[bglover]

A common complaint is that people do not alert their bids. When I run my touneys I tell people that failure to alert will result in a lowering of their scores.

This is not new stuff I know, but I was just having a discussion with someone who got banned last week from another director's tourney. The opponents claimed he did not alert a bid and it resulted in a bad score.

It so happens I was codirecting at the time the hand was played and saw it as it happened. He did, in fact, click the alert box but did NOT offer an explanation. He agrees that was the case. (FWIW his bid was HIGHLY UNUSUAL....not a transfer or other common treatment.)

I went on to tell him that I thought he was not blameless because altho he did alert he never explained. His response was, of course, welll they never asked.

When I am playing and make even a quasi-unusual bid I immediately explain it in the box for the opponents. I think this is the ethical thing to do in online bridge. But that is me (I won't usually explain transfers as I expect most people know that 1n 2h is an xfer, the alert is enough).

There is the other side of this coin... A certain pair (you know who you are) play an extremely complicated system that has 12 pages of notes that they post before tourneys. Whenver someone sits at their table they give them the URL and tell them to read the notes. This is, of course, silly on its face... In a clocked event to put that type of pressure on everyone is beyond and above the call of duty. When I directed this pair... they showed me the URL to impress me with their disclosure.... My response was a giant yawn and warning: Explain every bid thoroughly or I will severely reduce your score.

Maybe my approach is not as "normal" as I think. I would never just click the alert box on a highly unusual treatment and "wait for them to ask." In my mind that would be a form of unethical conduct although perhaps not outright cheating. How do others treat alerts of highly unusual bids?

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: If you are going to bitch about me in public, have the balls to use my name.

Comment 2: I find it highly annoying that I need to type long and length explanations becuase my opponents are too lazy to bother clicking on a url. I try very hard to alert/announce any unusual bids that I make, however, I am not a skilled typist and people can get MUCH better information from the web browser.

Comment 3: The total length of the notes is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Ideally, a hypertext convention card will allow end users to focus on the appropriate information while ignoring information that they don't currently need. I have made every effort to solict feedback on how the card might be improved. I don't recall any comments from you.

[bglover]

I was not bitching about you.

Rather I was making a general point to expect people to go through lengthy notes to absolve you from the need to explain all your artificial bids was an inappropriate solution. You cannot and should not put that type of pressure on your opponents... I didn't say "don't play your system" I said THOROUGHLY EXPLAIN EVERY BID. And, if you choose to ever play in one of my tourneys I would tell you the same thing again.

I agree about the CC issue. Since it isn't a reality you have to live with the current system. And your expectation that people pour through your notes rather than you and your partner thoroughly explain each and every unnatural bid does not hold an ounce of water in my estimation.

But the real point to all that is that you cannot expect people to make incredibly special efforts just to accomodate you and your partners... It should be the other way around in the interest of full AND fair disclosure. If you were playing that system in a nationally ranked game you would be required to disclose the system and its defenses in SIGNIFICANT advance of the tourney itself so that people can prepare for it. This ain't the Bermuda Bowl. This is a place where people come to have fun. If you want to play Mosicto I have no problem. I have a GIGANTIC problem if you expect ALL THE OTHER UNKNOLWEDGABLE participants to learn it quickly from 12 pages of notes in a timed event... Just explain the bids (And, for all the readers of this post... in fairness... I never got another call against Richard once I told him to explain every bid thoroughly or be penalized).

[inquiry]

Richard has a personal philosphy about what an online convention card should be. In support of his position, he has made an excellent hyperlinked convention card that provides incredible information about his bidding system. No doubt it would provide just what his opponents need to know. Well done.

But the problem he doesn't appreciate or understand that while hie is adament his solution is what everone shuuld use, others don't agree with him. The hypertext format is not standardized, and quite frankly, it takes a few minutes to understand teh relay tables on his pages. People who click his link run the risk of a) slwoing down the game as the page loads, and even having memory problem and getting disconnectd (it is 28 pages, not 12 I think). At 7 minutes a board, by the time you look anything up the cc, you are out of time to play (time to explain the bids, alas is not much better).

