Jumping to conclusion

[Ed Reppert]

The ACBL SC is one side of an about 8 1/2 x 9 or so page. The other side is a personal score. I don't like that. It results in people holding their SC close (when they have one at all) because, after all, they don't want to show their personal score to opponents. Also, the lack of space for system description is a problem. Yet in his book on directing, first published in 1956, Alex Groner wrote "you can even write your conventions on the back of your personal score!" If you ask me, somebody's priorities are backwards.

[Nick Whitten]

I see a distinction between a “Pre-Alert Card” and a “System Card” even though they may both be parts of the same document.

The “System Card” would contain full details which the opponents may pore over if they have the need (and the time ) to do so.

The “Pre-Alert Card” would contain only the bare essentials which the opponents might need to know before the bidding starts or which would be unexpected in a way which can’t be conveyed by a normal alert (for example the (locally) highly unusual treatment at the start of this thread).
The opponents would only glance at this for a few seconds. If this is what Alex Groner had in mind I don’t have too much of a problem with the personal results on the back.

Incidentally I prefer easy-to-read written pre-alerts over verbal ones. Verbal pre-alerts can get messy in a number of ways (people don’t listen, or ask dumb questions, or later swear that you never pre-alerted etc etc)

[Ed Reppert]

Under ACBL regs, if I'm not mistaken, pre-alerts are made verbally, there is no "pre-alert card". The only problem I've seen with that is that people do not, in fact, make them. Even with cards, there would be a significant number here who would not look at them, or would not assimilate what is written on them, or would forget, and all of them will later claim there was no pre-alert.

I think that when Groner made his comment, the idea of requiring players to write down anything at all about their agreements was new. The actual situation in NA now is that the score card and the system card are two sides of the same sheet of paper.

[Nick Whitten]

The NZ Manual only says “pairs should acquaint each other with…” implying verbal or written is Ok.
If anyone were to claim damage through being unaware of something which was easily readable on the table I would not adjust. Nor would I offer them immunity from a penalty for “an appeal without merit” if it went to an appeal.

[bluejak]

Originally Posted by Nick Whitten

The NZ Manual certainly does not say a player can be compensated for damage he could have averted by asking what an alerted call meant.

But it does say “Your agreements must be fully available and fully disclosed to your opponents” and “Your principle should be to disclose….as much as you can and as comprehensively as you can” (both those quotes in “Alerting Procedure – Introduction” on page D38).
Which suggests if he knows he is using a call with an unexpected meaning he ought to be pre-alerting it as a matter of courtesy. But if he doesn’t theres nothing the TD can do about it.

That’s the situation I don’t like (but I can’t offer any solution )
Nor do I like it when a player needs to ask about every call even though the answer will nearly always be the same.

The principle is simple: if a call is alerted, there is something you might need to know. Fully disclosed to opponents means correctly alerted, correctly explained if asked, correctly put on the SC [system card] when an SC is required, and correctly pre-alerted if a pre-alert is required. It does not mean pre-alerted in a jurisdiction that does not use pre-alerts.

In the given situation why on earth would you pre-alert it? If I was playing in NZ I might easily tell opponents that I play the Multi, Lucas Twos, and the Mini no-trump. You are not seriously telling me I should tell them what non-standard responses I play? Why on earth would I start with responses to 1NT?

When you have a jurisdiction that has pre-alerting, that jurisdiction will tell you what to pre-alert: Scotland does, for example. But they do not include responses to 1NT!

Nick suggest pre-alerting as a matter of courtesy a call used with an unexpected meaning. Which of the 1000 or so calls I play as non-standard should I be pre-alerting?

Declarer in this case gets no sympathy whatever. The call was alerted, he could not be bothered to ask. He got what he deserved.

[bluejak]

Originally Posted by Ed Roggeveen

Alternatively, make pre-alerting absolutely compulsory and penalise players for not doing it. The current situation in NZ is very messy with maybe 2% of pairs pre-alerting. I like the new personal score cards from NZBridge, which have a section for pre-alerts. But when they are made available they are still usually left blank. NZ tournament directors probably need to all decide they are going to insist on pre-alerting so players get into the habit.

NZ tournament directors [TDs]? Are you seriously telling me they write your regulations?

I think you have probably misunderstood the chain of command. Whether you pre-alert [and how and whether you alert] is a problem for the Tournament Organiser [TO] which is covered by Regulation. TDs apply regulations given to them, not decide them.

As I have explained elsewhere, pre-alerting would not sensibly cover this case. But anyway, unless your TDs are the same as the TOs [very unlikely] the TDs should not be deciding anything.

[Nick Whitten]

The NZ Manual recommends “unusual calls which may take the opponents by surprise” be pre-alerted. NZ is small enough for most regular tournament players to have a fair idea of which they might be.

I see a distinction between, for example:
[a] An alerted 2D opening which, in NZ, is likely to be Artificial Game force, or Multi (with numerous variations), or Precision style (4414 shape) or Flannery. In this case I totally agree any opponent doesn’t ask deserves any bad result he gets. So asking would be routine and if it transpires the opponents 2D is something else weird and wonderful there is no untimely surprise.

Compared with.

[b] An alerted 2D response to 1NT, which is almost certainly a transfer to 2H in NZ. A player who, having asked 100 times before and got the same answer each time, neglects to ask this time deserves some sympathy IMO.

I doubt if many of David’s 1000 or so calls would require a pre-alert (all calls after the first round of bidding can be excluded). In most cases a normal alert when the call is made would suffice.
And if that is not the case an announcement “we play a highly unusual system” should warn the opponents not to assume anything. A code Red system card conveys the same message of course, but the use of those colour codes is not very common here in my experience (a pity IMO).

[Ed Reppert]

Does the NZ Manual specify the use of those color codes?

[Nick Whitten]

No.
The colour codes are defined and referred to in several places but the Systems card policy D42 (2010-2011 edition) has no requirement to display colour codes

[Ed Reppert]

I gather that you mean there is no requirement for an actual colored (or coloured, if you prefer) sticker on the card. I see there is a place where yellow/blue/red etc. are printed on the card, and the policy does say "Pairs using Red or Yellow systems or Brown Sticker conventions must record this on the System Card". Using a sticker would certainly make the coding stand out more, which seems a sensible idea. <shrug>