[Barry]

Can you please clarify the following regulations:

EBU regulations

1. Can a Club inform members that they do not have to make the 'Announcements' that are listed in the Orange Book?

2. Can a Club inform members they do not have to alert?

3. Can a partnership inform the opposition that they do not want them to announce or alert during the auction?

[RMB1]

A club is the sponsoring organisation for its own events and can create its own regulations.

So the answer to 1. and 2. is Yes. (I would replace "inform" by "instruct")

The answer to 3. depends not on the pair but the sponsoring organisation.

In an EBU sponsored event the answer is No.
In a club event, the club can decide that pairs can require the opposition not to announce or alert.

I feel duty bound to point out that if a club has different announcing/alerting regulations. its players will be at a disadvantage adapting to playing in events that do use the national regulations.

Robin

[barmar]

Something I've wished for when playing against a pair using relays is that there be a single alert when the relays start, and then another when they get out of the relays. Good players will dilligently say "Alert", pull out the alert card and put it back in the box for each bid, and it gets kind of annoying. I know that every bid in the sequence is artificial, it's almost insulting that they have to remind me each step of the way.

Suppose, contrary to the RA's regulations, a pair does ask the opponents not to alert, and the opponents acquiesce. What happens if the director is called for a situation that might have been avoided with proper alerting? Are both sides deemed to be equally at fault, or is the request not to alert ignored (since it was an improper request), and the opponents guilty of misinformation due to failure to alert?

The latter seems unfair -- the requesting pair presumably knew that they could be damaged and were apparently willing to accept the risk. But if the other side can be found guilty of failing to alert, there's essentially no risk, it's like a double shot. So it's actually more like a test of the requestees' integrity -- when asked not to alert, will they correctly point out that this is not a request they can legally comply with.

[bluejak]

It is generally accepted by TDs that if two sides agree not to play bridge according to the rules they can play without TDs. So a TD will normally refuse to rule.

[nige1]

bluejak, on Dec 29 2009, 05:50 PM, said:

It is generally accepted by TDs that if two sides agree not to play bridge according to the rules they can play without TDs.  So a TD will normally refuse to rule.

I'm amazed Infractions are bad Colluding in them seems worse Condoning such shenanigans would seem to be the worst kind of director error

[PeterE]

What is the alternative ?? Throwing eggs on them ?

[nige1]

PeterE, on Dec 30 2009, 12:34 PM, said:

What is the alternative ?? Throwing eggs on them ?     

If you consider that an appropriate disciplinary penalty directors who refuse to deal with irregularities of which they are aware

[aguahombre]

On a personal note, it is just as annoying and distracting for the would-be alerting side to have to change its procedure --automatic and ingrained -- for the whims of one pair who requests/demands no alerts or announcements.

[TimG]

At the summer 2009 meetings of the C&C Committee (ACBL) a motion to not allow “Please no alerts” passed. I do not know how this rule is being disseminated.

[blackshoe]

I was surprised to find the minutes of the CandC meetings (spring and summer 2009) on the ACBL web site, and the item about not allowing "please don't alert" is in there. It seems that's how it's being disseminated, since I can't find it anywhere else. Perhaps I've missed a note in the Bulletin, or it will be published in an upcoming issue (hopefully soon).