[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2023-June-06, 09:30, said:

First, if partner Alerts your transfer, in the ACBL, you have UI. They should have Announced "diamonds". Now the UI might be "after 3 years, they still have no idea how this works", but still UI. Convincing the TD, especially in this pattern, that the information is "partner doesn't know how the Alert Procedure works" rather than "partner thinks we're playing a different system" is up to you, and might be difficult.

Whoa. We should announce 2♣ as a transfer when we bid it over the opps 1NT opening?

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-June-06, 10:11, said:

Whoa. We should announce 2♣ as a transfer when we bid it over the opps 1NT opening?

Quote

Announcements
An Announcement is a word or a short phrase that describes the meaning of partner’s call.
Announcements are a form of Alerting, and you must still visually Alert the call. Calls that require
Announcements must be immediately announced, even if the call would otherwise not be
Alerted or if the Alert would be delayed. Announce the following Agreements:
1. The minimum length of any Non-Forcing minor suit Opening that could be fewer than 3
cards. Use the form, “Could be X” where X is the minimum length of the suit as the
announcement.
2. The HCP Range of any Natural 1NT Opening.
3. Any Artificial bid that primarily shows Length in one specific suit and any double or
redouble that shows Length in one specific suit. Use the name of the suit being shown
as the announcement. This does not apply to suits in which you or your Partner have
already shown Length.
4. After a 1-level major suit Opening in first or second seat, a 1NT response that is Forcing
or Semi-Forcing. Also announce “could have 4 spades” in the unopposed auction 1H -
1NT if you routinely bypass a 4-card spade suit.

Kudos to ACBL when it is due, this is a conservative approach to announcements but decidedly bang for buck.

[mycroft]

Yeah, they went to "announce all transfers" because a) it was a good idea, b) many Alerts that could be transfers and could be other common things are now much less ambiguous, and c) nobody understood the old rule and announced transfers when they weren't supposed to.

Not that that was a problem when it was a transfer. The change to "announce the suit" helps with transfers that aren't to the next suit (like my 1NT-4♣ "hearts") and with "transfers" that aren't really (1NT-2♠ "transfer" is a lot easier to think correct than 1NT-2♠ "clubs" holding 6 diamonds).

Doesn't matter if it's over NT, after suits (1♣ with transfer responses, for instance!), transfer preempts (where legal), in competition ... Looks like they fixed the "double/redouble for next higher suit" thing. Good. That was always a silly "exception for potentially good reason that nobody would get right". We have enough of those as it is.

[jillybean]

Thanks, good to know.

An Announcement is a word or a short phrase that describes the meaning of partner’s call.
Announcements are a form of Alerting, and you must still visually Alert the call.

It's interesting to see that these announcements and a visual alert are considered a serious matter with the use of the word must
. I do use the alert card when announcing our 12-14nt as a number of players seem to be unaware of anything other than a 15-17 range for 1nt and often zone out to announcements after 1nt

Does anyone here use the alert card when making an announcement?
ACBL Directors, please remind the players of this when they refuse to announce their 15-17NT's

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-June-06, 15:11, said:

Yeah, they went to "announce all transfers" because a) it was a good idea, b) many Alerts that could be transfers and could be other common things are now much less ambiguous, and c) nobody understood the old rule and announced transfers when they weren't supposed to.

Not that that was a problem when it was a transfer. The change to "announce the suit" helps with transfers that aren't to the next suit (like my 1NT-4♣ "hearts") and with "transfers" that aren't really (1NT-2♠ "transfer" is a lot easier to think correct than 1NT-2♠ "clubs" holding 6 diamonds).

Makes a lot of sense to announce the target suit, as EBU does but only as Responder over 1NT (IIRC).
In Italy we just get to say "transfer", only as Reponder over 1NT, and hoping (or not) everyone assumes that 2♠ is for clubs and 2NT is for diamonds (a rare and deprecable precedent of catering to / dictating "the normal way to play").

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-June-06, 22:21, said:

An Announcement is a word or a short phrase that describes the meaning of partner’s call.
Announcements are a form of Alerting, and you must still visually Alert the call.

It's interesting to see that these announcements and a visual alert are considered a serious matter with the use of the word must
. I do use the alert card when announcing our 12-14nt as a number of players seem to be unaware of anything other than a 15-17 range for 1nt and often zone out to announcements after 1nt

I see it as an arbitrary but legitimate choice, even if mildly bizarre from an organisation that could not enforce the Stop card.
It has to be a serious matter if cards are misused, so it should be either must or must not.
Our announcements are just... announced, without exhibiting any cards.

[mycroft]

It is a serious issue with a serious reason (which should be obvious in a world where the median age is 70ish).

The requirement to also do something audible is also serious (viz my partner blind in left eye story).

Frankly (and being USA-blinkered for a minute), not having that regulation would be an ADA lawsuit waiting to happen. Now, allowing it to be ignored in practise...well that wouldn't be the first time in ADA cases either, would it?

Yes, I do always do something (first of all, those stupid alert Strips are for the birds, all they do is knock over boxes (during an Alert or when bidding.) I try to pull the Alert card and aim it around where my cards go back into the board (again, my partner blind in left eye...), but will sometimes just point at the bid while Alerting or Announcing.

or almost always at least. And if it causes a problem, I apologize (although over 1NT, I'm not upset. If you "expect to" not hear anything, don't hear anything, and are okay with it, then you should be okay when what you didn't hear wasn't "15-17". A few more of those rulings and people will start asking; a few more of those asks and people will stop being lazy and follow the -ing rule. Still apologized, though).

No, "nobody" does it. And it "never" causes a problem. And when it does, the Director pulls out the regulation and applies the misinformation ruling. And a few more of those hard done by stories might break through the entitled bridge player bubble and get them to JFDI for their opponents' benefit for a change.

I absolutely agree with "could not enforce the Stop card". The difference is that they have made a different decision around "we want them to not Alert because it helps them more than us" than they did over "people just use the Stop card to wake up partner". Still amused by the number of people who tell me "we don't have to pause any more, since they took the Stop card away", though - which means they didn't read the decision, or just saw the part they wanted to see.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2023-June-05, 21:55, said:

tl;dr (the whole thread - I did read the first few comments).

There's a difference between an alert and an explanation. An expected alert does not convey UI. The explanation may convey UI.

When you say "may", are you including correct explanations, or is it only incorrect explanations that are UI?

Including correct explanations leads down a rabbit hole. In f2f bridge without screens we always hear our partner's explanations, and hopefully they're usually accurate. If we had to treat these as UI, we would be unduly constrained whenever the opponents ask for an explanation -- you might be forced to assume partner forgot the system because the UI tells you they remembered it!

Incorrect explanations do cause UI, and it can be thorny to work out how to deal with it. But at least there's a reasonable reason for it.

[blackshoe]

I think that if partner's explanation, absent an alert, correctly describes your agreement there's no UI unless you thought the correct explanation was something else.