[BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
JffEstrsn at aol.com
Mon Mar 19 13:20:12 CET 2012
I don't like this. In some of the clubs I know there are pairs who vary
the strength of their 1NT openings and one player occasionally forgets.
He opens 1NT with 10-12 but the partner thinks it is 13-15 or stronger.
(Depends on vulnerability or position, such as third hand). This
usually leads to a (deserved) bad score for them. With the announcement
they have insurance against this, there can be no misunderstanding.
Am 19.03.2012 10:32, schrieb Sven Pran:
> Rather that "self alert" we introduced in Norway an "announcements" regulation effective from July 1st 2011:
> Opening bids in the range 1NT - 2Sp are never to be alerted, but the opener's partner shall immediately (without being asked) "announce" the meaning of that bid. The announcement shall include all important features of the bid.
> With for instance ("natural") 1NT opening bids this includes the HCP range and possible special distributional features like "may contain a singleton" or "may contain a 5-card major" etc.
> I don't think it would have been a wise regulation to have the opener himself describe his own bid.
> Regards Sven
>> Vigfús Pálsson
>> Sendt: 19. mars 2012 10:01
>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>> Hello all
>> Thank you all for your input to this discussion.
>> Henk's input from Netherlands,
>> "no double is alertable unless you can seriously expect that your opponents
>> at the time won't understand its meaning".
>> Is great. I will put it into the discussion group in Iceland.
>> In Iceleand we want to have clear Alert rules, the same ones as they are on
>> international level, so when playing in international torunaments, we want to
>> play by international rules about Alerts.
>> There are more situations who troubles us in Iceland. Opening 1NT Well it
>> has almost come to standard to use 15-17 1NT opening, but it has become
>> more and more popular to use all kind of 1NT opening bids. 10-12, 13-15, 15-
>> 17, depending on various kind of vulnerability Playin in long team events 16+
>> this does usually not create problems, but in Pairs, it does.
>> This has been discussed a lot here in Iceland, and we are thinking of "Self-
>> Alert". When opening 1NT, the opener
>> himself alerts upload, 10-12, 13-15, 15-17 or something else...
>> Also we have been talking about transfers over 1NT. The person who
>> transfers, makes himself "Self-Alert"
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> Frá: "Henk Uijterwaal"<henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com>
>> Til: blml at rtflb.org
>> Sent: Mánudagur, 19. Mars, 2012 08:03:15
>> Efni: Re: [BLML] Do Alert rules need to change ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>> On 18/03/2012 22:50, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
>>> Vigfus Palsson:
>>>> More that 90% of Players in Iceland use transfers over 1NT and 2NT.
>>>> Recently, one expert pair, starting new partnership, decided to use
>>>> new partnership agreement. They decided not to use transfers of 2D
>>>> for Hearts, or 2H for Spades. And they started playing. And they sure
>>>> did not alert their 2Diamonds or 2Hearts. To play 5+ over 1NT. The
>>>> problem was that everyone thought they were using transfers. Sure
>>>> they did not disobey any Alert rules, but made confusion. (And opp's
>>>> sometimes got bad score because of it.)
>> This looks as if the opponents themselves created the problem: 1N-2H, not
>> alerted and the opponent assuming that one forgot to alert rather than
>> assuming that the bid was natural. Once you go down this road, the whole
>> system falls apart.
>> I think the basic assumption should be: if the bid is not alerted, then assume
>> that it is not alertable. If the opponent forgot to alert, one is protected
>>>> The second problem is that it is not supposed to alert on any doubles
>>>> (including redoubles). I think this rule was made about 40 years ago
>>>> because of the "sputnik" double which was getting common, and
>>>> to be forgot. Today in Iceland, the double has often turned out to
>>>> have a special meaning in some situations. And many players have come
>>>> to me and asked me what to do, because they want to inform the opp's
>>>> about the special meaning, but can not, because of the rules.
>> Doesn't this automatically follow from the rules? If a double is not alertable,
>> then the opponents will have to protect themselves by asking rather than
>> assuming that the opponents play the same system. They know that, so
>> where is the problem?
>> BTW. We used to have a rule that no double was alertable here. It is now
>> amended to "no double is alertable unless you can seriously expect that your
>> opponents at the time won't understand its meaning". That works pretty
>> well in practice.
>>> Richard Hills:
>>> The Icelandic NBO may wish to adopt part or all of the
>>> state-of-the-art ABF alert regulation, particularly the ABF concepts
>>> of pre-alerts and self-alerts. See:
>> 11 pages! While I'm sure that this is fine, I noticed that players tend not read
>> and remember anything longer than 1 page.
>> Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
>> Phone: +31.6.55861746
>> There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
>> (John Glanfield, on an engineering project)
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml at rtflb.org
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml at rtflb.org
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
More information about the Blml