[matmat]

jillybean2, on Jul 3 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

Where is there evidence that this person is misleading anyone into thinking that he/she is a competent td?

how about putting on the TD hat and parading in it?

[jillybean]

matmat, on Jul 3 2008, 11:47 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Jul 3 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

Where is there evidence that this person is misleading anyone into thinking that he/she is a competent td?

how about putting on the TD hat and parading in it?

Fair enough

[mr1303]

Why should a natural 2C opening have to be alerted? A 2C bid that could show any length in any suit isn't alertable, but a bid that shows length in the suit bid is?

I sometimes wonder who made up these rules...?

[barmar]

mr1303, on Jul 3 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

Why should a natural 2C opening have to be alerted? A 2C bid that could show any length in any suit isn't alertable, but a bid that shows length in the suit bid is?

I sometimes wonder who made up these rules...?

The purpose of alerts it to let the opponents know that you're making a bid they may not understand. If most players in a community use 2♣ as an artificial strong bid, any other meaning should be alerted in that community. It doesn't matter that the other meaning is natural, it's still highly unexpected.

There are some jurisdictions where the alerting rule is simply to alert all artificial bids. But many areas, such as ACBL territory, base their alerting rules on the common systems, as this fits in better with the purpose of alerting.

[the hog]

mr1303, on Jul 4 2008, 02:54 AM, said:

Why should a natural 2C opening have to be alerted? A 2C bid that could show any length in any suit isn't alertable, but a bid that shows length in the suit bid is?

I sometimes wonder who made up these rules...?

I agree with this. If you are going tio have to alert a natural 2c opening, then you should alert ALL 2c openings.

[helene_t]

barmar, on Jul 4 2008, 05:46 AM, said:

The purpose of alerts it to let the opponents know that you're making a bid they may not understand. If most players in a community use 2♣ as an artificial strong bid, any other meaning should be alerted in that community. It doesn't matter that the other meaning is natural, it's still highly unexpected.

But how are Polish players supposed to know that a natural 2♣ opening is unexpected? How is an English player supposed to know that a suit opening promising 4+ cards in that suit is unexpected? How is a Chinese player supposed to know that a natural 2M response to 1NT is unexpected?

As it happens, most people on BBO know these things. In the rare event that a 2♣ opening does not get alerted, opps should be aware that this is weird since all 2♣ openings are alertable, so they better ask what it means. Especially if the bid was made by a player from Eastern Europe or Asia.

So it isn't really a problem. It's more as a matter of principle that I prefer the more culture-neutral rule of "alert all artificial calls".

[JoAnneM]

The_Hog, on Jul 4 2008, 05:28 AM, said:

mr1303, on Jul 4 2008, 02:54 AM, said:

Why should a natural 2C opening have to be alerted? A 2C bid that could show any length in any suit isn't alertable, but a bid that shows length in the suit bid is?

I sometimes wonder who made up these rules...?

I agree with this. If you are going tio have to alert a natural 2c opening, then you should alert ALL 2c openings.

If we try really hard we can think of even more ways to slow down the game. Anyone?

[NickRW]

JoAnneM, on Jul 4 2008, 09:27 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 4 2008, 05:28 AM, said:

mr1303, on Jul 4 2008, 02:54 AM, said:

Why should a natural 2C opening have to be alerted? A 2C bid that could show any length in any suit isn't alertable, but a bid that shows length in the suit bid is?

I sometimes wonder who made up these rules...?

I agree with this. If you are going tio have to alert a natural 2c opening, then you should alert ALL 2c openings.

If we try really hard we can think of even more ways to slow down the game. Anyone?

I don't agree with that.

The rules would be FAR easier to understand if bids that meant exactly what they said were not alerted and everything else was. So the game takes a few seconds longer - not a problem as far as I'm concerened. Frankly the game as played by many people could do with being slowed down - far too much scrabbling around goes on just to get a certain number of boards done in a certain amount of time, rather than taking the necessary time to actually play the game properly.

In fact I'd go so far as to say that the idea that an artificial strong 2C is not alertable, but a natural 2C is shows a degree of arrogance - it says that "what we play is OK and you're supposed to understand our artificial bid even though it might not be standard for you, but what you play is weird".

To be somewhat melodramatic, it is bordering on something akin to racial prejudice.

