[blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Jerry Fusselman]

>
> >>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,"
>
> [snip]
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> Jerry omitted the words "for example", so a pre-alert of 1NT does not
> necessarily mean that 10-12 is the pre-alertable range.

No, I am afraid you misunderstood me entirely.  I thought it would be
obvious to any bridge player who can read English that my quote is
just one example.  What else could it be?

The reason for the quote is to show that the ACBL does not consider
weak notrumps prealertable per se.  This sentence was a chance for
them to do so and save some words, but they declined.  They could have
said that a 10-12 notrump range is prealerted.  They went out of their
way to avoid this, so it would seem clear that a 10-12 range,by
itself, would not be prealertable.

>
> Indeed weak notrumps are not pre-alertable.  But what defines a weak
> notrump?  Under the "light of historical usage rather than local
> geographical usage" a weak notrump has a 12-14 range, but Jerry was
> using an unusual ultra-weak 11-13 range.
>

Hardly ultra-weak, for there is also the 10-12 range.  I don't see
this argument.  Are you saying that a pair might be ready for 12-14
notrumps or 10-12 notrumps but at a loss for how to deal with 11-13
notrumps?  If so, I would love to hear about it.  Anyone?

> And given the obvious fact that an 11-13 range is very unusual in the
> ACBL, which has "historical usage" of ultra-conservative bidding, it
> seems to me that Jerry should have _voluntarily_ pre-alerted his
> opponents to his style, consistent with the "fully and freely
> available to the opponents" principle in Law 75A, _even if_ his
> interpretation of the ACBL Alert regulation is deemed to be correct.
>

About 12 years ago, I called Memphis to ask about ten of the most
likely parts of my system that should be prealerted, just in case, and
Gary Blaiss said no, nothing, and my enquiry at the time included the
11-13 range.  I now play an 11-14 range, does that make it more
prealertable in anyone's eyes?

I used to prealert stuff, but it takes too much time away from the
round and seems to offer little or no value, given what I play.  Here
in the ACBL, my rough estimate at the time was that we lost about 60
seconds from the round when I prealerted.  60 seconds is the average,
though the median was perhaps 12 seconds.  There is a lot of stuff in
red on my card!  Bridge is a timed game.

Also, two of my partners not want to play methods that require
prealerts.  For a few months I prealerted that we had wide-ranging
weak two bids in third seat, and you would not believe the number of
yawns that caused.  However, that one simply had to be prealerted,
because the wider range implied that we had to abandon all
conventional followups from third seat.

II can send the pdf of my card to anyone to see what you would wish to
have prealerted.  But I really don't see how the 11-13 notrump range
causes anyone any problems if they are ready for other weak notrump
ranges.  Bridge is a timed game, and there are more useful things to
use the time for than to wait for the 5% of the time that an opponents
calls the director to see if our methods are GCC legal (They are) for
calls that are not destined to come up.


> For what it is worth, my personal style is to go above and beyond the
> disclosure mandated by the ABF Alert Regulation.

Actually, it is my style too, but there is a limit to how much time
you have to explain your methods.  You have to use your time wisely.
I work on how best to convey the useful information in a memorable and
complete manner.  I take pride in this.

And I don't hear many complaints.  One fellow was livid that I opened
1NT with a 6-card minor.  Another was livid that my partner, after a
standard 1S-1N forcing auction, rebid 2D with three great diamonds
when he had three small clubs (It was never discussed).  Both
complained loudly and bitterly during the hand, but I think that kind
of behavior is generally risk-free in the ACBL.  Those are the only
two cases I can recall of prealerts that someone expressed interest
in.   Should I start prealerting these two possibilities?

> My personal view is
> that it is contrary to the nature of bridge to gain a good result by
> playing a legal method which can be legally hidden from unsuspecting
> opponents until it is too late for them to discuss a defence.


Duh!!  Why are you writing this here?  My goal has never been to hide
my methods---quite the opposite.   But no one has ever said to me that
they were stumped about what to do about 11-13 but knew how to handle
12-14.  I suspect that 12-14 is the weak range less than half of the
time here in my area, but I am not sure.

I could give lots of lots of examples of things we alert that we are
apparently not required to alert.  Anything I would wish to know as an
opponent gets alerted.  But I think it unwise to waste 5 minutes
before every round bragging about twenty nuances of our system and how
ethical we are.

The funny thing is that I cannot recall a director say that a bid we
don't alert should be alerted.  And only this one director thought we
should prealert something.  We alert negative inferences all over the
place, and opponents seem to find that 100 times more useful than
prealerting a simple 11-13 or 11-14 range.

Does anyone else out there think that 11-13 vs 12-14 is a crucial
difference, and that 12-14 is what ACBL players are ready for, but
11-13 or 11-14 is likely to have them stumped?  And if you think 11-13
really requires a prealert in ACBL land, then why didn't the ACBL
alert regulations mention it when they had such obvious chances to do
so specifically in three separate places in the alert regulations?

>From earlier today:

> Richard Hills:
>
> To paradoctor this paradox perhaps Kojak's Law could be used:
>
> "A specific rule in the Lawbook is an over-riding exception to a
>  general rule in the Lawbook."


I consider the sections of the alert regulations that I previously
quoted to be specific rules that make it clear they never intended
weak notrumps of any range to be prealerted.  Richard's argument is
only from general rules combined with a supposition about 12-14 in the
ACBL that is not clear to me.  But if anyone can substantiate, I am
interested.

-Jerry Fusselman