[SteelWheel]

Sorry, I refuse to let go on this point--perhaps someone smarter than I would do so, but I think I'm getting flamed unduely.

Quote

Yes, but not in this way. If you earn a reputation as a good TD and AC member, you can use that status to make people listen to your educative talk in columns and such.

But in a concrete appeal, be professional and stick to the case. "2♦ as non-forcing is standard and your opps rightly assumed a player of your level to know this" is sufficient. No need to tell them why it is standard. That only blurs the case.

Here in ACBL-land, I am a certified director, fwiw. However, I have not directed a game in quite some time, and have no desire to do so.

As for being professional and sticking to the case: I've tried to follow the course of action suggested in these sorts of situations. Whereupon, the appellants generally demand to know WHY the committee members believe such a call to be non-forcing and non-alertable. At this stage, I have three options:

1. Refuse to discuss the matter further. This makes the other committee members and I appear to be rude or discourteous. Beyond that, it runs the risk of appearing as if the committee has ruled in a whimsical or capricious fashion, or out of some personal animus against the appellants, or out of favoritism to the non-offending side. This is not a desirable outcome.

2. Suggest the appellants consult some outside authority or basic book on bidding. Perhaps this would work with some, but I've never seen it. Remember, most bridge players (here on BBO, or out in the real world), are "experts", in their own minds, at least. So when I take this approach, I usually receive a response something like this: "How dare you suggest that I consult a 'baby' book on bridge? After all, I'm a Neon Life Master with 2000 platinum points."

3. Attempt to enlighten and inform that the call is non-forcing and non-alertable, for all the reasons we have discussed. Perhaps there might be a bruised ego for a moment, but over the long haul, I think the bridge community is best served in this manner.

Also, fwiw: Appeals committees are the only place where I would or could ever get drawn into such a debate. I learned a long time ago how to behave appropriately whilst playing this game. I never give lessons at the table. Never berate partner or the opponents. Maybe this is why I'm taking such strong exception to some of the comments Luis and others have made. I just don't think of myself as the bridge ogre I'm being made out to be here.

I know we've gotten way off the original topic, so maybe it's just best if we all let this go. I promise to be on my best behavior the next time I serve on an appeals committee, and hopefully we've all learned a little something from this spirited discussion.

[mikestar]

SteelWheel, on Mar 3 2006, 08:11 AM, said:

... Here in the US though, there are a large number of what I'll refer to as "Flight B Secretary Bird" types--some of these people have been playing so long, and earned so many ACBL ma$terpoints, that they have become "Flight A Secretary Bird" types...

I've done a fair amount of directing and and I can't disagree with SteelWheel's take on this type of player. They are trying to win in committee what they aren't good enough to win at the table--and this kind of bridge lawyering drives players away. Perhaps this is one of the reasons the ACBL is a dying organization.

[keylime]

If the "expert" is fussing about a nonalerted 2♦, I would want to drag the guy into a Competition and Ethics hearing for bringing the game into disrepute for claiming to be an "expert" and then failing to play bridge. And yes, I as well am a certified director - I would have zero qualms about filling out the recorder memo myself to stop this nonsense.

There is no reason to alert a natural call unless it's so totally unexpected (some people play 1♣-2♣ as natural and prealerted me on it). 2♦ is not unexpected. It's a player bidding their God-given hand. Surely if bridge is ever going to recapture people we must emphasize SOME naturality to the game.

I completely and resoundingly agree with both steel's and mike's posting. I've been dragged to committee enough times by players that couldn't win it at the table, because they couldn't believe that a 1NT overcall was NOT natural, or that a cuebid doesn't have to show an anchor suit, and therefore claimed the "I was damaged because I don't understand their bidding!" card. Thankfully, the panel stated in emphatic terms what I wanted to say to them: EDUCATE YOURSELVES.

With this said, I must admit that the ACBL's track record at nationals is trying to improve with regards to what they term as "frivolous appeals".

[Gerben42]

Quote

In Germany non-forcing 2/1 shifts are alertable, so this would be alertable under our regulations. If your regulations say it's not alertable than it's not. Period.

This is just another of many silly rules. I'm a certified director (in Germany too!) but I would NEVER adjust if someone claims damage if this 2♦ was not alerted.

Now 1♥ (1♠) 2♦ is different, this is played as forcing or non-forcing.
I know it's hard to put this into rules but maybe it's time to STOP the craziness in which natural bids require an alert.

[cherdano]

luis, on Mar 3 2006, 05:28 PM, said:

Sigi_BC84, on Mar 3 2006, 03:04 PM, said:

In Germany non-forcing 2/1 shifts are alertable, so this would be alertable under our regulations.  If your regulations say it's not alertable than it's not.  Period.

Alertability is not about what one deems to be "obvious" but what the regulations demand.  Maybe these regulations are silly or inconsistent but that doesn't change the facts.  Therefore I don't undertstand why everybody here is repeating the argument that because this is so "obvious" and "natural" you don't have to alert it.

--Sigi

I bet you a beer 2♦ is not alertable in Germany with the 1NT overcall in the middle.

You owe Sigi a beer.

Sorry Luis, but it is very dangerous to assume that German bridge regulations make any sense. (Unfortunately, there are way bigger L&E problems than this in Germany.)

Arend

[luis]

cherdano, on Mar 4 2006, 10:06 PM, said:

luis, on Mar 3 2006, 05:28 PM, said:

Sigi_BC84, on Mar 3 2006, 03:04 PM, said:

In Germany non-forcing 2/1 shifts are alertable, so this would be alertable under our regulations.  If your regulations say it's not alertable than it's not.  Period.

Alertability is not about what one deems to be "obvious" but what the regulations demand.  Maybe these regulations are silly or inconsistent but that doesn't change the facts.  Therefore I don't undertstand why everybody here is repeating the argument that because this is so "obvious" and "natural" you don't have to alert it.

--Sigi

I bet you a beer 2♦ is not alertable in Germany with the 1NT overcall in the middle.

You owe Sigi a beer.

Sorry Luis, but it is very dangerous to assume that German bridge regulations make any sense. (Unfortunately, there are way bigger L&E problems than this in Germany.)

Arend

Well I owe Sigi a beer :-)

[Sigi_BC84]

luis, on Mar 3 2006, 04:28 PM, said:

I bet you a beer 2♦ is not alertable in Germany with the 1NT overcall in the middle.

Um, actually I have checked the German regulations before posting as to not embarass myself here, and the bid is absolutely alertable (it doesn't matter what the interference bid meant, a non-forcing shift on the one or two level is always alertable).

If that is actually not the case then I'd be thankful to be pointed to an official source.

--Sigi

[Sigi_BC84]

luis, on Mar 4 2006, 11:46 PM, said:

Well I owe Sigi a beer :-)

Prosit!