[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2013-January-06, 11:31, said:

The section for delayed alerts does not mention the wording at all, only the timing. I assumed that was intentional ---recognizing something more than the mere word "alert" might be necessary to drawn attention to the delay alert before it is too late.

I recognize that others simply believe the framers of the procedure just don't know how to write, and intended no such distinction. They might be correct.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, the ACBL alert procedures are terse, and can only be applied by interpolating common sense based on the intent.

Regular alerts should just be done by saying the word "Alert" -- it's clear that the intent is to avoid transmitting UI to partner by describing the bid unless an opponent asks for an explanation.

Delayed alerts don't have this problem. The auction is over, so UI is no longer an issue. So there's no harm in just describing the alertable call, and this is how everyone understands the regulation.

Actually, the delayed alert regulation is probably moot for 99% of ACBL members, since few of them play conventions that fall under this requirement. In an earlier version of the alert procedure, ace-asking bids other than regular Blackwood required a delayed alert, and you still have people announcing, at the end of the auction, "There was an ace-asking sequence" when they've used RKC, although it's not necessary; now it's only required if the ace-asking call was something other than a version of 4NT Blackwood or 4♣ Gerber (e.g. Kickback and Minorwood should be delayed-alerted).

[mycroft]

I've had the "[standard], but" (or "[standard], and") interrupted on me. I try "Would you like to hear the but?"

On the other hand, being known as a TD frequently helps; if I or my partner Alert in situations where one would expect something else, they believe me. If I get to a but or and, they believe me there, too.

I still remember when the Announcements came in, the next week [now world-class expert] and I came in, and the auction went 1NT (Announced, 12-14)-p -2♦ "Alert". "You don't have to say Alert any more, just 'Transfer'." "Thank you. Alert." This happened several times in the next couple of weeks. The next line split almost down the middle between "You don't *have to Alert* any more; just say 'Transfer'" (to which we broke procedure and said "Alert. It's not a transfer.") and "okay, what is it?"

[barmar]

That kind of thing always happens when they change the alert rules, since it's far more likely that the opponent is unaware of the change (or just falling back to old habits). That's how things change -- not everyone reads and understands the publications, word of mouth is an important part of the process.

I remember when ACBL changed negative doubles to be non-alertable. I went to a National and agreed with one partner to play our "rubber bridge standard" system, which included penalty doubles. Wwen we made these doubles we alerted them, and opponents were always telling us "that's not alertable any more."

[mycroft]

It wasn't the first line that got us (because they really were trying to be helpful, and that was why the sincere "thank you. Alert"), it was the reiteration...

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-January-07, 10:36, said:

Delayed alerts don't have this problem. The auction is over, so UI is no longer an issue. So there's no harm in just describing the alertable call, and this is how everyone understands the regulation.

Not everyone.