[Luksus]

Hi,

Recently I notice that my bridge partner doesn't see my alerts at all. Nothing. I asked ops and they see everything without any problem.
Can somebody help me? It is really annoying.

[mrdct]

That's the whole idea. You aren't meant to see your partner's alerts. By not seeing your partner's alerts, you avoid a lot of potential unauthorised information situations.

[Luksus]

OK, I didn't know that, thanks for prompt answer, but what about all artificial bids such as Unusual 2NT, Cuebid Michaelsa? Without alert they are just natural replies.

[1eyedjack]

Hi Luksus

The order of procedure is basically this:

Before you start to play, you agree with your partner what methods you will be playing. This will be a collection of conventional agreements, both in bidding and defensive carding. These agreements should also specify the circumstances when they apply. They should be disclosed to opponents in a convention card.

In addition to the disclosure in a convention card, when particular bids arise on which you have prior agreement with your partner, the bids should be alerted if the agreed meaning differs from a default standard set. Note that alerts only apply to bids, not to card play. Alerts are displayed only to opponents. You and your partner are expected to remember the conventions that you have agreed to play, without being reminded in the middle of the hand by an alert.

[mrdct]

1eyedjack, on Feb 15 2007, 07:16 AM, said:

when particular bids arise on which you have prior agreement with your partner, the bids should be alerted if the agreed meaning differs from a default standard set.  Note that alerts only apply to bids, not to card play.

The alertability of a call has little to do with whether or not the agreed meaning differs from a default standard set. It's more about ensuring that your opponents are privy to the same information about your hand that your partner is. Different sponsoring organisation can regulate alert procedures.

Such alert regulations are generally devised to strike a balance between proper disclosure, minimisation of unauthorised information and orderly flow of the game. They also tend to be written with face-to-face bridge without screens in mind. In a lot of places, bids of opponents' suits, doubles and bids above the level of 3NT are not alertable - most probably because alerting is more likely to help the side doing the alerting.

In most jurisdictions, when screens are in use the alert regualtions are thrown out the window and many calls which would be excluded by alerting regulations become alertable. As BBO is very much analagous to playing with screens, my view is that all calls that have a meaning that the opponents may not know should be alerted. In my view this includes Stayman (which is alertable in face-to-face bridge in many places including Australia), transfers, acceptance of transfers, non-forcing changes of suits and NT bids with potentially unexpected ranges. In a self-alerting environment I don't think there is such a thing as "over-alerting".

As for alerting card play, there are limited circumstances where card play is alertable. A specific example would be if you have an agreed with your partner to lead low from doubleton. Such an agreement must be made known to your opponents before the start of play.

[Luksus]

Thank You very much for all the explanation. Now everything is clear, but it cost me some nerves when my partner didn't understand the obvious bid. Now at least I know why.

[Tola18]

Observe, when playing with pick up partners, it is usually OK to say openly in room chat which variation you play. Say asking Blackwood in a typical blackwood position 3041. Have seen this done frequently many times and occasionally did it myself.
Havent met anybody minding.

[1eyedjack]

mrdct, on Feb 15 2007, 03:06 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Feb 15 2007, 07:16 AM, said:

when particular bids arise on which you have prior agreement with your partner, the bids should be alerted if the agreed meaning differs from a default standard set.  Note that alerts only apply to bids, not to card play.

The alertability of a call has little to do with whether or not the agreed meaning differs from a default standard set. It's more about ensuring that your opponents are privy to the same information about your hand that your partner is. Different sponsoring organisation can regulate alert procedures.

Such alert regulations are generally devised to strike a balance between proper disclosure, minimisation of unauthorised information and orderly flow of the game. They also tend to be written with face-to-face bridge without screens in mind. In a lot of places, bids of opponents' suits, doubles and bids above the level of 3NT are not alertable - most probably because alerting is more likely to help the side doing the alerting.

In most jurisdictions, when screens are in use the alert regualtions are thrown out the window and many calls which would be excluded by alerting regulations become alertable. As BBO is very much analagous to playing with screens, my view is that all calls that have a meaning that the opponents may not know should be alerted. In my view this includes Stayman (which is alertable in face-to-face bridge in many places including Australia), transfers, acceptance of transfers, non-forcing changes of suits and NT bids with potentially unexpected ranges. In a self-alerting environment I don't think there is such a thing as "over-alerting".

