[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2012-April-05, 03:57, said:

I had an official response from the L&EC about a similar question a few years ago. I wrote to them asking how I should announce a 1NT opening which was 15-17 if 4333/4432, but would routinely be a 5332 14-count or a 6322 13-count. I was advised to announce it as "15-17; maybe slightly less with a 6-card minor", with the comment that "we don't specify the exact form of words which must be used".

Interesting. The L&EC advised you to disclose the 6322 13-counts but not the 5332 14-counts. Also the "we don't specify the exact form of words which must be used" seems to be in contradiction with the wording of the Orange Book quoted above.

Maybe you could announce your 1NT opening as "15-17 or Rule of 22".

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2012-April-05, 15:33, said:

Interesting. The L&EC advised you to disclose the 6322 13-counts but not the 5332 14-counts.

Actually, my earlier post was slightly misleading. My question was addressed to the L&EC, and the reply was from the then secretary to the L&EC, but I believe that it was actually written by Max Bavin without consulting the rest of the committee.

Quote

Also the "we don't specify the exact form of words which must be used" seems to be in contradiction with the wording of the Orange Book quoted above.

Do you mean the part that reads "Natural 1NT openings are announced by stating the range, eg by saying '12 to 14'."? The "eg" tells us that this is one possible form of words, not that it is the only permitted form of words.

Quote

Maybe you could announce your 1NT opening as "15-17 or Rule of 22".

I think that would be allowed, except that my notrump openings have an upper limit, so it would be "15-17 or Rule of 22-24".

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2012-April-05, 17:12, said:

Do you mean the part that reads "Natural 1NT openings are announced by stating the range, eg by saying '12 to 14'."? The "eg" tells us that this is one possible form of words, not that it is the only permitted form of words.

To me it suggests that you say a minimum point count and a maximum point count, and not that you might add other information that has nothing to do with what the range is. If you feel that full disclosure requires that the additional information be provided, then it seems to me you should alert rather than announce.

Around here I frequently hear "could be short, non-forcing" as an announcement of partner's 1♣ opening. My reaction is "of course it's non-forcing; if it was forcing, you'd have to alert it". On the few occasions I've brought that point up, they nodded sagely, and went on doing it their way.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-05, 21:35, said:

To me it suggests that you say a minimum point count and a maximum point count, and not that you might add other information that has nothing to do with what the range is.

I'm not sure why it would suggest that to you. The only requirement is that you state a "range". There is nothing in that sentence to say that it has to be a range of high card strength.

When I wrote my earlier post, I was interpreting "range" as meaning "range of hand-types". However, I now see that the Orange Book defines the term "range" as "The agreed values shown by a call, generally expressed in HCP." It says "generally", so we're not obliged to use HCP. It says "values" rather than "high-card values", so we're not constrained to describing the high-card values only. If appropriate, we can state a range in terms of playing strength, or of combined high-card and distributional values.

I think, therefore, that "15-17; maybe slightly less with a 6-card minor" or "15-17 or equivalent playing strength" is clearly allowed, because it describes the range in terms of playing strength (and also because Max said so).

However, I've changed my mind about "14-16, or 12-16 with clubs" - this states a range of hand-types, not just of values, so on a strict interpretation of the rules it's incorrect. On a similarly strict interpretation, alerting also appears to be incorrect. But I would do one of these two anyway.

[paulg]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-05, 21:35, said:

Around here I frequently hear "could be short, non-forcing" as an announcement of partner's 1♣ opening. My reaction is "of course it's non-forcing; if it was forcing, you'd have to alert it". On the few occasions I've brought that point up, they nodded sagely, and went on doing it their way.

Of course, around there, you are required to announce AND alert simultaneously. But apparently ignoring the requirement to alert is acceptable.

[blackshoe]

No. Or maybe. An alert has two parts: the waving around of the alert card (or tapping the alert strip, if you can find it) and the statement "alert!". An announcement also has two parts, the first of which just happens to be identical to the first part of the alert procedure. I've said before that I think an announcement is a kind of alert, but most folks pooh-pooh the idea. Of course, as you say, most people ignore that first part in both cases anyway.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-06, 03:28, said:

No. Or maybe. An alert has two parts: the waving around of the alert card (or tapping the alert strip, if you can find it) and the statement "alert!". An announcement also has two parts, the first of which just happens to be identical to the first part of the alert procedure. I've said before that I think an announcement is a kind of alert, but most folks pooh-pooh the idea. Of course, as you say, most people ignore that first part in both cases anyway.

