|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
International Bridge Laws ForumIf you need help with the Laws or rulings from |
| To ask a question, click HERE and type in your message. Please specify your country in your query where indicated. Right click your mouse button for help on abbreviations. |
| Welcome, Register :: Log in |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 2 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
markj007  72 posts bridgetalk member   Reply |
Playing this treatment, should the original double be alerted (in case the follow up is ELC) or is it sufficient to just alert the "conversion" bid? Say the sequence is like this:
1S Dbl Pass 2C |
bluejak  427 posts Forum Host Reply |
I am afraid we cannot answer questions on alerting correctly if we do not know where the poster is. Alerting is different form country to country.
|
|
markj007 72 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
Country: USA
Hmm, I thought I had - oh well... |
|
RichM 285 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
Country: USA
On a standard ACBL convention card, in the "Special Doubles" section, there is a red box for Min Offshape T/O. I think this means that you must alert a takeout double in the USA if you play equal level conversion. RichM |
|
markj007 72 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
Yes, I know, but I don't think ELC quite fits into that category does it? Those offshape doubles are made by players who (as far as I can make out) just like to double on any hand with "opening values", no matter what the distribution.
ELC normally implies that specifically the CLUB suit may be short, that's all - not that ANY suit may be short. I've heard two opposing views from two different directors on this elsewhere, so it's obviously not as straightforward as it might seem.
|
|
bergid 35 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
Actually, this "treatment" has been around for a long time - if my memory serves me correctly, I first read about it in Robert Ewen's "Doubles for Takeout, Penalties & Profit" published sometime in the 1970's. It's only comparatively recently that it's actually been given a name.
I don't believe that alerting all doubles a la "Min Offshape T/O" is appropriate here, because of the specialised nature of ELC. I don't think I've discussed this in my regular partnerships and it doesn't come up that often, but I (and they) would recognise it when it did, and not expect the strength that a double followed by a suit bid usually promises (though of course that is not necessarily denied). I've never alerted the double, though I do alert the suit bid these days. Admittedly, alerting has changed a great deal since the 1970's, so possibly I'm out of date on this issue. |
|
bergid 35 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
I just went and dug out the book and Ewen gives this example (on page 25)
He goes on to make the point that it's only because you aren't increasing the level of bidding, that you can afford this manoeuvre. He gives the same example, but with the clubs and diamonds reversed, where you can't, as you would then have to bid the clubs at a higher level after the expected diamond response. It seems to me that in the way it's described here, this is a matter of bridge judgement rather than an actual agreement. BTW, the book was published in 1974 (I have a reviewer's copy). |
KJ97|
Texian13 1 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
Country: USA
There are several situations like this where it is not completely clear whether to alert or not... I advise players in our club to alert anytime they have an agreement the opponents may not be aware of. As long as alerts are not abused in a way that signals partner, it seems better to err on the side of over alert when uncertain. |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
No, it is an agreement. Consider the sequence you cite: 1  Dbl Pass 2 Pass 2  If my partner bids it what does he have? The answer is 17 or more points, perhaps slightly less with good distribution. That is the standard way to play this sequence. Now while Ewen's method may be reasonable enough, it is not a matter of bridge judgement: it is a matter of agreement to play ELC rather than standard methods. Minimum offshape takeout doubles require an alert. Playing ELC your minimum takeout doubles may be offshape so you should alert them. True, they are not the normal offshape takeout double when a player agrees with partner to double on all 12+ points hands, beloved of some of our weaker brethren. But just because you are not playing that particular type of offshape double does not mean that ELC doubles are not alertable: they are. So if you play ELC alert the double, and say it maight be an ELC one, adn give an example to clarify: for example with a double of 1 say {if asked} that partner may have spades and diamonds without the clubs.
|
|
HenryS Reply |
Country: USA
I don't play equal level conversion (for a variety of reasons), but I have a question for David et al anyway. The classic ELC auction is (1h) dbl (p) 2c (p) 2d. However, there are other common examples of the beast: (1c) dbl (p) 1d (p) 1h to show 4S, 5H, minimum hand regardless of diamond holding. (1s) dbl (p) 2c (p) 2d to show diamonds and hearts. Would BOTH of these sequences also require an alert? In particular, I'd be a bit surprised if the 1c double sequence required an alert because in these parts at least it is a very common treatment. Thanks for dispelling the mist. |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
I believe that all ELC doubles are alertable.
