ACBL tournaments Announcements and alerts
#1
Posted 2020-October-25, 15:32
#2
Posted 2020-October-26, 11:14
Most clubs I have seen that
Note that the BBO ACBL events are the BBO "club", which may also have this rule; I don't know, not having played in those events recently, and not having played a 15-17 NT since a fill-in game in January (and always announcing "15-17" like I'm supposed to even in clubs that would allow this, for a number of reasons).
Note that many of those who believe that 15-17 shouldn't have to be mentioned also believe that transfers also don't need to be Announced. I do hope this comes back to bite them when playing against H and G (who, correctly, don't Announce or Alert their 2♥ or 2♠ bids).
#3
Posted 2020-October-26, 13:29
mycroft, on 2020-October-26, 11:14, said:
These are the same people who don't believe that one needs to announce/alert inferences from superaccepts not made.
Unfortunately, such people (barmar excluded ) also seem to end up writing the announce/alert rules in most RAs.
#4
Posted 2020-October-26, 14:56
pescetom, on 2020-October-26, 13:29, said:
Unfortunately, such people (barmar excluded ) also seem to end up writing the announce/alert rules in most RAs.
If a superaccept is always made with four cards, then a regular accept showing three or fewer should definitely be alerted. Otherwise, the fact that they didn’t make a superaccept is obvious by inspection. So why alert it? Indeed, why not alert every bid?
If you want to know what their superaccepts are, ask them. Whatever their scheme is, all you will really learn is that they don’t have 4 cards and a maximum.
#5
Posted 2020-October-26, 17:00
What I was saying is that I see the following auction quite frequently:
What I continue to say is that this auction is also fairly common, with a pair I frequently play with and against:
Replying to the digression (because the fact that transfers have to be Announced (or Alerted, for a short time longer) is black-letter, players' belief that "why should I have to say something when we play the 'normal' way?" notwithstanding):
The ACBL believes that many if not most negative inferences are not Alertable. So if you superaccept with all hands with 4 trump, then failure to superaccept is explicitly Not Alertable (in the partnership I play this, I do anyway). If failure to support double *tends to deny* (or, *actually denies*) 3 trump, again, the pass is Not Alertable. And so on.
The Draft Alert Procedure doesn't even mention either of those as a possibility (except by negative inference in the "natural bids" section, where it carefully does not say "do not Alert [bids not in this list]", in case your Natural call is odd enough that you really believe the opponents would be damaged by the silence.
Other RAs have other ideas.
#6
Posted 2020-October-26, 20:57
mycroft, on 2020-October-26, 17:00, said:
What I was saying is that I see the following auction quite frequently:
What I continue to say is that this auction is also fairly common, with a pair I frequently play with and against:
Replying to the digression (because the fact that transfers have to be Announced (or Alerted, for a short time longer) is black-letter, players' belief that "why should I have to say something when we play the 'normal' way?" notwithstanding):
The ACBL believes that many if not most negative inferences are not Alertable. So if you superaccept with all hands with 4 trump, then failure to superaccept is explicitly Not Alertable (in the partnership I play this, I do anyway). If failure to support double *tends to deny* (or, *actually denies*) 3 trump, again, the pass is Not Alertable. And so on.
The Draft Alert Procedure doesn't even mention either of those as a possibility (except by negative inference in the "natural bids" section, where it carefully does not say "do not Alert [bids not in this list]", in case your Natural call is odd enough that you really believe the opponents would be damaged by the silence.
Other RAs have other ideas.
EBU players are pretty diligent about announcing NT ranges, Stayman and Jacoby/Texas transfers; both online and in person. I’m not sure about alerting a simple accept which denies four trumps, because not a whole lot of people play it, or maybe they do but I have not played against them when the matter came up. I am pretty sure that this is alertable in the EBU. In any case, it should be. The ACBL seem, the past few years, to be moving in the wrong direction in the area of alert regulations. Of course SOP in the ACBL is the players’ non-compliance tail wagging the regulatory dog.
#7
Posted 2020-October-26, 23:03
The Alertability or otherwise of things like "very weak openers or preempts", or "superaccepts on all 4-trump", or 1♠ Precision-4♠ "could be a flat 13" depends strongly on how much the relevant RA believes people should be surprised by them. In the ACBL, the belief is that "Natural treatments are not surprising, except (list), Artificial ones are surprising, except (other list)". There's a level above "people would expect that, even if it's not common" and "some pairs will do it, but you probably can count them without removing your shoes" where things move from "surprising and Alertable" to "uncommon and not Alertable".