Ther is no convincing Richard his way is unworkable. In a perfect world, it is a great solution. In the world of timed on-line birdge, it simply doesnt work. IMHO... this has been beaten to death in this forum...so I apologize for adding to the disucssion...as no solution will be found...both sides are firm in their beliefs.

ben

[keylime]

12 pages of notes is trivial - try TWO HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE pages of notes, WITH ACBL CC AND WBF CC with Supplemental Notes! At team matches, I always advised the captain of our opposition (this last match was with laduck(Ann), who I consider very dear to me) that they are free to have a look into the complete set of notes, no questions asked. Not only was this offered, but Ann was thankful that I would act in such an ethical manner. To me, I try to ask as a professional would, even though I am very far from such - if the pros gotta post their CC's weeks in advanced, the least I can do is give them some indicator of what they're about to run into. For team matches, I think this should be offered of ALL pairs, whether they play basic SAYC, Key Lime Precision V13B1, Moscito, whatever.

For pairs/timed events however, there's no way in heck that pair is going to be able to read more than maybe 2 pages tops, for what, 2-3 hands at best? To me, just alert the bid - I provide a CC for BBO, not a problem -- even tell them to reference it during the play. That's as full open disclosure as practicality permits.

I will say this. BBO's CC is light-years better than most. The fields make sense, you can get the major important parts in there, and it's a nice 85 percent card (the other 15 percent, just alert as they come, to me, the gist is what matters on BBO CC's).

[the hog]

Two points:

Richard and I always have a Bbo convention card posted as well, and always alert and describe all conventional bids. So you are not only misrepresenting what we do, in a roundabout mealy mouthed manner without having the courtesy to mention us by name, but are also talking twaddle!

If you were playing that system in a nationally ranked game you would be required to disclose the system and its defenses in SIGNIFICANT advance of the tourney itself so that people can prepare for it.

What absolute parochial claptrap! Why is it that some nationalities believe that their methods are what is universally accepted in the rest of the world. Fwiw you can play Moscito IN ANY event in Australia, including any Match points event and, of course, there is absolutely NO REQUIREMENT to disclose the system and its defenses in SIGNIFICANT advance of the tourney itself so that people can prepare for it.
Just because you have ridiculous system regulations in the US does not mean the rest of the world has to follow suit. Bbo has lots of nationalities playing on it after all. Not every organisation makes political decisions designed to protect the paying sponsor.

Finally what some of you think is "highly unusual" is yawn ordinary elswhere. I get p'd off when some of you don't alert a weak 2 opening because you think it is the norm. Well it isn't in my part of the world but I live with your failure to alert and don't complain. ( None of you alerts Stayman, which is alertable here, let alone tells anyone what sort of style of weak 2 you play, but hey we live with this).

[bglover]

Jeez... you really want me to compare a failure by people to alert a bid you fully understand to be a weak 2 (because you see it everyday 100 times and know exactly what it is) vs. the multi-coded meanings of virtually all low-level bids in moscito that virtually no one you play with here has any idea what they mean?? I won't insult you the way you just insulted me.

I gave you more credit than perhaps you deserve. Perhaps you spoke out of anger and didn't think. I don't know. I don't care. But Richard gave an explanation as to why he didn't type everything out so your own argument is specious at best.... Next time think before you lash out at me... And I was entirely fair in pointing out the director calls stopped after I "yawned" about the given method you were trying to impose on opponents in lieu of writing out everything.

Finally, the reason I didn't mention your names specifically was because I wasn't trying to pick on you... rather to show the extremes.... Do you think I am mealy mouthing the guy who didn't type in the explanation (which was the point of this thread I had hoped). Rather than try to defend yourselves for what you do why not address the issue I brought up? Which was do you think full ADVANCED disclosure of alerts is better than waiting for someone to ASK. Interesting neither of you addressed that point.

[the hog]

You clearly did not carefully read, or perhaps did not understand, my post.

You did not address the fact that we always have a bbo cc posted and that the opposition is made aware of that fact.

You did not address the fact that what bids require alerts differs greatly depending where you are from.