There are many sequences where what might be considered standard in one area is different from other areas. However, alerting in jurisdictions which tend to have well-defined rules, such as North American or English/Welsh, is based on a general expectation across the jurisdiction. So even if 1 X P 1P 1 is normal as ELC where you play that does not mean it is not alertable. Only if the ACBL decides it is so common across North america, and they say so, would douible not be alertable. Remember how little it costs to alert: we do not want to gain at this game through opponent's ignorance of our methods, so just alert ELC doubles - please. 
|
|
James Vickers 10 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
Country: UK
I certainly have no wish to gain from opponents' ignorance of my methods, but until reading this I would not have dreamed of alerting an ELC double. It is a takeout double showing values to compete but no clear bid and asking partner to describe his hand. If this is alertable just because it doesn't guarantee a holding in every other suit, then surely we will have to alert the opponents to every little nuance of our agreements and drown in a welter of blue cards. When I started playing in tournaments around 15-20 years ago I asked a director (I think it was one DWS) whether I should alert partner's wide-ranging 1NT rebid (a fairly unusual treatment at the time among my peers). He said no, it did not warrant an alert. Now you could argue that my opponents, expecting a 15-16 point range, could be disadvantaged by the failure to disclose this. Two years ago at the Brighton Congress I was taken to task by opponents and partner alike for failing to alert 2NT in the sequence (opponents silent): 1D - 1S; 1NT - 2C*; 2NT 1NT = 12-16, 2C = Crowhurst enquiry, 2NT = 15-16 I checked with a TD (Mike Amos, I think) and was shocked to be told that this required an alert because of the defined point range! Can someone please tell me what opponents are likely to expect without an alert? If every shade of meaning requires an alert, should the following be alerted (opponents silent): 1D - 1H; 1NT if 1NT (i) denies four spades (ii) could harbour a 4-card spade suit? Or: 1NT - 2C*; 2S if 2S (i) denies four hearts (ii) could harbour a 4-card heart suit? What about 5-card major openers (non-standard in the UK), 1NT openers which could include a 5-card major, 1/1 change of suit responses which could include a longer unbid suit? If ELC doubles are alertable for the extra information they conceal from the opponents, why not all the above? I think we have to be sensible in our use of alerts. Make certain categories of bid alertable for clearly defined reasons, and let's not go down the path of alerting everything under the sun just to protect ourselves from accusations of failing to disclose our methods. I await with dread the new Orange Book. (This is becoming a regular soapbox theme for me!) James |
|
olddude909 65 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
Country: USA
Speaking of weird (American) alerting rules... In a late 1980s Spingold, a semi-final match was overturned because of the failure to alert 1nt - p - 2c (doesn't have to have a 4 card major, since 2nt was artificial). Edgar's view was that alerting this very common treatment, although required by ACBL regulation, was stupid and that it would/should/could be sufficient to alert the 2nt rebid (doesn't promise a 4M). I agree entirely with James, but it would be easier simply to have a box in the convention card marked equal level conversion. I doubt that this will happen, but I agree that it is silly to alert this takeout double because it MIGHT not include support for all unbid suits even if it is required (shrug). HenryS |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
No doubt everyone has their own view of what should be alerted. Since their view will be different from the next person that will be extremely unhelpful. When alerting was first brought in people were asked to alert what seemed alertable. Only when it was found this did not work were further rules brought in.
It is not a question of what you, James, or anyone else feels should be alerted: it is a question of what the regulating authority says should be alerted. You, James, say it has never occurred to you to alert an ELC double. This is hardly rrelevant since the question is whether it is alertable in North America, not whether it is alertable in England/Wales. Is it sensible to alert a double if it can be minimum and offshape? The answer is that I really do not care: if you want to discuss what ought to be alerted then this is not the correct forum. rec.games.bridge will listen to you: the bridge laws mailing-list is very suitable. Here we are merely explaining to people what the rules are. The answer to the question posed in this thread is that ELC doubles are alertable in North America. As to the other questions posed by James while I am happy to answer them, not in this thread please. This thread is about ELC doubles in North America.
|
|
bridgeaddict Unavailable 510 posts   Reply |
This is probably a good time to mention that we are going to bring back the forum we originally had for "Bridge Issues". You may remember that it covered a wide range of subjects, including online bridge, terminology, humor, computer software and other bridge issues. It also included links to ACBL and WBF Regulations.
This will be a suitable forum for a discussion of the adequacy or otherwise of the present bridge laws and a voice to bridge administrators around the world. With the development of online bridge and its special problems, it may be that further modications to the laws or regulations are necessary. Please use the new forum to comment on any changes that you would like to see in this area. The subject of this thread is an example of an issue which people feel strongly about and may well like to discuss further. |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 2 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
7 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 6 guest(s). (The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003) bluejak |
|
Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm. | Register :: Log in The time is now 00:33:07 Wed Aug 27 2003 |
© 2001-2003 BbBoy.net
|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
Legend :: 
Read Topic :: 
Unread Topic
Read Topic :: Unread Topic
Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status