[blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Jerry Fusselman]

>
> Jerry Fusselman:
>
> >I would rather have a few more rules and a little less
> >discretion.
> >
> >At a recent ACBL NABC, for example, I was told I had
> >to prealert an 11-13 NT opening, because the range was
> >unusual.  (Inexplicably, Memphis backed this up as
> >valid director's discretion.)
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> It is not inexplicable to me.  The non-conventional or
> natural meaning of a double is "for penalties".  But in
> this super-scientific age of negative doubles, I always
> pre-alert the fact that my partnership has the
> sensible but (alas) unusual agreement to employ penalty
> doubles in sequences such as:
>
> Pard      RHO      Me
> 1H        2C       Dble = +800
>
> And Jerry Fusselman is incorrect in thinking that the
> director was merely using discretion.


I am sticking to my guns on my choice of the word "inexplicable."
Maybe you will surprise me and stick to yours after you see the regs
for the ACBL.

Please look at http://www.acbl.org/play/AlertChart.pdf

For example, it states, that this is alertable: "Very light overcalls
(fewer than 6 HCP) Also pre-Alert."

So, my hope it that in national ACBL events, all directors should rule
that an agreement to overcall with 3 HCP is both alertable and
prealertable.  But not that any agreement to do so with 7 HCP is
prealertable.

Also, and more to my point, under the column, "Announcements", it says
"State Range, if natural, for all 1NT openings."  Note that there is
no reference to prealerting here, and there is plenty of room for such
a reference.  In the ACBL, we announce all opening 1NT notrump ranges.
 An announcement is a form of alert.  I never said that a weak notrump
was not alertable.

Though they don't cover every conceivable call, the ACBL regs seem
quite clear to me that 1 NT 11--13, though announcable, is not
prealertable.

But there's more evidence in http://web2.acbl.org/Alert/alertpamp.htm
.  There you will find these two sentences together:  "Players are
expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems that they may
encounter at the bridge table. Common methods include either strong or
weak notrumps with or without five-card majors."

This is explained under the regulations for prealerts, and I think it
is clearly saying that weak notrumps and four-card majors are not
prealertable.  It goes on to say that one should prealert "a 10-12 1NT
range with distributional requirements for minor-suit openings,"

All of these citations were available on the web at the time of the
tournament, and they match similar documents at clubs and articles in
the ACBL's bridge magazine.

Are you convinced that, in ACBL national events, 1NT 11--13 is
announcable but not prealertable?  In this light, can you explain why
it is a good idea for an ACBL director in a national event to be able
to say, "Today, I require weak notrumps to be prealerted."?

Is there anyone reading this who really thinks it is a good idea to
have ACBL directors change ACBL alert regulations? ...and then to have
the national authority endorse the change?  Of course, directors have
to interpret alert regulations, but do we really want them to clearly
change them?  If so, what other laws and regulations should directors
be encouraged to change?

-Jerry Fusselman