[Jeremy69A]

Announcing gives some information, typically enough to determine whether you need more. So saying "Weak" when partner opens 2H might mean that later the opponent will want to know the range or whether it might be frequently on five cards. The announcement for a short minor "might be 2" draws attention to the likely system the opponents are playing. You might pre alert if, for example, Weak NT hands with 4 diamonds go through one club. You might let the opponents know if you are declarer (although I am not too keen on that approach because if you say you may have 4 diamonds and you don't opponents have been know to get, irrationally, upset).

What I don't think too much of is inventing your own announcing system or alerting when you know perfectly well it should be announced. It may make you feel better, more pure etc but it often confuses the opponents for little advantage.

Quote

The announcement "could be as short as x" is new, and has a little of a tail-wagging-the-dog character about it, the EBU having codified what people were already doing. I don't think that the authors of the Blue Book have clearly thought out what announcements there are and what they could mean.

I think they would disagree with you. The changes to announcements got a great deal of discussion and the committee looked carefully at the balance between how much disclosure there should be at this point, the length of announcement and how much information was immediately needed.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-26, 11:20, said:

Surely your 1NT opening range is one of the few things you volunteer at the start of a round, along with your opening 1-of-a-suit lengths and opening twos.

I always wonder why people do this. It's not required by the rules, and it's rather pointless given that you've just handed the opponents a piece of paper that contains the same information in rather more detail. And why should they want to know in advance what your two-bids are?

[helene_t]

Yes I find that strange also. Most opps will pre-alert whether they play benji or reverse benji or w/e. Why would I care? I would much rather know whether they open the major or the minor with 4M4m32 hands, something that is often tough to get an answer to

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2014-November-30, 17:05, said:

I always wonder why people do this. It's not required by the rules, and it's rather pointless given that you've just handed the opponents a piece of paper that contains the same information in rather more detail.

It used to be required by the regulations, and many people consider still consider it to be good practice.

It's far quicker for you to give a two second summary than for you to hand over convention cards to your opponents, for them to look at them (which involves putting on reading glasses in some cases), then get past the main focus of your convention card helpfully explaining that you play Stayman and transfers over a 1NT opening, to find out your basic methods are. In practice, few people read convention cards anyway.

gnasher, on 2014-November-30, 17:05, said:

And why should they want to know in advance what your two-bids are?

1. If you're playing something unusual, it gives them a chance to discuss their defence to it.
2. If you're playing something unusual, this facilitates the opponents gaining the same information as you already have about the inferences from your system.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2014-November-30, 17:05, said:

I always wonder why people do this. It's not required by the rules, and it's rather pointless given that you've just handed the opponents a piece of paper that contains the same information in rather more detail. And why should they want to know in advance what your two-bids are?

Quote

Law 40A1{b}: Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done.

The emphasis is mine. The EBU specifies, or used to, that this should be done by exchanging system cards completed according to regulation. The ACBL specifies that this should be done by having such a card on the table. Both RAs specify certain things requiring a "pre-alert". So it doesn't really matter what the opponents want or don't want — each player has a duty to do what the RA has required in support of this law.

The fact that players don't bother looking at their opponents' system cards is their problem, not their opponents'.

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-01, 16:43, said:

The fact that players don't bother looking at their opponents' system cards is their problem, not their opponents'.

In Law, you are quite correct. But I believe that gnasher wishes to gain from his methods because he considers them to be technically superior, not because the opponents didn't realise that he is playing a highly unusual meaning for some of his opening bids.

It's also inefficient to examine in great detail the convention card of every opponent before the start of a 2-board pairs round. I know one pair who does this, irrespsective of the complexity of the system they are playing against: against them, we only have 14 of the usual 15 minutes to complete the bidding and play of the hand.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2014-December-01, 17:04, said:

In Law, you are quite correct. But I believe that gnasher wishes to gain from his methods because he considers them to be technically superior, not because the opponents didn't realise that he is playing a highly unusual meaning for some of his opening bids.

It's also inefficient to examine in great detail the convention card of every opponent before the start of a 2-board pairs round. I know one pair who does this, irrespsective of the complexity of the system they are playing against: against them, we only have 14 of the usual 15 minutes to complete the bidding and play of the hand.

I'm sure he wishes that, too. But how far should we be willing to go in the face of opponents who ignore the rules, some of them knowingly?

