[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2014-September-14, 04:37, said:

Is it o.k. if we use it to sensibly fill out our convention cards?

Sure, but it's not okay to say the card is required to be filled out as the guide suggests.

[barmar]

chasetb, on 2014-September-13, 20:10, said:

Here's a place where I can help, as per the ACBL, if you open 1♦ on 3 ONLY if it's exactly 4432, then you actually checkmark the 3 box, but have an arrow pointing at the 4 box.

Not very helpful advice for the many people who use electronic versions of the ACBL convention card. I don't think any of them have a way to add markings like that, all you can do is check the boxes and fill in text fields.

[aguahombre]

The man provides us a guide which someone went to a lot of work to produce, and which would be helpful to a whole lot of people when filling out their CC's.

And the best we can do is question whether it is a "regulation" and find a group of people for whom part of it might not be able to be used.

[GreenMan]

aguahombre, on 2014-September-14, 12:13, said:

The man provides us a guide which someone went to a lot of work to produce, and which would be helpful to a whole lot of people when filling out their CC's.

And the best we can do is question whether it is a "regulation" and find a group of people for whom part of it might not be able to be used.

I was starting to worry I might not be on BBO Forums, but now my mind is at ease.

[blackshoe]

Agua, I was simply trying to prevent some Secretary Bird from claiming that not filling out the card in accordance with this guidance is an infraction of law or regulation. If you can't see that as useful, well, sorry about that.

As for the "computer generated" card, it seems like it would be fairly easy to take a pen to it once it's printed out. Or do people not print them out any more?

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-14, 18:40, said:

Agua, I was simply trying to prevent some Secretary Bird from claiming that not filling out the card in accordance with this guidance is an infraction of law or regulation. If you can't see that as useful, well, sorry about that.

IMO instructions on completion of the standard card should be part of the rules and directors should insist that players possess a properly completed card. IMO, clubs should provide pre-printed cards for local standard systems. Disclosure is fundamental to the game of Bridge so it's weird that it's so sloppily enforced.

blackshoe, on 2014-September-14, 18:40, said:

As for the "computer generated" card, it seems like it would be fairly easy to take a pen to it once it's printed out. Or do people not print them out any more?

I agree with blackshoe that a player should be free to amend a computer-printed card.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-14, 18:40, said:

As for the "computer generated" card, it seems like it would be fairly easy to take a pen to it once it's printed out. Or do people not print them out any more?

Not when playing online.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-September-15, 08:29, said:

Not when playing online.

Okay, when (next week?) all bridge is played online, I'll withdraw my comment.

[mycroft]

Necro of the year, but a warning that with the new Alert Procedure, the exemption for 4=5=2=2 "What is Flannery?" has gone away - it is no longer in the list of exceptions to Alertable Artificial calls. OP will be happy, it's now Alertable like he thought it should have been before.

I checked with my contact on the Charts Rewrite committee (oddly enough, one of the posters in this thread), and he said that I was reading correctly, the exception no longer exists. Whether that was deliberate or just something that fell out I didn't ask.

So, one more thing to add to my "changes you might not expect" list in my "welcome to the new Alert Chart" document, and one more thing that people are going to have to be educated on (this one is going to take *years*, though, as it never comes up in practise. Unlike, say, the Delayed Alerts for control cuebids and ace-asking responses).

[pescetom]

Is this the change you have been griping about, without naming it?
Seems fairly harmless to me, although I agree it might have been more practical to simply improve the wording making 5422 an allowable exception.

[mycroft]

No, my primary gripe is the timing of the changes; because it means that we have to "learn" the new rules under Appendix O (which basically is "explain anything unusual, partner can't hear you"; and then once we get back to real play, we have to learn them all again - and the changes are legion.

The major technical issue I have is that most warnings about uncommon strengths - in particular ultra-aggressive (in expert circles, "expected") strengths - have gone away (not that they were honoured in practise anyway). This is not going to cause any problems in expert events - they all know this already - but when they play in Flight A events against normal bridge players and open 3♣ with QJ853 and a singleton, or EHAA 2-bids, or 1♠ on a boring 9, or precision 2+ 1♦ in third seat with almost nothing (soon to be legal on the Open Chart), with no pre-Alert, Alert or explanation, the C players are going to claim that they're being C-worded, and "you let these experts get away with stealing from us real bridge players", and it's going to get ugly. But that's just my guess - I've been known to be overly pessimistic.

This new no-Flannery Alert is just a surprising thing to me that will be surprising to the 65% of ACBL players who have been rebidding 2♣ with no Alert for 30 years and won't notice that it changed. There are *lots* of those; it's just one more thing to learn as we go.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2021-September-17, 13:17, said:

No, my primary gripe is the timing of the changes; because it means that we have to "learn" the new rules under Appendix O (which basically is "explain anything unusual, partner can't hear you"; and then once we get back to real play, we have to learn them all again - and the changes are legion.

