[1eyedjack]

Old York, on May 28 2008, 10:55 PM, said:

NickRW, on May 27 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

I strongly disagree with that statement.  I like to play, opposite a weak NT doubled for penalties: ...........
In truth, LHO often doesn't sit for the redouble anyway.
Nick

Hi Nick
I think that you have inadvertantly proved my point, thx

If you have a special agreement as to what your re-double shows then it should be alerted and explained to your oppo. otherwise you have formed an undisclosed partnership agreement.

The very fact that you do not expect the re-double to be the final contract, again proves that such a call is semi-artificial, part of your bidding system and is perfectly normal and legal.

<snip.

Tony (Duke of York)

Not saying that I disagree with your point, but Nick's quote far from proves it, at least not to my satisfaction.

The meaning of the redouble should be disclosed on the convention card, and (in addition, not as a substitute) should be explained on enquiry. Whether it should be ALERTED depends on the conditions of contest and regulations of the sponsoring organisation. So theoretically it might be alertable, but I know of no environment that would require an alert of a penalty redouble by responder of a penalty double of a 1NT opener, and that includes the BBO default regulations. Your speculative expectation of the opponents' subsequent action in the auction is certainly irrelevant to that assessment. Only your expectation of your partner's action is relevant. "To play" is by no means a "special" agreement.

[hotShot]

Whoever created the bridge laws had in mind that serious partnerships try to have a serious competition.
This is far away from the reality of online bridge. While in reality nobody will start a tourney without discussing the basic system, this seems to be standard in online bridge.

Taking the offline Laws literally, nearly no partnership will need to alert any bid, before they played a number of boards together. A tourney with 5-8 boards is far from enough to create agreements, if you don't discuss them.
From the (offline) laws point of view, having no agreement is a rare exception that can happen because it's impossible to cover every situation with agreements.
The online practice is, that players often don't discuss anything, it seems that they just start playing.
Does that mean they don't have agreements?
No it does not. It is implicit BBO user understanding to play something like BBO Baisic/SAYC, if nothing else is agreed.
If a player has conventions in his profile, implicit BBO user understanding is, that conventions listed in the profile can be used.
By using a call a player expect his partner to understand it, at least the player hopes that his call will be understood. In other words the player is hoping for an implicit agreement. Therefor I think -using self alerts- he should alert his bid.

[1eyedjack]

hotShot, on May 29 2008, 08:13 AM, said:

By using a call a player expect his partner to understand it, at least the player hopes that his call will be understood. In other words the player is hoping for an implicit agreement.

There is a world of difference between an expectation that his partner will understand it and a hope that he will. In the former case there is an agreement, perhaps explicit, perhaps implicit. In the latter case there is not (unless of course there is an expectation in addition to a hope).

The purpose of alerts and explanations is to level the playing field, not to give the opposing side a deliberate advantage. Accordingly the key to whether or not the bid should be alerted (or explained as "no agreement", which hinges on the same general principles) should be in whether or not partner has a greater chance than the opponents of guessing the meaning.

A scenario illustrates this point. A player sits down as a sub opposite a pickup partner and has no system discussions. The round clock has 3 minutes to go and counting. They have diametrically opposing systems in their profiles. One of them opens 1NT and the other responds 2H. Leaving aside the alerting regulations, let as assume that the opponents click on the bid, so that disclosure of the precise partnership agreement is required regardless of whether the bid is either alertable or alerted. Now, in an ideal world, any opponents with a grain of sporting standards would allow responder to state to the entire table what was meant by the 2H bid. But I believe that the above scenario is not in fact uncommon in practice on BBO. So, should responder disclose to the opponents whether he intended 2H as a transfer or (alternatively) to show Hearts, knowing that his partner is going to have to guess? Would the opponents be satisfied with the explanation "it either shows Hearts or it shows Spades, but is not a 2-way bid"?

Now you may argue, with some justification, that it is poor judgement on the part of responder to make a bid that is open to catastrophic misinterpretation. And yet if he feels that 1NT is going to be a disastrous score anyway, he might have to choose blind between natural and transfer on the grounds that the only chance of a reasonable result is if opener accurately guesses, with no more information available to him than that available to the defenders, what was intended by the call, and so he makes the call in the hope that it will be correctly interpreted. His only expectation, however, is that 1NT would be a disaster.

I suggest that under such circumstances there is no obligation to disclose the intended meaning of the call. It is I think a more difficult question to resolve, whether "no agreement" is as acceptable as "it either shows Hearts or it shows Spades, but is not a 2-way bid". Responder probably has more of an expectation than a hope that opener will make a choice from between those options, even though there has been no discussion. His expectation is born of nothing more than common bridge knowledge, the pool of which is equally available to opponents. Personally I would answer "it either shows Hearts or it shows Spades, but is not a 2-way bid" despite that it provides no more assistance to the opponents than "no agreement", simply because it is one less point to argue about in the post mortem.

