|
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 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
James Vickers Reply |
Country: UK
Can anyone help me with the EBU alert regulations? The Orange Book requires an alert if a call is "forcing in a way that the opponents are unlikely to expect" (or words to that effect). It then goes on to list examples and exceptions the understanding of which depends on the experience of the players involved. E.g. 1C (X) 2S Not alertable if non-forcing. I expect experienced players to take this in their stride, but less experienced players to expect another bid from opener. So much for the preamble - in which of the following auctions is the last call alertable and why (opponents silent)? 1S - 2C if 2C is: (1) forcing partner to bid (2) forcing to 2S (3) forcing to 2NT (4) forcing to game 1S - 2C 2NT if 2NT is: (1) 15-16 pts non-forcing (2) 15-16 pts forcing for one round (3) 15-16 pts forcing to game (4) 15+ forcing to game Thanks, James |
|
AlanW Reply |
A layman's view -
None of these looks alertable to me provided there is no understanding that because of its particular forcing nature it may regularly be bid with a 3-card suit.
All except (1) look alertable here since this does not sound like a forcing sequence without an agreement to play it that way. Clearly if 2/1 is GF than 2N has to be F anyway, but unless 2C had already been explained as GF I would expect to alert 2N here. Others may have different views (and usually do!). And, of course, it may be hard to argue there is any damage through failure to alert in any of these sequences, anyway. As a defender I would always expect to clarify whether 2N was F or not before leading or before partner's lead was faced, regardless of whether or not it was alerted. |
RMB  19 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
Country: England
David tells me that (4) is alertable, I guess that means (2) and (3) are alertable. [Under OB 5.2.1(c)]
(2),(3) and (4) are alertable because they are unexpectedly forcing, for some value of "unexpectedly". [Under OB 5.2.1(b)] |
bluejak  427 posts Forum Host Reply |
The normal interpretation is that 1
 - 2 natural is only alertable if it is (a) non-forcing or (b) game forcing.1 - 2 - 2NT natural is alertable if it is forcing.1 Dbl 2 was always non-forcing in old-fashioned Acol, and the majority of people play it as non-forcing [trust me: your inexperienced players have no agreement on the bid at all!] so the default might be considered non-forcing.Of course, a lot of people play it as artificial, but they are not relevant, because then it is alertable under a different section. But is there an authority to say it is not alertable if it is non-forcing?
|
|
James Vickers 10 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
Country: UK
The majority of non-expert players of my acquaintance play this as forcing. When I learned the game I was told in such circumstances to ignore the double.
How about: OB5.4.2(a)(ii) ? I posted the question originally because I had an argument on Tuesday as to whether a 2NT rebid after a 2/1 response counts as "unexpectedly forcing". If the rebid shows at least 15 pts, passing 2NT is trying to land on a pinhead. The trend in ever higher 2/1 responses (was it Eric Crowhurst who compared them with ladies' hemlines?) which were 8+ pts when my parents learned to play, 9+ when I learned the game, and now almost universally played as 10+ means that 2NT in this sequence will be passed about as often as: 1S - 2C 2D so I also wanted to know if this counted as "unexpectedly forcing". James |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
Ok 1
Dbl 2 requires an alert if it si non-forcing. It is not a sequence where it akes a lot of difference, and looks to me like one that has slipped through the net.You must not let geographical considerations be ignored when you are considering normal. For example, I play in three clubs and two leagues locally. In those 1 - 2 - 2NT is played as non-forcing by over 90% of players, as is 1 - 2 - 2 . I know that some areas have developed more than others, but really old-fashioned Acol is still very common in a lot of clubs country-wide.1 - 2 is not played universally as 10+: I play it as 8+, as do my partners, and many of my local opponents.Another point is that the EBU does not like to change alerting rules too often. The current ones have not been changed in fifteen years, and it took ten of those years before people stopped saying "Why does the EBU change alerting so often? Every year it is different." However, a major review has now started, and opinions as to how to change them have been sought.
|
|
Frances Hinden Reply |
Country: UK
From a practical point of view, if you play 1S - 2C as game forcing subsequent auctions are much easier if you alert the 2C bid. Once I've done that, I really feel I don't have to alert subsequent bids in the auction solely because they are still game forcing. I think it is important to alert the 2C bid for another reason: playing it as game forcing, they will be playing a forcing pass after an overcall. Playing 2C as forcing for a round only, there may well not be a forcing pass. This can directly influence the next hand's choice of whether and how high to overcall. |
|
James Vickers 10 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
Country: UK
But according to the section of the Orange Book I quoted (5.4.2(a)(ii)): "Because you have an agreement by which it is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect, you must alert: (a) a non-forcing new suit response to an opening bid, unless: (i) responder has previously passed, or (ii) the opening bid was doubled, or (iii) ....etc" So 1C (X) 2H is not alertable if non-forcing (nor is it alertable if it is forcing either). I think this is important. I was involved in an AC where the director had ruled damage because fourth player had passed a non-alerted 2H in this sequence, assuming he was going to get another chance to bid. We overturned the decision and ruled no damage since the call does not require an alert under EBU regulations whether it is forcing or non-forcing, provided it is natural. I think this is a far cry from 1S - 2C 2D and 1S - 2C 2NT which are passed so rarely they might as well be forcing, and are unlikely to cause damage if this is not disclosed. Still, if the general view is that these calls require an alert if forcing, I shall alert them in future. James |
|
James Vickers 10 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
Country: UK
Bear in mind that a 2C response to 1S is "considered natural" on a 3=4=3=3 distribution according to the Orange Book (5.3.1(a)). Another common source of confusion! James |
|
James Vickers 10 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
Country: UK
I agree with this, provided the regulation means that it is the _forcing manner_ of the agreement that is unexpected (i.e. whether to game or for only one round) rather than just whether it is forcing as opposed to non-forcing. If anyone understands that last paragraph, could you tell me whether that is what it means? James |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
9 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 8 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 00:36:55 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