The amount of time allocated for a round should include the time required to examine opponents' system card and to discuss defenses if that seems appropriate. If 15 minutes isn't enough, well, lobby for longer rounds.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2014-December-01, 16:07, said:

It's far quicker for you to give a two second summary than for you to hand over convention cards to your opponents, for them to look at them (which involves putting on reading glasses in some cases), then get past the main focus of your convention card helpfully explaining that you play Stayman and transfers over a 1NT opening, to find out your basic methods are. In practice, few people read convention cards anyway.

I agree that some people may find it more convenient to hear a verbal summary, and I'm very happy to provide one when asked to do so. I was mainly wondering why other people choose to inflict a summary on me. It seems to me that this summary is almost always delivered when I am
(a) wondering whether I'm going to be offered their convention card or whether I'm going to have to ask for it, or
(b) trying to read those aspects of their convention card that I consider important, or
(c ) thinking about my opening bid

PS: Actually I want to gain from my methods because they are practically more effective. I couldn't care less about their technical merit.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-01, 16:43, said:

Both RAs specify certain things requiring a "pre-alert".

Is this true for the EBU? For level 5 or in events that allow HUMs?

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2014-December-01, 18:22, said:

I was mainly wondering why other people choose to inflict a summary on me. [size="2"]

They are trying to be polite and helpful. If this is something that you have the energy to be annoyed about, your experience playing in the EBU must be really perfect.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-December-01, 19:32, said:

Is this true for the EBU? For level 5 or in events that allow HUMs?

Well, I thought so. I admit I didn't bother to look it up. However, if it's not, that doesn't affect the argument I was making.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-01, 20:42, said:

Well, I thought so. I admit I didn't bother to look it up. However, if it's not, that doesn't affect the argument I was making.

Neither does it affect whether you post things. "What is truth?" -- Pontius Pilate

Maybe there could be a new forum where you make assertions that are figments of your imagination.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2014-December-01, 19:45, said:

They are trying to be polite and helpful. If this is something that you have the energy to be annoyed about, your experience playing in the EBU must be really perfect.

When did I say I was annoyed by it?

And yes, I understand that they may be trying to be helpful. I said I didn't understand why they think it helpful.

[paulg]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-01, 16:43, said:

The emphasis is mine. The EBU specifies, or used to, that this should be done by exchanging system cards completed according to regulation. The ACBL specifies that this should be done by having such a card on the table. Both RAs specify certain things requiring a "pre-alert".

Vampyr, on 2014-December-01, 19:32, said:

Is this true for the EBU? For level 5 or in events that allow HUMs?

The EBU does not have the concept of a distinct pre-alert, but it does attempt to define what should be included on a system card. The ACBL has a well-defined policy on what must be included in the pre-alert: it works well for the majority but I find that many do not like the full A4 page of pre-alerts that we provide - eyes glaze over very quickly. The SBU uses the old English method, again something that works well where most people play well-known methods.

[RMB1]

Vampyr, on 2014-December-01, 19:32, said:

Is this true for the EBU? For level 5 or in events that allow HUMs?

There are no special pre-alert regulations for level 5 (there are regulations for WBF convention cards).

EBU events that allow HUMs (premier league and other trials) require advance submission/distribution of system cards for HUM and Brown Sticker - which should constitute sufficiently early pre-alert-ing.

[Vampyr]

RMB1, on 2014-December-02, 02:55, said:

There are no special pre-alert regulations for level 5 (there are regulations for WBF convention cards).

EBU events that allow HUMs (premier league and other trials) require advance submission/distribution of system cards for HUM and Brown Sticker - which should constitute sufficiently early pre-alert-ing.

I had thought that all this was the case, except that I didn't know about the regulations for WBF convention cards; can you provide a link?

[RMB1]

Vampyr, on 2014-December-02, 03:44, said:

I had thought that all this was the case, except that I didn't know about the regulations for WBF convention cards; can you provide a link?

EBU Blue Book said:

3 B 1
(c) The WBF system card is permitted only in EBU events held at Level 5. ...

[paulg]

RMB1, on 2014-December-02, 02:55, said:

There are no special pre-alert regulations for level 5 (there are regulations for WBF convention cards).

EBU events that allow HUMs (premier league and other trials) require advance submission/distribution of system cards for HUM and Brown Sticker - which should constitute sufficiently early pre-alert-ing.

To be precise, it is only for Brown Sticker conventions that are not permitted at EBU Level 4.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2014-December-02, 02:01, said:

When did I say I was annoyed by it?

You referred to their action as "inflict". That implies a negative reaction to it.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2014-December-03, 01:37, said:

You referred to their action as "inflict". That implies a negative reaction to it.

It implies that I find it unwelcome. That doesn't mean that it annoys me. I encounter all sorts of things every day which are unwelcome but which don't annoy me.