You did not address the fact that bids which may be common in your world are not necessarily common in mine - play ftf tournament bridge here and you see far more 2 suited 2 openings than weak 2s. (I still contend that these should be alerted and styles explained as the styles vary so much - anywhere from Jxxxx to AKQJTx).

At no stage did Richard say he did not fully alert his bids. What he said was the following:
I find it highly annoying that I need to type long and length explanations becuase my opponents are too lazy to bother clicking on a url. I try very hard to alert/announce any unusual bids that I make, however, I am not a skilled typist and people can get MUCH better information from the web browser.
The reason calls stopped was because I told Richard not to refer opps to his cc, but rather to THE POSTED Bbo cc, which incidentally had always been posted and to which I always refer opponents.

Yes, your comment was mealy mouthed and I will add pusillanimous.
I find the following grossly insulting:


I think this is the ethical thing to do in online bridge. But that is me (I won't usually explain transfers as I expect most people know that 1n 2h is an xfer, the alert is enough).

There is the other side of this coin.

A certain pair (you know who you are) play an extremely complicated system that has 12 pages of notes that they post before tourneys. Whenver someone sits at their table they give them the URL and tell them to read the notes. This is, of course, silly on its face... In a clocked event to put that type of pressure on everyone is beyond and above the call of duty. When I directed this pair... they showed me the URL to impress me with their disclosure.... snipped for brevity.

There is the clear cut suggestion that Richard's and my behaviour is not ethical. As R said, you did not have the courage to name us, though all who post to this forum know damn well about whom you are referring. In case you doubt this assertion, look at what you wrote - ..ethical etc...other side of the coin. Franky if you said this ftf I would have you in front of a "Rules and Ethics Committee".

Perhaps had your post been more polite both Richard and I might have addressed your point re the guy who did not type the explanation.

Finally I find it amusing that you find our system so "extremely complicated" when lols here have no trouble in coping due to the fact that they are regularly exposed to it. Fwiw it is far less complicated than a fully fleshed out 2/1 system.

[bhugi]

For internet bridge, I will alert and in the same time type in simiple explanations.
If opp found it to be unclear, and they just don't want to brother to have a look on my cc or system notes, I will just try my best to explain clearly to them again.
I admit that typing is an exhausted job, especially for those system with lots of artificial and conventions.

There is always discussion on issues related to friendly and expertise playing environment.

In our zone, we need to alert but never self-explain unless the opponent ask for it. CC and system notes is ready for them.

In internet, good interface generates laziness. People just try to wait for explanation in the small bidding box area but don't want to look at the CC or system notes even if you said it loud at the beginning that you have a detailed web links system notes.

Reasons behind can be: they are lazy, or they are using dial up in the other side of the world. It is already not easy for them to play in bbo and it will be a great barrier for them if they are asked to open up another browser.

My opinion is: try to ease others and thus ease yourself. I play bridge for fun / for my own enjoyment. If a little typing effort from me can make the game running more smoothly and happily, and prevent a ruin on my favourite bridge game, that deserves it.

I think it is better for internet bridge to follow physical one in this situation: It is your right and for your own safe to ask for alert bids. Opponents are not supposed to do so unless you ask for it. -- this is expertise issue.

However, try to type in the bidding box (or chat and explain to opp privately if it is lengthy) if the opponents ask about a bidding, or even they didn't ask about the meaning, especially for an artifical or convention bids. Good to have a web link on systesm, tell them to search after you make the bid and alert it. Type if they can't find the information. This ensures that I defeat the opponents by my skills and partnership, not because of opponents missing information on my bidding. -- this is friendly issue.

Friendly is that you did extra more to ease others and yourself, but are not breaking the law if you haven't done it.

[Free]

Why do we have to alert different in online bridge than in f2f bridge?
In f2f, you just put your card in the middle of the table, and if ops dont ask info, then they dont know anything, even if it's highly unusual! In f2f we MAY NOT give the explanation if nobody asks to reduce info to the partner, where in online bridge our partner doesn't see/hear it.

