going to argue that someone saying “play” doesn’t mean that?

[pran]

Are you seriously going to argue that someone saying “play” doesn’t mean that?

In the case of an incomplete or invalid designation, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):

{...}

5. If declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank (as by saying ‘play anything’ or words of like meaning) either defender may designate the play from dummy.

[sanst]

Are you seriously going to argue that someone saying “play” doesn’t mean that?

You should designate at least the rank in some way, like “high” or “low”, otherwise the defenders can decide for you. Given the chance, I do, calling the TD if the declarer or dummy protests. Doesn’t make you popular, though. But what is wrong with playing according to the laws?

[blackshoe]

I am seriously going to argue that the proper way to call for a card from dummy is to name the rank and denomination of the card, and that not doing it that way is an infraction of law.

[barmar]

Pran, are you arguing that when dummy has a card in the suit being led (e.g. clubs), "play" is intended as "play anything" (so opponents can choose the card) rather than "play a club" (which means the lowest club)?

 

Have you ever, in your life, encountered a declarer who actually meant this (cases where all the legal cards are equivalent don't count)?

[Vampyr]

Pran, are you arguing that when dummy has a card in the suit being led (e.g. clubs), "play" is intended as "play anything" (so opponents can choose the card) rather than "play a club" (which means the lowest club)?

 

Have you ever, in your life, encountered a declarer who actually meant this (cases where all the legal cards are equivalent don't count)?

 

It doesn’t really matter what they mean, does it? Nobody knows that; they know only what the person said. If the defendersconsistently choose a card, then perhaps this odious practice wikl eventually stop.

[pran]

Pran, are you arguing that when dummy has a card in the suit being led (e.g. clubs), "play" is intended as "play anything" (so opponents can choose the card) rather than "play a club" (which means the lowest club)?

 

Have you ever, in your life, encountered a declarer who actually meant this (cases where all the legal cards are equivalent don't count)?

 

1: I assume that you noticed in my post the important clause in Law 46B: except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible

 

2: Yes, I have indeed encountered Law 46B5 to literally kicking in, but never in a situation where it matters which (legal) card is played from Dummy. Consequently nobody bothered - "why create problems where no problem exists".

 

Exmple: Declarer's hand is high, he plays his cards one by one and do not care whether Dummy discards an Ace or a deuce. So he just says: "play" (or "play a card").

[jeffford76]

I'm just baffled that people either

a) truly think that people who say "play" really do mean "play anything"

b) think that people who say "play" mean "play low" but somehow this is so offensive to them that they want to enforce it as "play anything"

[blackshoe]

If I were to express the desire that people do anything in particular, it would be that they comply with Law 46B1. If everyone did that all the time there would be no occasion for confusion or controversy over what was meant.

[sanst]

I'm just baffled that people either

a) truly think that people who say "play" really do mean "play anything"

b) think that people who say "play" mean "play low" but somehow this is so offensive to them that they want to enforce it as "play anything"

I’m baffled that you think that law 46 should be ignored. You don’t seem to understand that the dummy doesn’t decide anything, but is actually an automaton acting upon the instructions of the declarer. And if the declarer fails to give clear and complete instructions, law 46B gives the answer, especially 46B5. I would think that “Play” is part of the collection of “‘Play anything’ or words of like meaning”. If that’s not the case, please explain.

[weejonnie]

Yeses, I think that “play”means play anything.

 

I have an American friend whom I broke out of the habit, at least when playing with me, whenever he said “play” I would ask, “which one”. It was very effective. Anyway, maybe “play” will fall out of vogue. If everyone is doing it, then it is no longer too cool for words.

 

Just using the word "play" automatically indicates the lowest card of the suit - Law 46

 

"2. If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of

the suit indicated."

 

But only because dummy ensures that dummy follows suit. Otherwise 5. would apply.

 

"5. If declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank (as by saying ‘play

anything’ or words of like meaning) either defender may designate the play from dummy."