Nick

[barmar]

helene_t, on Jul 4 2008, 05:33 AM, said:

But how are Polish players supposed to know that a natural 2♣ opening is unexpected? How is an English player supposed to know that a suit opening promising 4+ cards in that suit is unexpected? How is a Chinese player supposed to know that a natural 2M response to 1NT is unexpected?

The same way they're expected to know this if they take a trip to another country and play bridge. What's expected and unexpected depends on where you're playing.

But online bridge spans all these boundaries, so what do you do? For better or worse, on Internet bridge sites SAYC and similar systems are usually assumed to be the common baseline. If you start playing with a random partner in the MBC, this is what you would assume, right? So unless you're playing in a tourney that explicitly says otherwise, what's expected and unexpected generally depends on how far they differ from SAYC.

[the hog]

NickRW, on Jul 5 2008, 07:03 AM, said:

In fact I'd go so far as to say that the idea that an artificial strong 2C is not alertable, but a natural 2C is shows a degree of arrogance - it says that "what we play is OK and you're supposed to understand our artificial bid even though it might not be standard for you, but what you play is weird".

To be somewhat melodramatic, it is bordering on something akin to racial prejudice.

Nick

Agree totally with this comment by Nick.

[JoAnneM]

Then following this a little further maybe all 1C bids should be alerted. I wouldn't want to offend anyone who plays Precision or any other big club systems, and are forced to alert. We could really get carried away with this.

[NickRW]

JoAnneM, on Jul 5 2008, 07:09 PM, said:

Then following this a little further maybe all 1C bids should be alerted. I wouldn't want to offend anyone who plays Precision or any other big club systems, and are forced to alert. We could really get carried away with this.

Yeah. We could.

Apart from sheer numbers, I don't know why SAYC should be any kind of defacto standard anyway. If you play IMPS and like 5 card majors, better minor and strong NT, wouldn't 2/1 be a better choice? If you like playing MP a lot then I can't understand what anyone is doing playing an archaic strong NT throughout for. And if you want to teach newbies, wouldn't they be happier with 4 card majors and properly natural minor suit openings for a while? SAYC is neither fish nor fowl - the camel built by a committee that is sort of suitable for all of these purposes and doesn't quite make it with any of them.

I play an Acol variant in Acol land - but all my 2 level openings are non standard - all my 2 level responses to 1NT are non standard - and all sorts of other things non standard - all of which have to be alerted - even though in some cases some of them are more natural than the "standard" which they've replaced. If I can pull the alert card out and "slow down the game" I don't see why others can't take the trouble.

What annoys me is directors who don't know what is and is not allowed. I'm thinking of carrying a copy of the EBU orange book with me just to shut them up. "Is that still licensed?" - "Yes it is and you're the one that ought to know, here it is - page 48". Grrrrr.

Nick

[barmar]

The default system has nothing to do with which one is better. It's based on commonality and familiarity.

When online bridge got going, most of the sites started in the US, so the majority of the players were playing some form of Standard American. SAYC was a simple system that they could agree on, as a short pamphlet was easily available. When sitting at a table with a pick-up partner, the system discussion typically consisted of "sayc, pd?", "ok".

When players from other countries started joining, they found that if they wanted to be able to join the games, they needed to be able to speak the common language, i.e. SAYC. Unless there's a critical mass of players from your own area, it would be hard to play your country's predominant system. So they learned SAYC so they could get along.

This is how SAYC became the de facto standard for online bridge. As players migrated from one system to another (e.g. many people defected from OKbridge to BBO) they took these defaults with them, so the SAYC meme spread throughout the online bridge community.

[awm]

Strength of a bid is also a criteria for whether it's alertable. It makes sense that a bid that virtually everyone plays as strong would be alertable if weak, or vice versa. Otherwise we're forced always to ask the strength of a call whether alerted or no.

So even if a "natural" 2♣ would in principle not be alertable, who says that intermediate strength is the normal range? Every other two-level bid is far more commonly played as weak, and more bridge players assign 2♣ an artificial meaning than play it as intermediate with clubs....

Alerting all artificial bids leads to a lot of silliness too. For example, you'd have to alert stayman. But something like 99% of bridge partnerships play stayman. It gets to the point that when you hear 1NT-P-2♣ "alert" you assume stayman and if someone actually doesn't play stayman you might tend not to ask...