I think for the superaccept thing, recommended Active Ethics says "don't alert 1NT-2♦; 2♥, but if you declare, explain the inference before the opening lead". Given the prevalence of the LOTT in the world, I think "we follow the Law when it's not obviously wrong" (or even when it is!) is not uncommon enough that you shouldn't expect it.
#8
Posted 2020-October-26, 23:32
mycroft, on 2020-October-26, 23:03, said:
The Alertability or otherwise of things like "very weak openers or preempts", or "superaccepts on all 4-trump", or 1♠ Precision-4♠ "could be a flat 13" depends strongly on how much the relevant RA believes people should be surprised by them. In the ACBL, the belief is that "Natural treatments are not surprising, except (list), Artificial ones are surprising, except (other list)". There's a level above "people would expect that, even if it's not common" and "some pairs will do it, but you probably can count them without removing your shoes" where things move from "surprising and Alertable" to "uncommon and not Alertable".
I think for the superaccept thing, recommended Active Ethics says "don't alert 1NT-2♦; 2♥, but if you declare, explain the inference before the opening lead". Given the prevalence of the LOTT in the world, I think "we follow the Law when it's not obviously wrong" (or even when it is!) is not uncommon enough that you shouldn't expect it.
In the EBU there is nothing that is explained after the auction unless a question is asked, so the 3- simple accept should be (and I think is) alertable.
The EBU alert regulations don’t really need lists like the ones you mention above. There is a consistent underlying philosophy. For example 2-level opening bids (and some at the one level, ie 1NT and short club) are announced if natural and alerted if not. This scheme mainly continues throughout the auction. For doubles below 3NT, you alert over a NT bid unless it is penalty, and over a suit bid unless it is takeout. Occasionally this is counter-intuitive, but simplicity and consistency make the regulations much easier to grasp and remember.
I kind of think lists are a poor idea, because they can never be exhaustive. And judging how likely people are to be surprised seems not only a poor approach but also impossible; if I went to play in the North I would probably be surprised by everything.
#9
Posted 2020-October-27, 15:53
Vampyr, on 2020-October-26, 14:56, said:
If you want to know what their superaccepts are, ask them. Whatever their scheme is, all you will really learn is that they don’t have 4 cards and a maximum.
I agree with all your posts here except this one, and even then I agree with the first sentence.
The fact that they did not make a superaccept is only obvious if you know or assume they are playing superaccepts.
Why should one make this assumption? And which superaccepts, with what meanings and rules?
The duty is on them to explain their methods when not natural, as always.
The duty is on us to make the due inferences, on an equal footing.
And no, it is not a great idea (although my right) that I ask about any superaccepts when they simply complete a transfer without alert. It might convey (rightly or wrongly) a message of particular interest in the suit.
Nor are superaccept methods limited to 4 cards and a maximum: we show 3 cards maximum, 4 cards any strength and 5 cards any strength, for instance. I think our opponents have a right to know that, and not just when we do superaccept.
#10
Posted 2020-October-28, 10:38
kmb111621, on 2020-October-25, 15:32, said:
There are different sponsoring organizations involved, and SOs get to set their own alerting rules. ACBL encourages clubs to copy their regulations, but doesn't require it.
Regionals follow the rules ACBL enforces at f2f tourneys, so all NT ranges have to be announced.
Speedballs are sponsored by BBO, not ACBL. For expediency, the rule there is that anything other than 15-17 must be announced, and this is sent as a message to the players when the tourney starts.
Virtual club games are sponsored by the individual clubs. Most clubs follow the ACBL regulations.
#11
Posted 2020-October-28, 14:07
pescetom, on 2020-October-27, 15:53, said:
Why should one make this assumption? And which superaccepts, with what meanings and rules?
The duty is on them to explain their methods when not natural, as always.
The duty is on us to make the due inferences, on an equal footing.
Nearly everyone has some version of superaccepts.
Quote
If you just ask in general? No.
Quote
They can ask. Also be sure to have it marked clearly on your card.
Also, it is likely that the opponents, if they need to know about your superaccept scheme, will need to know in the play, not in the auction. They can ask then.
You will never convince people to accept a transfer and give the explanation “this is not a superaccept”. Denying a specific number of cards is another matter.