I think that this has been thrashed out many times in these forums, but it seems that no-one who already has an opinion on this will ever be persuaded to change their mind.

[Old York]

hotShot, on May 29 2008, 07:13 AM, said:

By using a call a player expect his partner to understand it, at least the player hopes that his call will be understood. In other words the player is hoping for an implicit agreement. Therefor I think -using self alerts- he should alert his bid.

Hi Hot Shot

Finally, I have found one player on BBO who uses logic, instead of hiding behind a mountain of rule books. Please td in my tournaments. rofl

Tony (Duke of York)

[Codo]

Old York, on May 29 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

hotShot, on May 29 2008, 07:13 AM, said:

By using a call a player expect his partner to understand it, at least the player hopes that his call will be understood. In other words the player is hoping for an implicit agreement. Therefor I think -using self alerts- he should alert his bid.

Hi Hot Shot

Finally, I have found one player on BBO who uses logic, instead of hiding behind a mountain of rule books. Please td in my tournaments. rofl

Tony (Duke of York)

Okay, so you now know a second lost soul who is wrong.

Just because you think that a bid is meant as xyz because of your bridge logic makes it not alertable.

I agree that there are too many pairs who are not good in full disclosure. But I will never give the opps more information then I give my partner.

[1eyedjack]

Old York, on May 29 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

Finally, I have found one player on BBO who uses logic, instead of hiding behind a mountain of rule books.

Tony (Duke of York)

Fortunately, in this regard, the rule books are concise and clear, as is the spirit that underpins them

[helene_t]

Agree with 1eyedjack.

When TD'ing indys, I usually start by chatting to the tournament that since this is an indy, you should not alert or explain anything except in the rare case that you make agreements with p (e.g. "WJ2005 is fine, p" at the start of the round.

It does generally sink in but it also seems to be necessary. Without that announcement, a lot of players alert their calls and/or ask opps for explanation.

But if you don't have an agreement, the only correct explanation is "no agreement". Anything else is misinformation. And also damages the field by giving opps an unfair advantage.

[hrothgar]

NickRW, on May 29 2008, 04:40 AM, said:

hrothgar, on May 28 2008, 09:30 PM, said:

Out of curiosity, what do you think of the Alerting rules in the EBU?

Er, barf bag please.

I have tried to remember them all - I have - and I alert and announce at least as much as anyone at the local club - but some people obviously are either unaware, resent and simply cannot recall all the rules. Frankly nobody really cares that much anyway. These rules seem to me to be an unmitigated disaster that are quietly being ignored by ordinary folks - or at least that is the situation I've seen.

This is not the only club either.

I assume that if I bothered to go to a proper tournament with EBU directors I'd have to sharpen up my act - but the rules on what doubles are alertable and which are not - well I genuinely don't understand - and I'd rather spend memory cells on system rather than on exactly what double is alertable when.

And as for the latest proposal that will pretty well force everyone to become a member whether they like it or not while doing nothing to actually increase the number of bridge players in real life - well - don't get me started.

And then there's that Orange Book - uck.

You may gather that I am not an EBU member, do not want to be one and consider this body to be more in the character of part of the problem rather than a vehicle for finding solutions.

Nick

Perhaps my original posting was too subtle:

You explained that you have a good working knowledge of the Laws of Bridge. You implied that anyone who insists that folks alert all artificial bids do not. I believe that the precise quote was

Quote

You don't need to convince me about the laws, try to convince those who state: "Alert all artificial bids!" for their tourneys.

I was simply pointing out that there are a decent number of countries that have adopted this very type of alerting system. Don't get me wrong... I'm not a big fan of alerting all artificial bids. I feel that this type of system sacrifices utility in the name of simplicity/ease of use. I'm somewhat surprised to see this type of system being attacked for its complexity.

BTW: If I had been feeling snarky, I would have pointed out that the Laws of Bridge don't specify the form that local alert regulations take...

[helene_t]

Lol, at the Blackpool Conference we were slapped for not alerting a WJS. Next table we did. Then we were slapped for alerting a natural bid ("it is illegal to alert natural bids")

But of course you will have this no matter how simple the alert rules are. Also as I understand EBU-land recently underwent an alert rule reform so there may be more confusion at the moment than usual.

[david_c]

hrothgar, on May 29 2008, 02:02 PM, said:

You explained that you have a good working knowledge of the Laws of Bridge.  You implied that anyone who insists that folks alert all artificial bids do not.  I believe that the precise quote was

Quote

You don't need to convince me about the laws, try to convince those who state: "Alert all artificial bids!" for their tourneys.

Richard, the person you're replying to isn't the same person who wrote that quote.

Also I think the complaint about "alert all artificial bids" is that there is a difference between a "bid" and an "agreement" - and it is only the latter that the Laws require to be disclosed. Unfortunately TDs sometimes fail to investigate what the actual agreement is. If the rule was that artificial agreements must be alerted, that would be OK.

