[jillybean]

Gerardo, on Sep 15 2005, 04:47 PM, said:

4+♥ most probably comes from the 1♥ bid, it was explained after 1♥.

No, 1♣ was described as "12+pc,4=h"

1♥ was not alerted

[olegru]

I believe Gerardo is right.
Lets say for example I am playing some variant of the Polish club. After I bid 1 ♣ I will allert and type "Polish club" in the "explanation box." My partner will alerd his 1♦. Probably he will not write any explanation in "explanation box" untill opponents will press it asking for clarification or ask question.
Lets say no one asked us for clarification. I bid 1♥ on the next round of bidding and now one of my opponents press 1♣ bid, asking for explanation.
What would I do? I deffinitly will not discribe all 5 different meanings for 1♣ bid in the our system. Explanation box is not big enoght for it and my opponents do not really want to know what could 1 ♣ oppening mean in Polish club. What they need to know is a variant which was shown by my real action - 1 ♣ and then 1 ♥. As a results my first explanation "Polish club" will be replaced by "12+ pc and 4= ♥".
I see, it could look confusing but it is very natural. If opponents were confused by place of explanation they always can ask question or look at CC. Of course director can do the same.
If scenario of this case was similar to my example - I can't see any problem. Result must stand. We alerted and opponents had opportunity to ask but used it too late.
Much worse case if 1♣ and 1♦ bids weren't alerted. In this case opponents didn't know they need to ask, untill it was too late. They asked before final pass, and director saw answers - but in this case we can see failure to alert in time and director need to adjust.
And hardest question is what to do if only one of us alerted. F.e. I alerted 1 ♣, but Partner forgot to alert artifitial 1♦. If in opponents profiles "advanced" or higher I would not adjust - they could deffend themself by asking. But I will deffenetly to do it, if opponents not expirienced. They do not have to know what hell is Polish club and do not have to bother to correct my partners failure to alert.

[pigpenz]

but if your partner didnt alert a bid i feel you should ethicallly alert the opps before the opening lead.

[Elianna]

pigpenz, on Sep 15 2005, 06:59 PM, said:

but if your partner didnt alert a bid i feel you should ethicallly alert the opps before the opening lead.

How will you know pard didn't alert it if you're playing online?

[pigpenz]

Elianna, on Sep 15 2005, 10:08 PM, said:

pigpenz, on Sep 15 2005, 06:59 PM, said:

but if your partner didnt alert a bid i feel you should ethicallly alert the opps before the opening lead.

How will you know pard didn't alert it if you're playing online?

I guess I always assumed this was a real world problem

[candybar]

coyot, on Sep 15 2005, 07:37 AM, said:

2) Non-alerted 1♦ is perfectly "normal" bid in the sense that any player has the right to assume that it is natural - and does NOT HAVE to protect himself by enquiring.
(Just because the opening bid is strange (and alerted), I don't have to protect myself by ASKING about the meaning of non-alerted bids, the absence of alert indicating they're basically natural)
... and ...
5) Again, candybar, I don't like the approach that "opponents were expected to ask about the bidding if it was alerted.", especially since the (totally artifical) bid was NOT alerted. Surely you don't expect players to ask about non-alerted bids that are made in response to any alerted bid.

The ACBL Alert Procedure contains these two statements:

-- Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.

-- Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation.

While I realize that the ACBL does not include the entire world, and other countries than the US might have different approaches, I have yet to see anything better, more carefully thought out, or more fair, than the ACBL Alert Procedure. It is this on which I based my statements.

[coyot]

candybar, on Sep 16 2005, 09:18 AM, said:

coyot, on Sep 15 2005, 07:37 AM, said:

2) Non-alerted 1♦ is perfectly "normal" bid in the sense that any player has the right to assume that it is natural - and does NOT HAVE to protect himself by enquiring.
(Just because the opening bid is strange (and alerted), I don't have to protect myself by ASKING about the meaning of non-alerted bids, the absence of alert indicating they're basically natural)
... and ...
5) Again, candybar, I don't like the approach that "opponents were expected to ask about the bidding if it was alerted.", especially since the (totally artifical) bid was NOT alerted. Surely you don't expect players to ask about non-alerted bids that are made in response to any alerted bid.

The ACBL Alert Procedure contains these two statements:

-- Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.

-- Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation.

While I realize that the ACBL does not include the entire world, and other countries than the US might have different approaches, I have yet to see anything better, more carefully thought out, or more fair, than the ACBL Alert Procedure. It is this on which I based my statements.

Does that mean that when you fail to alert an artifical bid and I call the TD, he will scrutinize me, asking whether I know your bidding system? That it just ridiculous.

I believe these statements are here to prevent doubleshots where the expert player waits to see whether it will be better to get an adjustment or to let the opponents bid something wrong.

Typically, when I think that opponents might be bidding something wrong, I will NEVER ask about their bids before bidding is over, unless I really NEED to know immediately what is going on. I certainly do not wish to investigate whether a particular bid should have been alerted or not.

And I think that any TD would have a hard time proving that I was supposed to know that a certain response was artifical UNLESS I play a very similar system.

If the ACBL rules really want me to protect myself so carefully in order to help opponents clarify their own bidding, then I must say I'm happy to live in another country

[jillybean]

This is going off topic – we are talking about online bridge so there is less chance of unauthorized information being passed when a bid is alerted or queried. Alerts and full explanations should be encouraged.

Roll on Full Disclosure

[McBruce]

There is, however, a major problem here if an auction can go like this:

1♣ alerted
Pass
1♦ not alerted
Pass
1♥
Pass
1♠
End

If dummy does not somehow get the information that 1♦ was not self-alerted, he cannot do what dummies are expected to do in offline bridge:

"Uh, before you lead, there was a failure to alert 1♦"

Isn't this a major problem?

[cherdano]

McBruce, on Sep 17 2005, 12:24 AM, said:

There is, however, a major problem here if an auction can go like this:

1♣ alerted
Pass
1♦ not alerted
Pass
1♥
Pass
1♠
End

If dummy does not somehow get the information that 1♦ was not self-alerted, he cannot do what dummies are expected to do in offline bridge:

"Uh, before you lead, there was a failure to alert 1♦"

Isn't this a major problem?

I would call it a small problem, but I do think everybody should be able to see partner's alerts/explanation as soon as the auction is over (in case his side became declarer) or after the play has finished (in case he was defending).

Arend

[LH2650]

coyot, on Sep 16 2005, 02:16 PM, said:

If the ACBL rules really want me to protect myself so carefully in order to help opponents clarify their own bidding, then I must say I'm happy to live in another country

Don't worry.

In this case, none of the regulation's criteria for self-protection seem to have been met. I believe that every ACBL director I have discussed this type of situation with would adjust the score. The purpose of the regulations is to protect the non-offending side, not to provide blanket protection for people who fail to Alert.