Imo, it's still a matter of "dont be lazy like hell and just click on the silly box if you want to know". And alerting weak two's is forbidden in my region (I dont know if its everywhere) so if a 2-level opening is alerted it means NOT the usual weak two. That's what alerting is all about: showing ops that the bid is unusual, not the normal way of bidding (I still dont know why people alert weak twos and jacoby transfers as these are standard). If they dont care or are too lazy to click in a box, that's their problem, not mine...

And I had it to, that some opponent told me I didn't alert while I did. I just didn't give him an explanation and he didn't want to know at that time aparently. It was a 2H opening which means 0-7HCP with 4+H. I alerted and he thought it was a normal weak two - wrong - and they played 3NT and he thought I had 6S. He went down a few because I lead Spades (I had xxxx in Hearts).

Well, if ops dont care what I'm playing, then I dont care what they have to say about alerting and not giving explanation right away... They get the oportunity, if they dont take it then they dont have to complain afterwards.

[bglover]

Free's example would be of a similar nature to what actually occurred and could be the starting point for discussion.

Clearly, things would have resulted differently had he not merely alerted but also explained why he alerted.

Now, to me, this was not a well-earned top. Perhaps technically within the rule of bridge but that doesn't make it "right" (doesn't make it wrong either... that's why I started this thread before we got sidetracked).

Or, are most people like Bhugi and take the time to give an explanation? I personally don't think that online bridge should be thought of in the same light as f2f. My guess is that many online players rarely if ever even step into a bridge club and may not know to ask why a 2 bid was alerted. They probably assumed a "normal" weak 2 and it never occurred to ask at all.

This is kinda the essence of why I started this thread.

[bglover]

And, an apology to Richard and Ron... My intention in bringing you two into the discussion was to illustrate 2 points: That over-disclosure through the posting of extensive notes was not the right solution either and that to expect to transfer the onus to your opponents in a timed event in that fashion was unreasonable.

I apologize to both of you if I implied in any way that you were being unethical. That was not my intent in the least.

[JRG]

My two cents worth (FWIW!).

I rather like the self-alert mechanism of BBO. I think it allows achieving the "full disclosure" spirit of the laws without passing unauthorized information to one's partner. So I simply alert all artificial bids, whether Kickback RKCB or Stayman; and I alert natural bids that I think might be misconstrued as forcing (or not forcing).

I play what I think is a basic 2/1 system, but it has a few wrinkles (example: Truscott versus strong 1 club opening). I always fill out the explanation (though I wish the opponent were prevented from bidding until I have completed the explanation).

Now, on the other hand, not many of the conventions I play have multiple meanings, so I rarely have to type more than, for example, "Natural, non-forcing", or "3-card limit raise of spades".

There is one exception which always bothers me. I think that in the part of the world I played the most bridge (Canada), 2/1 is relatively common and most people seem to understand the alert of a 1NT response to one of a Major as "Forcing"; however, it bothers me that it can conceal so many different hand types (a weak raise to two; a 3-card limit raise; a weak hand with a long suit; a balanced 1NT response; an intermediate, but not game-forcing, hand with a suit of its own). I've never seen that alerted fully. At the beginning when I first started to play 2/1, when asked about the alert, I'd say "Forcing for one round, may be ...". At which point partner would interrupt and say "You don't need to go into all that, it is confusing -- just say it is forcing for one round and may be one of several hand types that are not forcing to game".

That bothers me. So, I don't know what to say about alerting multi-meaning artificial bids.

I do think any artificial bid should be alerted and some explanation provided without the need to ask.

John

[inquiry]

Playing against people I don't know, I alert the following * meand me, my alert in quotes

1H *1NT (forcing)
*1H - 1NT-*2C (maybe 3 cards)
*2D(Multi-see below)

Notice the multi see below. Then in private chat to the opponents I try to explain that my multi can be weak two either major, balanced 22-24, or Acol 2 in a minor (good hand, good minor suit, 9.5 tricks).

Sadly, you press the alert box and then bid. Then you type in the meaning of the alert. Often the bidding is back to you BEFORE you get the meaning of your alerted typed in.