As for alerting card play, there are limited circumstances where card play is alertable. A specific example would be if you have an agreed with your partner to lead low from doubleton. Such an agreement must be made known to your opponents before the start of play.

I doubt we differ substantively, although you seem to say we do.

I was trying to state the practicalities without getting too bogged down in philosophy.

Certainly, the purpose of alerting is to appraise the opponents of information already known to your partner. I still maintain, however, that the manner in which sponsoring organisations, in practice, regulate this is to define a default standard set, within which bids are not alertable and without which they are. The standard set may of course vary according to the tastes of the sponsoring organisation, but for a particular SO the set exists. BBO is perhaps an anachronism in applying very loose rules, at least in the Main Club (although tourneys and other clubs within BBO can regulate themselves).

I agree that I should not have carte blanche stated that carding methods are not alertable. The SO has the authority to require alerts of cards just as they can require alerts of bids. In my locality the SO has not so regulated. In yours perhaps they have. I am not aware of any locality that requires alerts of carding methods during play, but I could yet be surprised. Note that BBO software embeds within it the possibility of alerting bids but not of alerting cards played.

[mrdct]

You can never alert carding during play, but you are obliged to obliged to pre-alert your opponents of any unusual carding methods that they wouldn't be expected to know at the start of a match or round.

[blackshoe]

mrdct, on Feb 15 2007, 03:39 PM, said:

You can never alert carding during play, but you are obliged to obliged to pre-alert your opponents of any unusual carding methods that they wouldn't be expected to know at the start of a match or round.

That depends entirely on the alert regulations in force - and what regulations are in force is entirely up to the sponsoring organization.

[inquiry]

mrdct, on Feb 15 2007, 03:39 PM, said:

You can never alert carding during play, but you are obliged to obliged to pre-alert your opponents of any unusual carding methods that they wouldn't be expected to know at the start of a match or round.

I frequently send private chats to my opponents to alert them to carding agreements, espeically if in the rush of things we forgot to make a usual announcment of methods when we sat down.

[zielona]

Quote

Tola18 Posted on Feb 15 2007, 10:55 AM
  Observe, when playing with pick up partners, it is usually OK to say openly in room chat which variation you play. Say asking Blackwood in a typical blackwood position 3041. Have seen this done frequently many times and occasionally did it myself.
Havent met anybody minding. 

I may be wrong here but I believe that agreeing on the blackwood responses during bidding is against the rules. I think there is an overruling law in any bridge, internet or f2f, not to communicate with your partner once the bidding has started and till such time as the penultimate trick has been completed.

In my tournaments and wherever I play I do not tolerate people agreeing any bidding conventions after the first bid on their side. I believe it is hard to draw the line between what's innocent and what's naughty so it's better not to try.
This applies to any arrangements, permanent partnerships, once off partnerships, casual subs in pairs tourneys and very specifically in the individual tourneys.

I would be interested in what others have to say here.

Related issue is alerting a bid when you haven't agreed the meaning with your partner, for whatever reason. I don't and advise other not to. When asked, I say no agreement . I believe this is the fairest approach.

[helene_t]

zielona, on Feb 18 2007, 04:21 AM, said:

I may be wrong here but I believe that agreeing on the blackwood responses during bidding is against the rules. I think there is an overruling law in any bridge, internet or f2f, not to communicate with your partner once the bidding has started and till such time as the penultimate trick has been completed.

In my tournaments and wherever I play I do not tolerate people agreeing any bidding conventions after the first bid on their side. I believe it is hard to draw the line between what's innocent and what's naughty so it's better not to try.
This applies to any arrangements, permanent partnerships, once off partnerships, casual subs in pairs tourneys and very specifically in the individual tourneys.

I would be interested in what others have to say here.

Related issue is alerting a bid when you haven't agreed the meaning with your partner, for whatever reason. I don't and advise other not to. When asked, I say no agreement . I believe this is the fairest approach.

As for tournaments, I agree. Except
1) if a sub enters during the bidding
2) if a sub enters say three minutes before round clock and the last board still has to be played (my tournaments are allways unclocked, though).

In the main room, I allow opps to discuss system during bidding. It's only for practising so if they think it serves their practising better to discuss system during bidding, it's up to them.