[DrTodd13]

awm, on Nov 7 2006, 08:11 AM, said:

The issue is that FD increases the frequency of a certain kind of infraction. Additionally, this kind of infraction often requires a complicated director call to sort out (note that the directors on the Bridge Laws mailing list seem to disagree). In online play, directors are often unavailable or poorly trained, and giving them more complicated scenarios to sort out is a bad idea.

To compare, let's take an example from one of hrothgar's favorite systems:

1♦! - P - 2♣

The 1♦ bid is alerted and explained as 4+♥, 9-14 hcp, maybe longer side suit. Now 2♣ is bid. Without FD, it's possible that the 2♣ bidder forgets to alert. But with a rudimentary understanding of Moscito, I know that it's reasonable to ask the meaning of 2♣. An ethical RHO (forget or no forget) will now explain whether 2♣ shows clubs, whether it's forcing, various inferences about values and/or heart length, and so forth.

But now suppose these opponents are using FD. We see the same auction, but FD may announce that 2♣ shows "5+♣, 0-2♥, less than 11 hcp, NF." Unfortunately this is one of the things that seems to change in different versions of Moscito, and there's a fair chance the real agreement is different than this. Unsuspecting, I pass... but opponents' real agreement is to play 2♣ transfer to diamonds, and opener bids 2♦ (explained by FD as a natural suit without club tolerance) and everyone passes. Note that here, I don't realize what has happened until dummy is faced. At this point it's too late to ask questions or get an undo (say I wanted to bid clubs over a transfer 2♣ but pass throughout given RHO has clubs). Now I need a director, who has to understand the situation and figure out what "would've happened" if I'd been correctly informed -- not an easy task when the director is handling dozens of tables and impossible in most team games.

Without FD, wrong explanations are much less common. When they do occur, often it means that opponents didn't have a clear agreement and weren't on the same page in which case often a director isn't needed (they're headed for trouble anyway). Only with FD is it possible that opponents have an agreement, and both know the agreement, but yet opponents are still misinformed.

I agree that FD is useful in working out your methods and improving your system. I'm just not convinced that it's useful as a substitute for alerting and posting a CC in serious play.

This is not a FD problem. It happens even with the old-style CCs. Somebody loads the BBO sayc CC and don't know about the "..." things and so their bids diverge from their CC. At least with FD, you can see the explanation of a bid before you make it and thus you are less likely to bid 2♣ with the wrong hand type. I think that CCs and FDs are primarily useful for established partnerships and/or rigorous tournaments. In the "killing time" tournaments people play now it is unreasonable to expect people to fill out a CC or FD and know what is on it for a 12 board tourney.

[zasanya]

Frosty, on Nov 6 2006, 01:00 PM, said:

PS  Rule 82D – It is the responsibility of the Director to be unsympathetic to highly skilled players who enjoy the game of “GOTCHA” as much as they do Bridge.

This seems to be the crux of the matter.Many times I realise that the call made is alertable but the bidder has not alerted.On other occasions I may not be sure.The issue is what do I do on such occasions?
Option 1 Ask opponents or look at their cc and make sure.
Option 2.Wait and if it turns out that the alertable call was not alerted inform TD.One may be looking for some compensation just because the call was not alerted.Or I just want to score a psychological point over the opponents.
Which option should I exercise ? I prefer option 1 because I like to win displaying my bridge skill and not because of some techinical point.
That is probably why I rarely win.

[glen]

In the post right above, option 1 is really two options:

Option 1A) Ask opponents
Option 1B) Look at their cc

If, in 1B, you look at their cc, find out a bid should have been alerted, and continue as if it was alerted, you could very well have a problem if partner did not look at their cc and draw the same conclusion at the same time. This could be a factor in the 'rarely win' concern

Regarding "One may be looking for some compensation just because the call was not alerted" TDs must be very careful not to award or adjust just due to failure to alert (though some argue that, if it was possible, TDs should not give anything more to the not-alerted side, but penalize the non-alerting side just due to failure - I don't agree - an example of this approach would be a 1 IMP penalty to the non-alerting side without the not-alerted side getting that 1 IMP - note again I do not agree with this but mention it since some believe it will help). In the case in point (see first post in this thread) TD was called as soon as dummy came down, since it was clear there had been a failure to alert. Subsequently it was easy to see there was no damage due to this failure, so no adjustment was asked for or given. So this situation was handled correctly.

Far worse would have been a "rule 82D" TD.

Player: There may have been a failure to alert 2♥
TD: CC is marked correctly, did you look?
Player: No, and don't know if partner did either.
TD: Since you are highly skilled GOTCHA player, too bad, so sad, enjoy your game.

This would be blame-the-victim directing.

[pigpenz]

The problem i see is that we all know what we should do and not do but there are no many things that can happen playing online bridge that make it almost impossible to always assess the blame correctly.

