[fromageGB]

steve2005, on 2015-November-25, 21:17, said:

Play 2/1 without having a forcing or semi-forcing 1N is theoretically unplayable. Otherwise there is no way to show 11 point hands.

Surely a natural jump bid is theoretically playable, and does not violate the idea of 2/1 GF? I don't think the phrase "2/1" has any bearing on the use of 1NT. Whether that bid should be alerted or announced is up to event organisers, but I don't believe the national authorities are doing a good job here.

[RMB1]

sfi, on 2015-November-26, 15:26, said:

That's the semi-forcing NT being talked about in the section you quoted.

OK. Sorry, I mistakenly assumed that "nonforcing" (in helen_t's "a nonforcing 1nt response is alertable") meant not forcing.

[onoway]

Perhaps it is pertinent to remember that few of the players in IAC are experts and many are not even advanced. So by far the majority will be making assumptions about what a bid means. As far as that goes, anyone who has played more than 3 hands anywhere on BBO knows that few people alert many bids, even if they are required to do so, so players are often going on assumptions. Certainly at least in this club, if a pair claims to be playing 2/1 then if an auction goes pass 1♥(♠) pass 1N pass or 1♥ (♠) pass 1N pass, by far the majority of the opponents will absolutely be expecting opener to bid again.

It seems to me then, if that is not necessarilly the case, then the bid must be alerted or announced or else it is a special agreement that the opps are not aware of. The pair were not players unknown to each other, in fact the conversation suggested this was a deliberate strategy, and that's what caused me concern. They can bid whatever they want, but the opps MUST be able to understand what their bids mean or it's all code and presumably alerts or announcements are designed to prevent that being the case.

We are trying to get more people playing not drive them away with deliberately misleading bidding. Few things are as effective at making bridge players feel abused and indignant.

We generally follow the ACBL guidelines as most of the regular players are from North America, with a few twists.. I allow psyches and multi in my tourneys as does one of our two ACBL directors,the other does not. (Neither of them were the directors I asked, as neither happened to be around at the time) We have some players who play multi but it seldom comes up, and both times this year a player has tried to psyche he got punished by the opps rather severely so I doubt psyches will come up again in a hurry.

Thank you all for your input, much appreciated.

[scarletv]

Don't you think it is better not to judge too much from your own view? There is more than ACBL in the bridge world and even within ACBL there is more but forcing NT the way you expect it.

As member of the IAC I don't like it to be condemned when playing a different system then you do yourself. What about when I expect from you that you alert your bids the French way not matter if you know their system or not? Do you really think it is good to make IAC a place where players from other countries or bridge background are no longer welcomed?

[barmar]

Every club or tournament organizer has to pick their alert rules, and adopting on an existing organization's rules simplifies this. It's not possible to have rules that will be familiar to people from all the different areas around the world.

[helene_t]

The ACBL alert regs (like the alert regs of EBU, NBB etc) are meant for IRL play.

Online it is much simpler. We just announce everything unless we are confident that opps will know what it means or at least that they will not make incorrect assumptions if we fail to alert it.

It would not occur to me to alert a non-forcing 1nt response unless there was some unusual negative inference. I would expect opps not to draw any incorrect inference since my failure to alert it suggests that it is nonforcing. And I am one of those alert or announce lots of things (4-card majors, stayman, blackwood, strong 2♣, splinters, unusual 2nt etc). So this whole discussion feels very strange.

[onoway]

scarletv, on 2015-November-28, 06:59, said:

Don't you think it is better not to judge too much from your own view? There is more than ACBL in the bridge world and even within ACBL there is more but forcing NT the way you expect it.

As member of the IAC I don't like it to be condemned when playing a different system then you do yourself. What about when I expect from you that you alert your bids the French way not matter if you know their system or not? Do you really think it is good to make IAC a place where players from other countries or bridge background are no longer welcomed?

I am astonished to learn that as a member of IAC you apparently don't know we run tourneys regularly, and have done for months, where all systems are specifically encouraged to participate, or that all the tourneys are open to all systems. This dismays many members who are outside their comfort zone playing for instance against Precision opps, but they have learned to live with it. BUT...we insist that the bids MEANING be made clear to the opps. If you think this is unfair, then we have nothing to discuss.

[scarletv]

Please do not assume other players are unethical when they do not play your system or when they are not familiar with ACBL rules.

Your conclusions about me are wrong in many ways.

[BillHiggin]

barmar, on 2015-November-28, 11:24, said:

Every club or tournament organizer has to pick their alert rules, and adopting on an existing organization's rules simplifies this. It's not possible to have rules that will be familiar to people from all the different areas around the world.

In my opinion (which may be entirely without merit), the closest thing to a worldwide standard which is fairly simple and easy to understand is to use WBF standards for play where screens are in use. I.e. alert/explain all artificial/unusual bids (even Stayman). Since UI concerns are minimized using the on-line alert procedures, do away with all exceptions that are implemented strictly to minimize UI (alert all art doubles, alert cue bids, do not stop alerting at 4 level ... )

For Pam's issue, this would mean alert forcing or semi-forcing 1N (regardless of system used) and do not alert non-forcing 1N. Actually, the difference between non-forcing and semi-forcing 1N is not really worth arguing about.

[barmar]

BillHiggin, on 2015-November-28, 15:47, said:

In my opinion (which may be entirely without merit), the closest thing to a worldwide standard which is fairly simple and easy to understand is to use WBF standards for play where screens are in use.

Only a tiny fraction of bridge players have ever played in WBF events. How would most players be familiar with these rules?

[helene_t]

RMB1, on 2015-November-26, 12:14, said:

Sorry to disappoint, but in the EBU a 6-12 NF 1NT response is alertable.

steve2005, on 2015-November-26, 15:16, said:

In ACBL semi-forcing you have to announce it, which essentially has same effect as an alert.
I think it should be: 1) odds are good the auction isn't going to end so you might get another chance to bid and 1N sounds like that may be it.
2) responder could have 11 hcp some even 12 hcp which makes overcalls more dangerous than a 6-9 or 6-10 1N

Thanks. But this means that opps, if they assume you to follow EBU or ACBL alert regs, will expect a non-alerted 1NT response to be 6-10 (or possibly even more limited). This is the opposite of what Onoway was saying, namely that she thinks that opps will expect it to be forcing.

[BillHiggin]

barmar, on 2015-November-30, 04:38, said:

Only a tiny fraction of bridge players have ever played in WBF events. How would most players be familiar with these rules?

They would not be familiar with them, but the simplicity and ease of understanding would make the needed education easier. Without education, you will certainly have some players following ACBL ftf standards and others following the standards local to them. "Please alert and explain all artificial or unusual calls" would be a reasonable announcement at the start of these tournaments.