| |
PDF |
Doc |
Brief
Description |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
x |
x |
This document link to the left defines the ACBL alert procedures. At our club we have a few differences. One point that I would like to emphasise is that this is an international club and I will most certainly not automatically adopt a ruling that is valid in some countries and different in others. Some of the difference between out club and the ACBL suggestions are: -
|
|
| |
|
|
Bridge Club, Bridge_club, Bridge-Club, Pattaya, Thailand. |
|
| |
|
1) |
I strongly believe that a 2♣ 'Stayman' response to a 1NT opener should be alerted if it does not promise a 4 |
|
| |
|
|
card major. The ACBL says that it need not - I believe that they need to re-think this. I believe it is 'too late' to say that the 2♣ bidder may not have a 4-card major when he subsequently bids an invitational 2NT or a 3♣ shape asking bid. |
|
| |
|
2) |
The ACBL says that a 1NT rebid promising 15-16 needs to be alerted. This is standard in Acol and I think |
|
| |
|
|
that having previously informed the opponents that you play a weak NT any further unsolicited information is unnecessary. |
|
| |
|
3) |
Some doubles and even some passes need alerting. For example, if you play the multi-2♦ and the |
|
| |
|
|
uninterrupted sequence goes 2♦ - 2♥ - pass. The ACBL document is not specific in this area. I think that all three bids have to be alerted. The pass needs to be alerted and the explanation that it is a weak heart hand given if asked. |
|
| |
|
4) |
In response to a 1NT opener, the ACBL say that a 2♥ bid that is weak and natural need not be alerted (but a |
|
| |
|
|
transfer should be announced). In my opinion these people (the ACBL) are simply moving backwards. Transfers are 'standard' these days and at our club I think that a natural weak response should be alerted or announced. I guess that all bids over partner's 1NT opening should be announced or alerted? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
A more complete (and much more sensible) list of what needs alering or not at our club is given in . . . . . . 'Local Rules'. |
|
| |
|
|
Basically, we alert anything that is not 'standard'. That seems almost so obvious and logical to me that I am amazed that there are people who disagree. The people who represent the ACBL (or WBF) need to take |
|
| |
|
|
some sort of aptitude (or common sense) test. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|