[Trinidad]

campboy, on 2010-December-24, 09:04, said:

It is correct to alert these in the EBU.

Trinidad: I don't see why looking at the CC is any better than asking, since this information will be on an inside page and so all three other players will be aware that he looked.

I don't know how the EBU CC is designed, but if it is designed like most "small cards" (A6 booklets or similar) then the basics of the system (basic system, 1 openings, NT ranges and leads & signals) will be on the outside. That is the part that I read when I get the card at the beginning of the round. In 99% of the cases it doesn't take more than 5 seconds to comprehend what is written on the outside. So you read it and open the card.

Then you will usually find a list of conventions, information on overcalls, etc. . I expect that the type of player who doesn't want to ask because he might give the opponents information puts himself in such a position that he needs to ask as little as possible. If he would have opened the CC at the beginning of the round, he would be in that position. Unless he has a problem with his eyesight, he will only need to look from the corner of his eye.

Rik

[RMB1]

Trinidad, on 2010-December-24, 13:46, said:

I don't know how the EBU CC is designed, but if it is designed like most "small cards" (A6 booklets or similar) then the basics of the system (basic system, 1 openings, NT ranges and leads & signals) will be on the outside. ...

For information: various versions of the convention cards are available from the EBU web site, including the standard EBU 20B convention card, as PDF.

[barmar]

wank, on 2010-December-22, 16:12, said:

since when is spades and another the normal meaning for 2♦? it may be normal for people who play that themselves. it certainly isn't normal for me or anyone else I know.

It's part of the Astro and Asptro conventions (and Aspro has the minor variation spades and a minor). Is there a jurisdiction where these are common NT defenses?

[mjj29]

barmar, on 2010-December-24, 15:10, said:

It's part of the Astro and Asptro conventions (and Aspro has the minor variation spades and a minor). Is there a jurisdiction where these are common NT defenses?

Around here (EBU/Cambridge) I'd expect if I had a scratch game with someone either they wouldn't want to play any system or they would know one of those (even if they preferred something like multi-landy).

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2010-December-22, 16:17, said:

I have never liked the attitude, common in some countries, that an alert of a call tells players something positive about the caller's hand. An alert is a warning that opponents may wish to ask about the meaning of the call, nothing more. Since it conveys nothing about the hand, it can hardly be MI.

It tells them it's NOT one of the non-alertable hand types. But that leaves a wide variety of possible meanings, so it doesn't narrow it down very much.

Quote

Failure to alert when an alert is required is MI, true. Alerting when not required is not.

20F5a says "'Mistaken explanation' here includes ... an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require."

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2010-December-24, 15:16, said:

20F5a says "'Mistaken explanation' here includes ... an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require."

So it does. Strangely, Law 21B1A refers only to failure to alert, not to alerting when not required, as MI. Yet the ACBL's alert regulation recommends alerting when you're not sure if it's required. It would seem the height of folly for an RA to suggest players do something, and then say "we're going to adjust the score because you did that".

[campboy]

I don't see why it is folly. While it is true that either alerting when you should not or not alerting when you should is MI, the former is very much less likely to damage opponents (since it doesn't give very specific information) and consequently very much less likely to lead to an adjusted score. That seems like a good enough reason to give the recommendation.

[blackshoe]

Well, all I can say is that I would expect most people who were told "the alert regs tell you to alert if you're not sure", then do that, and then were told "sorry, that's MI, so I'm adjusting the score" would not be happy - and it only has to happen once; the rumor mill will take it from there.

[bluejak]

That's all very well, Ed, but when we rule we do so as the Laws require, and not with the intent of keeping the ACBL rumour mill happy. If you alert when it is not clear whether you should alert or not, that ACBL regulation means such an alert is not MI. But if you alert when it is clearly not alertable, it is MI, whatever the regulation says, and if MI leads to damage, you adjust.

The other thing is that several posts refer to what is likely, probable, does happen and so forth, all of which is irrelevant, surely, to a particular ruling. Of course adjustments for MI for alerting when you should not are rare. But that does not mean you should not when they are MI and damage is caused.

[blackshoe]

I Never said you shouldn't.

[barmar]

Extraneous alerts almost never result in an adjustment.