bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings

10 posts
bridgetalk member

Re: Equal Level Conversion ( 13:15:46 WedApr 2 2003 )

Country: UK

Quote: olddude909

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).

This doesn't make sense to me. I once played against a pair playing a prepared club (could be a 3-card suit, alertable in England). If they opened a club and rebid anything other than 1NT they were promising at least four clubs.

They would not alert the 1C opener, they waited until partner rebid 1NT and alerted that, explaining (one round too late) that the original opening bid could now have been based on a 3-card suit.

I tried in vain to reason with them.

James

mycroft

67 posts
bridgetalk member

Re: Equal Level Conversion ( 17:33:54 WedApr 2 2003 )

Country: Canada

Um - er. While not taking anything away from this conversation - and a good place to ask about the alertability of ELC doubles is The ACBL Alert! forum (which, I will admit, has most of the same posters, but includes on occasion, the people capable of making authoratative ACBL rulings) the ACBL alerting rules changed last year, and doubles were a very big change.

Quote: ACBL Alert Pamphlet

Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert.

This specifically includes the old, Alertable "minimum offshape T/O" double (overcalls 8-12, X=any 13+) that mostly LOLs played, and LOLs couldn't understand why they had to Alert it. Now they don't have to. My evidence is
the new ACBL CC, available from this page, where the only Alertable doubles with checkboxes are now penalty doubles in sputnik situations < 4

and support doubles.

If you still have a red Minimum Offshape T/O (and responsive, and maximal, and...) on your card, it's a year old. Clubs (and bridge supply houses, for that matter) are understandably reluctant to just trash all their old stock :-).

I would expect that ELC isn't "highly unusual", and therefore now not Alertable (I also believe that this is a poor decision by the ACBL Laws Committee - it's fine for experts, but a lot of Flight Cs in stratified events are going to be hosed; they don't even know that (X) is a situation where an artificial double is possible, how would they know to ask?).

But I am not official!
Michael. [1 edits; Last edit by mycroft at 17:36:14 Wed Apr 2 2003]

bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Equal Level Conversion ( 00:00:24 ThuApr 3 2003 )

It seems that what mycroft says is correct, and that changes my thinking. I said that I believed ELC doubles are alertable in the ACBL because minimum offshape doubles are, and ELC doubles can be minimum offshape.

If, as mycroft says, minimum offshape doubles are no longer alertable {and he is certainly right about the ACBL convention card - I have just gone and looked at one} then I believe ELC doubles are no longer alertable.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Equal Level Conversion ( 00:30:06 ThuApr 3 2003 )

I have now had some further correspondence, this time with Marvin French, a friend in San Diego CA. While he holds no official position in the ACBL he has studied their alerting regulations in detail over the years, and he confirms that minimum offshape doubles and ELC doubles are not alertable.

Marvin has put together an excellent simplified guide to ACBL alerting, which may be found here:

ACBL alerts

While unoffocial he has taken a lot of trouble over it, including submitting it for comment to senior ACBL personnel, and revising it based on their feedback.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

bridgeaddict

Unavailable
510 posts

Re: Equal Level Conversion ( 19:13:21 ThuApr 3 2003 )

A copy of this thread is now in the Bridge Issues forum, if anyone wants to continue the off topic aspects of this discussion, as indicated by bluejak. :smile:

bridgeaddict

Unavailable
510 posts

Re: Equal Level Conversion ( 06:32:21 FriApr 4 2003 )

Also, I had a feeling I'd already posted some information somewhere on the new ACBL alerting regulations and I now realise I did so last May in this thread. :smile:

172 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Equal Level Conversion ( 21:50:19 MonApr 7 2003 )

Quote: bluejak at 01:07:07 Wed Apr 2 2003

The answer to the question posed in this thread is that ELC doubles are alertable in North America.

I'm not so sure. The ACBL alert regulation says "Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert." Three examples of alertable doubles are given, none of which involve ELC. And, on the CC, the box for "minimum offshape T/O" is black, not red, indicating, if ELC falls in this category, that it is not alertable.

Further, as I understand ELC, in most cases, the partner of the doubler expects a normal T/O double. It's only when doubler bids a new suit that the possibility of ELC really comes into play. This seems analogous to the unopposed sequence 1NT-2C-2x-2NT where, because a direct 2NT is a tranfer, 2NT after Stayman may have no 4 card major. In this sequence the 2NT bid is alertable; analogously in the sequence (1H)-x-(P)-2C-(P)-2D I suspect it's the 2D big that's alertable. I'll ask Memphis.

bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Equal Level Conversion ( 01:53:00 TueApr 8 2003 )

Now, Ed, skip reading is not fair! :smile:

If you actually read the rest of the thread, my position was based on the presumption that minimum offshape doubles are alertable since, while the logic is different, the effect is the same.

When I discovered that minimum offshape doubles are no longer alertable it thus followed logically that ELC doubles are no longer alertable - same logic.

Another interesting question is whether one should alert the rebid. In standard methods

1

Dbl P 2

P 2

shows extra values: playuing ELC doubles it shows that the double was based on diamonds and hearts, not clubs, and shows no extra values. Is this alertable?

I could not see a way of logically deducing this from the ACBL alerting rules, so I have asked Memphis. The answers are, how shall I put it? :dunno:

Inconclusive - that's the word!! :smile:

If there is a definitive word I shall let you know, but at the moment I have one view that they should be alerted because most players would expect it, and one view that they are not alertable, but the opponents should be told at the end of the auction.

Personally, I would alert the 2

bid.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

172 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Equal Level Conversion ( 22:41:44 FriApr 11 2003 )

Quote: bluejak at 01:53:00 Tue Apr 8 2003

Personally, I would alert the 2 bid.

So would I. :biggrin:

BTW, I "asked Memphis" on the ACBL web forum. So far there's been one answer - from you! :rolleyes:

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.

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from any country in the world, this is the place!Hosted by David StevensonSenior Consultant DirectorEnglish Bridge Union

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union