The major technical issue I have is that most warnings about uncommon strengths - in particular ultra-aggressive (in expert circles, "expected") strengths - have gone away (not that they were honoured in practise anyway). This is not going to cause any problems in expert events - they all know this already - but when they play in Flight A events against normal bridge players and open 3♣ with QJ853 and a singleton, or EHAA 2-bids, or 1♠ on a boring 9, or precision 2+ 1♦ in third seat with almost nothing (soon to be legal on the Open Chart), with no pre-Alert, Alert or explanation, the C players are going to claim that they're being C-worded, and "you let these experts get away with stealing from us real bridge players", and it's going to get ugly. But that's just my guess - I've been known to be overly pessimistic.

This new no-Flannery Alert is just a surprising thing to me that will be surprising to the 65% of ACBL players who have been rebidding 2♣ with no Alert for 30 years and won't notice that it changed. There are *lots* of those; it's just one more thing to learn as we go.

Thanks. I'll try to figure out what Appendix O is all about.

Warnings about uncommon strengths seem to me in line with the spirit of the Laws, and about the only thing between QJ853 and the C-word, given the limitations of written divulgation of agreements. I have more sympathy with your Flight A than the experts who say it's just bridge (but then scream to TD when it works against them).

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2021-September-17, 13:17, said:

This new no-Flannery Alert is just a surprising thing to me that will be surprising to the 65% of ACBL players who have been rebidding 2♣ with no Alert for 30 years and won't notice that it changed. There are *lots* of those; it's just one more thing to learn as we go.

I admit that I usually follow these things pretty closely and didn't realize this non-alert went away.

[mycroft]

I promise you I have read it completely, double-digit times, "looking for loopholes", and this one (and Ed's "so, what do we do with p-1M; 1NT semi-forcing?") got away from me, until I actually bid it at the table, and went "hmm, I don't remember what the new Alert Chart says about this". Only to find that it said nothing, and on ask, finding that it was intended (as I said, not sure if deliberate, but that is the way to read it).

Pescetom, Appendix O is just the ACBL's online regulations. Like most, it contains the "since you're self-alerting, err on the side of over-explaining, even if technically not Alertable" regulation (phrased much better than I just did).

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2021-September-20, 10:32, said:

Pescetom, Appendix O is just the ACBL's online regulations. Like most, it contains the "since you're self-alerting, err on the side of over-explaining, even if technically not Alertable" regulation (phrased much better than I just did).

Thanks. That's pretty much universal I think/hope.

I'm jealous of ACBL that you at least have an announcement for semi-forcing 1NT.
Over here the regulations stubbonly refuse to acknowledge it exists, even though almost everyone plays it (and many gratefully remain silent).

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2021-September-14, 11:26, said:

Necro of the year, but a warning that with the new Alert Procedure, the exemption for 4=5=2=2 "What is Flannery?" has gone away - it is no longer in the list of exceptions to Alertable Artificial calls. OP will be happy, it's now Alertable like he thought it should have been before.

I checked with my contact on the Charts Rewrite committee (oddly enough, one of the posters in this thread), and he said that I was reading correctly, the exception no longer exists. Whether that was deliberate or just something that fell out I didn't ask.

So, one more thing to add to my "changes you might not expect" list in my "welcome to the new Alert Chart" document, and one more thing that people are going to have to be educated on (this one is going to take *years*, though, as it never comes up in practise. Unlike, say, the Delayed Alerts for control cuebids and ace-asking responses).

ACBL disclosure regulations seem wrong to me. For example ...

• Opening 1♣ with a 2-cards,
• Opening 1N with a singleton.
• Rebidding 1♠-1N-2♣ with a doubleton ♣.
• Pescetom's semii-forcing 1M-1N reply

Such rules cause problems for players and spawn intriguing cases for legal experts and tournament directors
Mycroft has put lots of work into this kind of area,
No wonder they resent criticism of local disclosure regulations

Q.E.D.

[mycroft]

I am right there with you on criticism of local disclosure regulations. I hated (some parts of) the old one, the new one, the online one, the EBU one, the India one, and any others I've had to play under. Trust me, you haven't seen the "so this is totally unfair; who convinced you guys this was a good idea?" comments I've made (and still do make). And you won't; private communication.

I have only and always been objecting to "we can fix it if we only do this simple thing. It's so simple and obvious, I don't even have to show you how simple it would be". I am reminded of this bug report.

I am *absolutely* all for simplifying and making consistent what is possible to do. I hate all these variations. But strong emphasis on "what is possible". Having a utopian goal is worthwhile. Not admitting that it *is* utopian is not. "Everything is the first and only acceptable/reasonable step" is actively unhelpful.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2021-October-28, 23:33, said:

Q.E.D.

Nope.

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2021-October-29, 10:19, said:

I am *absolutely* all for simplifying and making consistent what is possible to do. I hate all these variations. But strong emphasis on "what is possible". Having a utopian goal is worthwhile. Not admitting that it *is* utopian is not. "Everything is the first and only acceptable/reasonable step" is actively unhelpful.

Mycroft and I agree .