Although kind of splitting hairs I would say that (at least according to our Norwegian regulations) Alert has two parts: 1 - signalling the alert, and 2 - answering any question related to the alert signal. Announcing has only one part: Immediately giving the relevant information to opponents without awaiting any kind of question.

Other jurisdictions may have (and apparently do have) different regulations with different consequences.

[gnasher]

Regarding the original (EBU) question, I found this in the minutes of an L&EC meeting, July 2010:

L&EC said:

It was also confirmed that the prescribed announcements in the Orange Book may be added to by players if doing so aids full disclosure in a concise fashion.

That seems clear enough, though it would have been even clearer if they'd actually changed the regulations instead of expecting people to read the minutes and remember them years later. We don't have to copy the WBFLC in all things, do we?

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-April-06, 04:56

[Jeremy69A]

In my opinion it is announceable NOT alertable BUT opponents are entitled to the full information so I think a convention card with the information on it is required and extending the announcement to 12-16(but always with clubs if at the weak end)would be suitable.

It would come as a big surprise to the L&E if announcing was being abolished although, as said above, clubs can do that if they wish to do so.

[mgoetze]

bluejak, on 2012-April-05, 06:07, said:

I have advised Blue Club players to alert their 1NT opening.

Wouldn't this entitle the opponents to assume that it was one of

campboy, on 2012-April-05, 03:57, said:

ii) artificial and strong iii) artificial guaranteeing 4+ cards in a specified suit and iv) three-suited.

?

(Not that I see clearly how they could be damaged by making this assumption, but you never know.)

[blackshoe]

I differ, it seems, from others in that I don't believe that an alert entitles anyone to assume anything other than that they might want to ask what the alerted call means.

[mjj29]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-06, 19:45, said:

I differ, it seems, from others in that I don't believe that an alert entitles anyone to assume anything other than that they might want to ask what the alerted call means.

They are entitled to assume it's not a non-alertable meaning. Of course, given how similar you can be to a non-alertable meaning and need an alert this might not help, but...

[FrancesHinden]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-04, 18:32, said:

Look, I'm sorry. I was just hoping for a definitive answer from those responsible for writing the regulations.

If you want a definitive answer, write to the L&E. This is the internet. Even if you get an answer from one or more of those responsible for writing the regulations, it is still not demonstrably anything more than a matter of opinion.

FWIW I agree with gnasher (and others) that you should give a slightly expanded announcement. I seem to remember that we deliberately didn't change the regulations because we didn't want people going mad with their personalised announcements. I think that, technically, you are within the rules if all you say is "12-16" (assuming that the '12-13 with clubs' option is still a balanced hand) but I agree I don't like it.

[bluejak]

mgoetze, on 2012-April-06, 18:49, said:

Wouldn't this entitle the opponents to assume that it was one of

?

(Not that I see clearly how they could be damaged by making this assumption, but you never know.)

If you are damaged by your own assumptions, tough luck. An alert says there is something it is worth finding out. Not finding out and complaining it is not what you thought is neither MI nor a reason for sympathy.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-04, 18:20, said:

Can the hand with clubs be unbalanced or semi-balanced? Can it contain a second suit?

FWIW, the classic Blue Team Club 1NT open showed either

A balanced hand with 16-17 HCP OR
A 5-3-3-2 patter with 5 clubs and 13-15 HCP

The primary design goal was to beef up the 1D openings and ensure that it promised a real suit...

[blackshoe]

Thanks. I haven't looked at Blue Team Club in years, and I'd forgotten that aspect.

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-April-07, 14:04, said:

I seem to remember that we deliberately didn't change the regulations because we didn't want people going mad with their personalised announcements.

A good way to achieve that would have been to add this to the rules: "The prescribed announcements may be added to by players if doing so aids full disclosure in a concise fashion. Players should, however, refrain from going mad with their personalised announcements."

I think that's better than deciding that you want the rules to be different in practice from their literal meaning, but that you don't want everyone to know about it.

[Oof Arted]

helene_t, on 2012-April-05, 04:09, said:

hmmm our td in Leeds told me. But I can't find it anywhere on the EBU site. So I guess I was wrong.

Tell that TD to read the OB or seek advice

[Ant590]

It seems that a couple of clubs in Yorkshire have a homebrew rule that 1NT is only announceable when it isn't 12-14. Perhaps Leeds have gone one step further.

[Oof Arted]

Ant590, on 2012-April-14, 07:38, said:

It seems that a couple of clubs in Yorkshire have a homebrew rule that 1NT is only announceable when it isn't 12-14. Perhaps Leeds have gone one step further.

Perhaps indeed , But I am curious what happens when a stranger plays there

And I assume they follow the Laws/regulations for Intercity matches