[the hog]

awm, on Jul 6 2008, 01:27 PM, said:

Strength of a bid is also a criteria for whether it's alertable. It makes sense that a bid that virtually everyone plays as strong would be alertable if weak, or vice versa. Otherwise we're forced always to ask the strength of a call whether alerted or no.

So even if a "natural" 2♣ would in principle not be alertable, who says that intermediate strength is the normal range? Every other two-level bid is far more commonly played as weak, and more bridge players assign 2♣ an artificial meaning than play it as intermediate with clubs....

Alerting all artificial bids leads to a lot of silliness too. For example, you'd have to alert stayman. But something like 99% of bridge partnerships play stayman. It gets to the point that when you hear 1NT-P-2♣ "alert" you assume stayman and if someone actually doesn't play stayman you might tend not to ask...

Stayman is alertable in Australia.

[NickRW]

The_Hog, on Jul 6 2008, 07:27 AM, said:

awm, on Jul 6 2008, 01:27 PM, said:

Strength of a bid is also a criteria for whether it's alertable. It makes sense that a bid that virtually everyone plays as strong would be alertable if weak, or vice versa. Otherwise we're forced always to ask the strength of a call whether alerted or no.

So even if a "natural" 2♣ would in principle not be alertable, who says that intermediate strength is the normal range? Every other two-level bid is far more commonly played as weak, and more bridge players assign 2♣ an artificial meaning than play it as intermediate with clubs....

Alerting all artificial bids leads to a lot of silliness too. For example, you'd have to alert stayman. But something like 99% of bridge partnerships play stayman. It gets to the point that when you hear 1NT-P-2♣ "alert" you assume stayman and if someone actually doesn't play stayman you might tend not to ask...

Stayman is alertable in Australia.

Ozzie ozzie ozzie

In more understandable language, three cheers for the jolly Australians

Nick

[helene_t]

awm, on Jul 6 2008, 07:27 AM, said:

Alerting all artificial bids leads to a lot of silliness too. For example, you'd have to alert stayman. But something like 99% of bridge partnerships play stayman. It gets to the point that when you hear 1NT-P-2♣ "alert" you assume stayman and if someone actually doesn't play stayman you might tend not to ask...

That's probably why some countries have announcements of commonly played conventions such stayman and transfers to majors.

Anyway, playing online (or with screens) it's not a problem, you just alert whenever it might be useful to alert. Obviously alert all 2♣ openings and all 2-of-a-suit responses to 1NT.

[awm]

So let me ask this question... say you are playing face to face bridge in Australia.

You open 1NT, pass, partner bids 2♣. You alert.

How often do opponents ask what 2♣ means (or look at your card)?

My guess is that they usually don't. After all, it would be quite unusual for 2♣ not to be alerted in this auction.

Now suppose that you play 2♣ as "weak with both minors." Have the opponents been disadvantaged by the fact that they assumed you play stayman? My guess is that they have. Certainly you could argue that "you alerted, they should have asked." But this seems like a total failure of the alert system. After all, the point is to notify the opponents that something unusual is going on and they may want to ask about your agreement. If the "normal thing" that everyone plays is an alert, then this fails to accomplish its goal.

[NickRW]

awm, on Jul 6 2008, 02:42 PM, said:

After all, the point is to notify the opponents that something unusual is going on

That is the current practice in a lot of places - but you're also assuming it.

The purpose of an alert could just as easily be that the bid is artificial.

Frankly I find trying to figure out what is "usual" very open to interpretation and, online, even more problematic. This is particularly true about doubles and redoubles.

It is also true when you shift from online to offline - for example, in England - well not sure exactly what the Orange book has to say on the subject, but inverted minors is not usual (to my mind for some weird reason) so I alert it - online I wouldn't - but what if I forget and get it the wrong way round.

I would MUCH rather get rid of all these confusing rules.

Nick

P.S. I'll stop replying to this thread - I'm labouring the point.

[the hog]

We've been through this before Adam. I always ask. Keri and Gladiator responses are not unknown. If you make an assumption and it proves to be wrong, its your fault for your initial laziness in failing to ask.
The point of the alert system is NOT that "something unusual is going on", its that something conventional is going on.