Have the rules changed?

[jillybean]

So, it's been a while. Playing in a ACBL game tonight, against a precision pair who alerted/explained 1♠ 3 card suit as '9-14' and did not alert subsequent bids.

Of course I find this out when I lead against 3nt and choose a mild comment about male bovine excrement , the director then removes me from the tournament, citing zero tolerance. Have the alert rules changed or are they simply ignored?

[gordontd]

Who knows? We need more information.

[Zelandakh]

I assume this is the hand. So the 1♠ was a response to a "15+" 1♣ opening (unclear whether it actually shows ♣ or not but it is definitely not "15+ any") and the "9-14" actually means "9-14, any shape". It seems to me that for someone that knows their system the alerts probably make perfect sense but for anyone else they are not particularly well thought out.

[Zelandakh]

OK I managed to find another hand from the same pair with the correct alert. So at least we know what the 1♠ response means although I am still a little confused about the 1♣ opening.

[Zelandakh]

And here is another non-alerted 3 card suit bid with a clear influence on the subsequent auction that appears to have been condoned. So my conclusion is that the alerting rules simply do not apply to this system.

[Zelandakh]

This 3NT is the best alert description ever!

[hrothgar]

So, it's been a while. Playing in a ACBL game tonight, against a precision pair who alerted/explained 1♠ 3 card suit as '9-14' and did not alert subsequent bids.

Of course I find this out when I lead against 3nt and choose a mild comment about male bovine excrement , the director then removes me from the tournament, citing zero tolerance. Have the alert rules changed or are they simply ignored?

 

So the conventional wisdom is that,

 

while the ACBL sells master points on BBO in "sanctioned" ACBL tournaments, the staff that directs them are not ACBL directors, nor do the actually use ACBL regulations. Rather, they do whatever they feel like.

 

Good luck...

[Zelandakh]

After going through as many hands as I am willing to, my conclusion is that the 1♣ opening is more or less "15+ clubs/balanced; or any GF", with any 5332 hand being treated as balanced. Is that enough information for you to rule Gordon?

[PrecisionL]

Jillybean,

 

I play something similar and alert and describe the bid before posting the bid when playing on BBO.

 

Be aware that many responses to 1♣ may be transfers or artificial these days.

 

Good players have filled out convention cards that post.

[johnu]

This 3NT is the best alert description ever!

Also, the 1♠ opener had 16 HCP. Somebody who was curious might ask why this wasn't opened 1♣ which is 15+.

[johnu]

Jillybean,

 

I play something similar and alert and describe the bid before posting the bid when playing on BBO.

 

Be aware that many responses to 1♣ may be transfers or artificial these days.

 

Good players have filled out convention cards that post.

Having a convention card posted online is great. Giving descriptive and accurate alert messages is even better.

 

Having a convention card but not alerting (alertable bids), or giving inaccurate alert messages is against the rules of the game.

[johnu]

And here is another non-alerted 3 card suit bid with a clear influence on the subsequent auction that appears to have been condoned. So my conclusion is that the alerting rules simply do not apply to this system.

I don't know about applying to this system, but apparently it doesn't apply to the pair playing the system. To be fair, that pair may just be very sloppy in their alerts but they need to be warned to improve their compliance with the alert rules. It's also unknown if there were private messages to the opponents to clarify the missing or incomplete alerts. Based on Jillybean's post, there wasn't any clarification.

[jillybean]

Ok, I really must quit complaining, lower my expectations and stop explaining what our bids actually show.

[jillybean]

It's also unknown if there were private messages to the opponents to clarify the missing or incomplete alerts.

This annoys me. I do believe it is the opponents duty to provide full disclosure, not my job to ask the right questions or assume explanations are incomplete and ask for clarification. But I must admit, it has come to that.

[jillybean]

So the conventional wisdom is that,

 

while the ACBL sells master points on BBO in "sanctioned" ACBL tournaments, the staff that directs them are not ACBL directors, nor do the actually use ACBL regulations. Rather, they do whatever they feel like.

