[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2013-September-04, 07:10, said:

At Brighton one of the junior players suggested to me the following ruse:

• If I open 2NT with a five-card major and partner responds 3♣ I alert, because we are playing puppet Stayman.
  
• If I open 2NT with a four-card major and partner responds 3♣ I announce "Stayman", because we are playing ordinary Stayman.

Without wanting to take this suggestion seriously: a similar abuse is possible over 1NT where we have had announce 4-card / alert 5-card stayman for 7 years, and (strong) 1NT with possible 5-card major has become common.

[jeffford76]

The ACBL recently made 2C over 1NT and 3C over 2NT non-alertable regardless of whether they were asking for 4- or 5-card majors. Not that people were intentionally cheating, but that it made it quite a lot easier to remember which way you were playing it depending on whether partner alerted.

[mycroft]

...which has caused two problems (besides the education one because we're still using the "alertable" CCs):

- 1NT-3♣ Puppet is still Alertable. If what they hear is "Puppet Stayman isn't Alertable any more, but you Alert the responses", guess what the pairs that play the jump bid as GF Puppet think.
- They don't hear the "Responses to Puppet are still Alertable" bit.

The good news is, that when we Alert Keri 2♣, the opponents usually believe us! Also, still better than the Good Old Days of Last Year (of the "I can't remember if we play Puppet or not, let's see if partner Alerts" games).

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2013-September-04, 10:10, said:

...which has caused two problems (besides the education one because we're still using the "alertable" CCs):

Has it actually been causing these problems in practice, or are you hypothesizing?

Quote

- 1NT-3♣ Puppet is still Alertable. If what they hear is "Puppet Stayman isn't Alertable any more, but you Alert the responses", guess what the pairs that play the jump bid as GF Puppet think.

In my experience, most pairs that play this are relatively experienced, and are able to understand the part of the new regulation that says it only applies to non-jump ♣ bids.

Quote

- They don't hear the "Responses to Puppet are still Alertable" bit.

I think most Puppet players understand this. The logic of the regulation change seems pretty obviousl

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-September-05, 09:22, said:

In my experience, most pairs that play this are relatively experienced, and are able to understand the part of the new regulation that says it only applies to non-jump ♣ bids.

I agree with this, if they have read the regulation. Many have not, and the first time they hear about it is when an opponent, after the 2NT-3♣ (alerted) auction says "that no longer requires an alert." So if they take from this that 1NT-3♣ (Puppet) no longer requires an alert, I would not be at all surprised.

[mycroft]

No, this actually happens. Unlike your area, we have (as a result of a teacher who, while good, had massive conventionitis) many C+ pairs who play 1NT-3♣ Puppet, and hear "puppet stayman is not Alertable any more"...so don't. The second is less common, but still happens. Almost all of them, when hearing the justification for the change in the Alertability of the club call, understand completely. They only hear about it *after* the second TD call, though - because the first one, explaining that it isn't Alertable any more, doesn't happen - the opponents just surlily mention it (and none of the reasoning, and none of the follow-ups, and definitely not the "cheapest club call" bit, because they don't think about it).

[chrism]

I too have encountered a number of local players asserting that 1N=3C as Puppet is no longer alertable. These are often the same players who tell me that 1NT is no longer announceable if the range is 15-17, and that they no longer have to announce "could be short" for 1C openings that could be as short as 2 in a 4432 hand.

The first and last of these misconceptions are apparently the result of a garbled reading of the latest ACBL regulations. The 15-17 NT myth seems to stem from some clubs who have instituted this as a local policy, and "educated" their players to treat it as gospel, thus breeding a swarm of evangelists.

[mycroft]

...We get a rash of it every April-May, when the snowbirds come back. I think somewhere in Arizona is a hotbed of this.

They so want to be WeaSeL-ed out of existence, so as soon as they hear, once, "you don't have to Announce 15-17 any more", not only do they immediately stop, but they spread the infection.

I really wish my conscience allowed me to play WeaSeL vs. unAnnounced NTs.

[blackshoe]

chrism, on 2013-September-05, 14:11, said:

I too have encountered a number of local players asserting that 1N=3C as Puppet is no longer alertable. These are often the same players who tell me that 1NT is no longer announceable if the range is 15-17, and that they no longer have to announce "could be short" for 1C openings that could be as short as 2 in a 4432 hand.

The first and last of these misconceptions are apparently the result of a garbled reading of the latest ACBL regulations. The 15-17 NT myth seems to stem from some clubs who have instituted this as a local policy, and "educated" their players to treat it as gospel, thus breeding a swarm of evangelists.

Yes. Just to make sure folks reading this come away with the right information:

1. The range of a natural 1NT opening always requires an announcement. Caveat: Clubs can do what they like here, but that only applies at the club in question.
2. 3♣ Puppet Stayman does not require an alert if and only if it is a response to a natural 2NT opening or a natural 2NT rebid after an artificial opening. 1NT-3♣ Puppet Stayman does require an alert.
3. 1♣ on a 4=4=3=2 hand is now defined as natural rather than artificial, in spite of having fewer than 3 clubs. The purpose of this is to limit the defenses available to the opponents. It has nothing to do with alert requirements. This opening bid still requires an announcement ("may be short").

[paulg]

Time for the OP to change the title - "Concern over new EBU and ACBL regs"

[jallerton]

Yes, I'm surprised that Ed hasn't split the topic yet.

[blackshoe]

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.

[blackshoe]

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.

[Cyberyeti]

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.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-September-25, 14:08, said:

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.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-25, 16:13, said:

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.

[campboy]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-September-25, 14:08, said:

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.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-25, 18:23, said:

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"?

[nige1]

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.

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2013-September-26, 04:29, said:

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?