[david_c]

helene_t, on May 29 2008, 02:16 PM, said:

Lol, at the Blackpool Conference we were slapped for not alerting a WJS. Next table we did. Then we were slapped for alerting a natural bid ("it is illegal to alert natural bids")

Ah well, 50% of them were right. That's not bad

[david_c]

blackshoe, on May 29 2008, 03:59 AM, said:

mike777, on May 28 2008, 08:18 PM, said:

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...l-AllEvents.pdf

See very top of page one and then see page 5.

Simply put if you say you have no agreements the ACBL forces you to have some and in fact tells you what they are and you must play by them. If not then illegal.

I would be surprised if most if not all other countries do not have something similiar.

I know you cannot play in WBF(Bermuda Bowl) events with no agreements.

In any event how can you play bridge with zero agreements? Would you not have at least one implicit agreement?

I asked you which law. You gave me a regulation - one which applies only in ACBL tournaments (sectional and higher).

So the law is 80F. WTP?

[hrothgar]

david_c, on May 29 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

hrothgar, on May 29 2008, 02:02 PM, said:

You explained that you have a good working knowledge of the Laws of Bridge.  You implied that anyone who insists that folks alert all artificial bids do not.  I believe that the precise quote was

Quote

You don't need to convince me about the laws, try to convince those who state: "Alert all artificial bids!" for their tourneys.

Richard, the person you're replying to isn't the same person who wrote that quote.

Also I think the complaint about "alert all artificial bids" is that there is a difference between a "bid" and an "agreement" - and it is only the latter that the Laws require to be disclosed. Unfortunately TDs sometimes fail to investigate what the actual agreement is. If the rule was that artificial agreements must be alerted, that would be OK.

Hi David

Thanks for the correction

[FrancesHinden]

helene_t, on May 29 2008, 02:16 PM, said:

Lol, at the Blackpool Conference we were slapped for not alerting a WJS. Next table we did. Then we were slapped for alerting a natural bid ("it is illegal to alert natural bids")

But of course you will have this no matter how simple the alert rules are. Also as I understand EBU-land recently underwent an alert rule reform so there may be more confusion at the moment than usual.

Weak jump shifts have always been alertable (at least, as long as I've been playing). Recent rule changes have not altered that.

Weak jump overcalls are not alertable.

(The difference is really to do with expectations - it's no surprise that a jump overcall is non-forcing, whatever its strength, but a weak jump response is pretty unusual and 4th hand needs to be made aware of it)

[NickRW]

Frankly, with regard to alerting, I can understand "to play" = natural, therefore unalerted. Anything else = carries some additional info = not entirely natural and if people/tds/sponsoring organisations want alterts/announcements for these, then fine by me. At least the rule would be logical and not waste memory on miniscule details of the proprieties of the game.

Nick

[helene_t]

FrancesHinden, on May 29 2008, 02:50 PM, said:

Weak jump shifts have always been alertable (at least, as long as I've been playing). Recent rule changes have not altered that.

Weak jump overcalls are not alertable.

(The difference is really to do with expectations - it's no surprise that a jump overcall is non-forcing, whatever its strength, but a weak jump response is pretty unusual and 4th hand needs to be made aware of it)

Thanks Frances.

Can I assume that it is always correct to alert a call when opps are likely to interpret it wrongly without the alert? (I am aware of the exception for most calls above 3NT).

[FrancesHinden]

helene_t, on May 29 2008, 03:22 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on May 29 2008, 02:50 PM, said:

Weak jump shifts have always been alertable (at least, as long as I've been playing).  Recent rule changes have not altered that.

Weak jump overcalls are not alertable.

(The difference is really to do with expectations - it's no surprise that a jump overcall is non-forcing, whatever its strength, but a weak jump response is pretty unusual and 4th hand needs to be made aware of it)

Thanks Frances.

Can I assume that it is always correct to alert a call when opps are likely to interpret it wrongly without the alert? (I am aware of the exception for most calls above 3NT).

Depends how you define 'correct'.

It would not always be necessarily in line with the strict alerting rules, but if you did what you would suggest you would be
i) acting in accordance with the spirit of the laws
ii) unlikely ever to come to harm (unless partner is surprised by the alert)

[Old York]

hi

It is becoming increasingly obvious that this thread has been deliberately hijacked.
None of these comments have anything to do with the original post

Perhaps it is time for admin to close this thread. As this thread was opened with a libelous mis-quote, perhaps it should be stopped immediately.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on May 29 2008, 08:16 AM, said:

Lol, at the Blackpool Conference we were slapped for not alerting a WJS. Next table we did. Then we were slapped for alerting a natural bid ("it is illegal to alert natural bids")

But of course you will have this no matter how simple the alert rules are. Also as I understand EBU-land recently underwent an alert rule reform so there may be more confusion at the moment than usual.

Who did the slapping?

[helene_t]

Sorry, "slapping" was a mild exaggeration. It was not the TD btw, just opps.