So mistakes like failure to alert misclicks on failing to alert how do we take care of them....?...give procedural penalties to the offending side until the finally learn to pay attention or what?

The question to me is not what the rules are but how to correct the problem?

[Gerben42]

Points on FD:

The self-explanation from FD is NOT an alert! You still have to click the alert button in my opinion, and this always is my strategy.

It takes about 15 minutes to get the basics of a system into FD (covering about the old CC) if you know the tricks. If not, more of course. Then there is still the problem of opps playing weak NT / strong Club and your overcall structure goes out of the window...

Finally my response to the original question:

If opponents do not alert you have to assume the bid has the non-alertable meaning. You are not required to look at the CC. In "obvious" situations you are supposed to protect yourself if you know the non-alertable meaning is unlikely but 2♣ - 2♥ does NOT belong there.

[zasanya]

officeglen, on Nov 9 2006, 08:18 AM, said:

In the post right above, option 1 is really two options:

Option 1A) Ask opponents
Option 1B) Look at their cc

If, in 1B, you look at their cc, find out a bid should have been alerted, and continue as if it was alerted, you could very well have a problem if partner did not look at their cc and draw the same conclusion at the same time.  This could be a factor in the 'rarely win' concern

When I notice an alertable call has not been alerted or explained properly I send a PM asking him to clarify the situation to me and to my Partner.
So that is not an excuse.

[glen]

and then how do you know if the opp replied to both of you, or just yourself?

Note: in my experience, an opponent who, for an alertable bid, both does not self-explain and does not self-alert at the time they make the bid, tends to be slow in replying to a PM, if they reply at all, and often just replies to the PM sender and not their partner. Clicking on the bid to get a description, a better procedure than a PM, sometimes produces a short description, usually after a considerable time lag. Neither method seems to take “just a few seconds” as mentioned in the next post. In short, for "happy" tables, all players should alert and self-explain alertable bids, and TDs will be happy too when they follow this.

[zasanya]

Gerben42, on Nov 9 2006, 12:36 PM, said:

If opponents do not alert you have to assume the bid has the non-alertable meaning. You are not required to look at the CC. In "obvious" situations you are supposed to protect yourself if you know the non-alertable meaning is unlikely but 2♣ - 2♥ does NOT belong there.

You are not required to look at their cc.However it takes only a few seconds to look and ask and the rest of the game can procede as it should be.No TD calls, no hassles; just 4 persons enjoying a happy game of bridge.
Of course you are not required to be happy nor is it your responsibility to keep the others (including TD) happy but why not?

[jillybean]

zasanya, on Nov 9 2006, 07:50 PM, said:

When I notice an alertable call has not been alerted or explained properly I send a PM asking him to clarify the situation to me and to my Partner.
So that is not an excuse.

How do you know what is an alertable call unless you have detailed knowledge of their partnership agreements?

[zasanya]

jillybean2, on Nov 9 2006, 10:55 PM, said:

zasanya, on Nov 9 2006, 07:50 PM, said:

When I notice an alertable call has not been alerted or explained properly I send a PM asking him to clarify the situation to me and to my Partner.
So that is not an excuse.

How do you know what is an alertable call unless you have detailed knowledge of their partnership agreements?

I take a look at their cc if it is posted.If it is not posted then the profile might give an indication.I always make an enquiry if a call can have a variety of meanings.Some bread and butter examples . LHO bids 1m RHO bids 2m I will ask.Or somebody bids 2H. I find a significant number of people do play it as 5-5 weak ♥ so its better to ask.After the inquiry if a call does turn out to be alertable,then I advise him to alert in future.

[jillybean]

This is just rubbish, players have an obligation to disclose special partnership understandings. Law40B

Failure to alert does not automatically constitute damage and an adjustment but lets get the fundamentals right – conventional bids and special partnership agreements must be alerted. Misbids, misclicks, misplays should not be alerted.

The pair who fails to disclose their partnership agreements are breaking the laws and it must be handled within the laws.

jb

or lets all go play FISH

[zasanya]

jillybean2, on Nov 10 2006, 11:21 AM, said:

This is just rubbish, players have an obligation to disclose special partnership understandings. Law40B

Failure to alert does not automatically constitute damage and an adjustment but lets get the fundamentals right – conventional bids and special partnership agreements must be alerted. Misbids, misclicks, misplays should not be alerted.

The pair who fails to disclose their partnership agreements are breaking the laws and it must be handled within the laws.

jb

or lets all go play FISH 

I am aware of the fundamental nature of law40B.The question is what to do if I suspect that this law has been violated.
I believe that it the duty of all those who love this game to educate and reform the offenders.I believe that the only way is to presume that the offending party is not a cheat and make him aware that a law has been violated.I believe that intolerant attitude of the more knowledgable bridge players makes many potential bridge players take to FISH.
The best place to make people aware of laws is bbo team matches or tourneys which are free provided we believe that educating/reforming offenders is not rubbish.