[hrothgar]

b

[hrothgar]

candybar, on Oct 14 2005, 09:33 PM, said:

I believe my statement was:  I would like to see this ACBL alert system become the BBO standard alert system, not because it's necessarily better than any other, but because it's carefully defined, neatly and clearly presented, and easily accessible to anyone.

..... something that is not true of the EBU alert system as far as I can find.  Perhaps you can direct me to a website that spells out the EBU alert rules as clearly as the ABCL ones are?

The EBU Alert system are documents in section 5 of the Orange Book. The 2005 version can be downloaded from http://www.ebu.co.uk
I'll quote the relevent passage:

5.2.1 You must alert a call if

A. It is not natural

B. It is natural, but you have an agreement by which it is forcing or non-forcing in a way that the opponents are not likely to expect.

C. It is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements that your opponents are unlikely to expect.

5.2.2 General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there had been no discussion beforehand, are not alertable, but you must alert any inferences drawn from partnership experience and practice which may not be expected by your opponents.

There is additional content in section 5 that bulks it out, but almost all of the additional verbiage takes the form of examples.

[luke warm]

david_c, on Oct 12 2005, 04:55 PM, said:

This seems very wrong to me. Why are we talking about "proof"? It is the TD's job to decide what happened, and then make a ruling based on that decision. He doesn't have to prove what was going on.

perhaps he doesn't have to *prove* something in the sense you mean, but surely there has to be some rule, some law, broken...

Quote

Here the TD decided that East was deliberately trying to sabotage the game. Well, that's his decision to make, and he was in a better position to make that decision than any of us. So, though the evidence of the original post doesn't seem sufficient to me, I'm happy to go with the TD's judgement of what happened.

i disagree that any TD can arbitrarily make such a decision.. the original poster gave as his reasons the fact of prior bad acts, but he didn't say what these acts were... and frankly, i don't think it matters... rule on the case at hand...

what evidence did the TD have to justify a charge of deliberate sabotage? having said that, i think it's great that he started this thread and i wish more TDs would do the same... it took a lot of nerve, and his motive is to learn... excellent

[candybar]

hrothgar, on Oct 14 2005, 05:27 PM, said:

candybar, on Oct 14 2005, 09:33 PM, said:

I believe my statement was:  I would like to see this ACBL alert system become the BBO standard alert system, not because it's necessarily better than any other, but because it's carefully defined, neatly and clearly presented, and easily accessible to anyone.

..... something that is not true of the EBU alert system as far as I can find.  Perhaps you can direct me to a website that spells out the EBU alert rules as clearly as the ABCL ones are?

The EBU Alert system are documents in section 5 of the Orange Book. The 2005 version can be downloaded from http://www.ebu.co.uk
I'll quote the relevent passage:

5.2.1 You must alert a call if

A. It is not natural

B. It is natural, but you have an agreement by which it is forcing or non-forcing in a way that the opponents are not likely to expect.

C. It is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements that your opponents are unlikely to expect.

5.2.2 General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there had been no discussion beforehand, are not alertable, but you must alert any inferences drawn from partnership experience and practice which may not be expected by your opponents.

There is additional content in section 5 that bulks it out, but almost all of the additional verbiage takes the form of examples.

Well, it took me a while to find it, but then it was a PDF and needed so long to download that I finally gave up.

But based on your summary, I'd say it confirms my general impression of vagueness and lack of specifics. It's very easy to say "... the opponents are not likely to expect...", but in practice that is impossible to enforce, and even more so for online with its global source of players.

Admittedly, it's more concise than the ACBL one is, but I still like the ACBL chart because there is no question about what is alertable and what is not.

Thank you for the reference.