 

Good luck...

 

Right, thanks.

[mycroft]

A reminder that the ACBL games on BBO (as opposed to the recent sectional and regional at home) are BBO's sanctioned ACBL club. While, like many clubs in real life, some TDs in this club are ACBL tournament-rated, many are club-rated only (like many clubs in real life).

 

I would prefer better explanations myself, and better rulings from club TDs when faced with misleading explanations. But I've played at clubs too.

[nige1]

• BBO provides cards for different basic systems, that pairs can adopt or adapt.
• TDs should make system-cards compulsory as part of tournament COC.
• TDs should redress damage due to inadequate disclosure and consider additional penalties.
• For a level playing field and a more enjoyable game, players need to learn better habits.

[mycroft]

¡Si, Señor! Por favor, enjoy the view of that beautiful windmill on your right...

[nige1]

¡Si, Señor! Por favor, enjoy the view of that beautiful windmill on your right...

Sancho has a point :)

[mycroft]

And Don Quixote also had a point - and so do you. And that was (I'm told) Cervantes' point.

 

I am pushing for more compliance (and stronger enforcement) with CC requirements locally (especially as Alerting in the ACBL is going to change tremendously RSN, and many things, in particular, aggressive openers, that are currently HU&U Alertable will no longer be Alertable or Pre-Alertable). As far as I'm concerned, a mandate from Management that for the next year after we go back to RL tournaments that failure to have your CC in sight during play triggers the same immediate no-tolerance 1st warning and 2nd 1/4 board penalty for cell phone use, TDs, you will enforce this in all districts - will solve the "attitude" that CCs are optional, despite the daily notices in the Bulletins and...

 

But oh, the whining, especially on That Other Site (except for Debbie R., of course!) And Management won't do it, because as always, the players want *everybody else* to follow the rules, but how dare you require *me* to do this?

[barmar]

So, it's been a while. Playing in a ACBL game tonight, against a precision pair who alerted/explained 1♠ 3 card suit as '9-14' and did not alert subsequent bids.

Of course I find this out when I lead against 3nt and choose a mild comment about male bovine excrement , the director then removes me from the tournament, citing zero tolerance. Have the alert rules changed or are they simply ignored?

Violations of the alert rules is not an excuse for using profanity, and ZT is still in effect.

[Zelandakh]

Violations of the alert rules is not an excuse for using profanity, and ZT is still in effect.

Nor is a ZT violation a reason for the TD to ignore the original complaint though is it? Which clearly is the case here as the pair continue to alert in the same sloppy way. Indeed, having the TD take no action against them but penalising the opp is probably complete validation for them that they are doing everything correctly. In this way a TD can quickly make the problem worse.

[pescetom]

I am pushing for more compliance (and stronger enforcement) with CC requirements locally (especially as Alerting in the ACBL is going to change tremendously RSN, and many things, in particular, aggressive openers, that are currently HU&U Alertable will no longer be Alertable or Pre-Alertable). As far as I'm concerned, a mandate from Management that for the next year after we go back to RL tournaments that failure to have your CC in sight during play triggers the same immediate no-tolerance 1st warning and 2nd 1/4 board penalty for cell phone use, TDs, you will enforce this in all districts - will solve the "attitude" that CCs are optional, despite the daily notices in the Bulletins and...

 

But oh, the whining, especially on That Other Site (except for Debbie R., of course!) And Management won't do it, because as always, the players want *everybody else* to follow the rules, but how dare you require *me* to do this?

 

But the management has to be behind it too, BBO seems to have lost enthusiasm about disclosure and the WBF apparently does not care what happens online.

BBO does have a rudimental CC mechanism, but it does not trigger alert-explanations and there is no way that a TD can impose a specific CC or propogate it except by peer to peer distribution between individuals.

Not that f2f was much better. No idea about ACBL, but my federation tried and failed to make CCs truly obligatory many years ago, since then it has been tacitly accepted that they are optional at lower levels of competition.