It would be nice if when you press the alert box during biddign, the box opens up so you can enter the text before you place your bid. But nothing stops you from sending private alert by private chat PRIOR to starting your bid... press private chat.. tell them what your bid will mean when you make it, then press alert, then bid, then enter the meaning of your bid....

GACK, lots of typing.

Ben

[ack_hh]

Hi @ll,

one need not be a great typist to explain a bid in due time.

Simply prepare a text file which contains the system notes,
open it in the background, then transmit the relevant
explanation via LHO/RHO chat using "Copy & Paste".

Large text passages must not contain line breaks
(CR/LF, a.k.a. ENTER) - chat text will be displayed only
up to the first line break.

Regards
Andreas

[mishovnbg]

Hi all!
I think all you Steve, Ron and Richard are right and all you try to do best for online bridge and BBO!
I like the idea of Richard to make URL to his full system, because this give to opponents opportunity to analyse after tourney is their bids was by system and what they can to do against same bids. This is fair and must be done by all pairs who play artifical systems. Richard and Ron also provide BBO version of CC, so is easy for opponents to read first bids and responses and no need to type it again, just alert is enough if pre-alert about CC posted as I usually do. May be was mistake of Richard to not explain both BBO CC and URL CC are available. Steve was right about they must explain 2+ round bids, because searching in URL will take more time than available in clocked tourney. May be friendly discussion will be more helpful to find right way of explanation of artifical systems at our beloved BBO :. I am very interested, because play similar system and alert box is not enough even for my opening bids :-.
Misho

[the hog]

I still dont know why people alert weak twos and jacoby transfers as these are standard.

Thats one of the points I made, Free. Don't assume these are standard everywhere - they are not. Stayman should also be alerted, as should all artificial bids. Here in Australia you need to say "alert" and circle the bid. (We have written bidding).

I also like the self alert method on Bbo. Part of the problem here is that the Bbo cc is totally inadequate. There is simply not enough room to fully explain bids.

Some middle ground between Richard's card and the bbo cc would be nice.

My wish list would be the following:
You load a cc at the beginning.
Players alert their atr bids. If an opp wants to know what this means, she clicks on the art bid and a hyertext card pops up with something like the following on it for example:

"1D = 9-14 with 4+H, may have a longer minor
Suggested defence: X with Ds and an opening hand, bid 1H for t/o
2H = Michaels, S+ a minor"

This would take a bit of time for players to set up, but would save heaps of typing time and obviously aggravation.

[bglover]

I am not a programmer so I have NO IDEA if this is feasible but...

How hard would it be to develop a small program that generates an alert with explanation and suggested defenses. My thinking is that people playing artificial systems such as ultimate club or moscito could load this program beforehand and then cut/paste the generated alerts into BBO's alert box (or chat to opps) after making their bids. Seems to me this would not be a very complicated program for most systems and might make life a tad easier. For a system like Moscito (what little I understand of it) you would only need to handle the first two levels of bidding with this and anything past the 2 level can be typed into the alert box.

Maybe some programmer could write such a thing and make it available/sell it for a small fee and we could go a long way towards making headway here.

[pbleighton]

"I am not a programmer so I have NO IDEA if this is feasible but...

How hard would it be to develop a small program that generates an alert with explanation and suggested defenses."

Hard. What you and Ron are suggesting is doable, but requires a ton of work to make happen in a complex, highly functional system such as BBO. The hypertext card would almost certainly have to be created by a BBO program, because you would essentially be using a pair's card as a data source for program operations, not just to display, so it would have to follow a highly standardized format.

BTW, I think it is a gereat idea, if Uday and Fred ever get around to it.

Peter (who is a programmer due to sins in a past life)

[bglover]

No my idea was not that it be part of BBO per se... but that people could purchase it. It would geneate a .txt file that the bidder would then cut/paste into chat.

It would be a small relatioship database (if i bid x and partner bids y response then z explanation is generated). This program would be used with any bridge product this way. Incorporating it into BBO's code I'm sure would complicate it well beyond a simple addition to the SW here.