Post by Kenny McCormack Post by Bertel Lund Hansen Post by Kenny McCormack
But here's the thing, I really don't understand why people get hyper about
necro-posts anyway. There really doesn't seem any harm in it to me.
I'm not getting hyper, but through the last years there has been
a number of necro-posts in different groups, and with yours as
the only exception, the posters have dropped a single message
only to never appear again.
Every once in a while, in the obits newsgroup, you'll see a post attached
to an item about somebody dying, say 20 years ago (It will say at the top
of the post something like "On 13 April, 2001, so and so said this and
so"). The new post will say that the person referenced in the obit (who
died, say, 20 years ago) was their gramma (or something similar).
I think this sort of post is charming and useful. Not to be discouraged.
Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
And if the question for example is about which tv-set is the best
one to buy, or how to fix a broken washing machine, then it makes
little sense to answer the question ten years later.
Anyway, bridge is pretty timeless. Nothing wrong with commenting 20 years
later on a bridge topic. Also, the whole idea of newsgroups (as opposed to
private email) is that it is for everyone, not just the OP. If your intent
was solely to inform the OP, you'd just send them a private email (and not
cost the net hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars by doing so).
Every time a Republican gets caught doing something illegal (i.e., just about every
1) "I didn't do it" (Standard denial)
2) "Here's how I did it and why I did it and why it shouldn't matter to you and why you should go back to watching TV sports"
Larry Lang <***@gmail.com>
10:40 AM (4 minutes ago)
If I had understood the date of the question and where it came from, I would not have replied. Next time I'll do a research project on where the question came from, before I answer. I hope this will make your life easier.
But here's the scoop. As a Bridge director, I can tell you the official ACBL stance on alerts has been modified at least 8 times in the last 20 years. Your remark about washing machines doesn't apply. And since my comment is so important to you, I'll finish what I started and answer the question in a more general sense and thus answer the question completely..
There is an ethical and a legal aspect of what you should alert at Bridge As of now, they do not coincide because there is not enough room in the rule book to cover every possible situation and auction. One must balance the problem that could be caused by alerting partner to your understanding of the agreement, against not giving the opponents full disclosure that they need to defend and bid to the best of their ability.
I would argue that Bailey Weak 2 bids are so different from normal weak two bids (5 cards instead of 6) that ethically you should alert. However, if you don't, few directors would take exception. As in all situations, if the opponents ask, you must give full disclosure, even and up to including things you know about partner's bidding style through past history.
Will this change sometime in the future? Certainly it will. The ACBL has passed and then revoked many laws about weak twos already, and written and revised many pamphlets about alerting. It revises Bridge Laws, seemingly every 4 years? The whole attitude has changed about penalties, such that they now wish to put a board back to normalcy after an irregularity rather than penalize the person causing the irregularity.
And yes, Bailey Weak 2 Bids are still played, and people still argue about alerting.