[Cascade]

One of the weird things that has happened to me involved an opponent asking not to alert.

This was in an international tournament against a world class opponent.

Playing behind screens my opponent got quite annoyed at me alerting. The director was called two or three times - I forget now the details. Basically he instructed us to play bridge. He also arranged for a monitor to be put at the table. The director did not instruct me to not alert. So I continued to alert my bids.

At the end of the match which had continued to be niggly I asked the director what the monitor had reported. He said that the monitor had said that we were both to blame for inflaming the situation. I further asked what exactly I had done to inflame the situation. He said that the monitor had said that I had inflamed the situation by alerting my bids. I pointed out that the regulations not only required me to alert but that they said it was my responsibility to make sure that my opponent saw the alert. He said given the situation I should have just not alerted. I said he had been called to the table several times about the alerting issue and if he wanted me to stop alerting according to the regulations then he could have instructed me to not alert but that I wasn't going to do that on my own initiative and jeopardize my rights in there was a problem.

[mrdct]

TimG, on Oct 14 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

mrdct, on Oct 14 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

fred, on Oct 11 2008, 06:43 PM, said:

My regular partner and I played Astro instead of Michaels. We alert it even though we are not supposed to.

Most of our opponents are grateful.

But some of them feel obliged to smugly remind us that "cuebids carry their own alert" or even call the Director. I suppose there will always be a few Secretary Birds in every game

You could probably deal with this situation by giving your opps a "pre-alert" at the beginning of the round along the lines of "we don't play Michaels".

Seems like a lot of pre-alerts for a method that won't come up that often and can be easily handled by an alert when it does (even if not technically alertable).

Pre-alerts take hardly any time at all and I usually worked them into the introduction: "Hi, I'm Dave and this is Nick. We are playing 5 card majors with a 15-17 NT, but we don't play stayman, our non-vul weak twos can be 5 card suits and we use transfers in some competitive auctions." That takes about 6 seconds so say which is less time that it takes the average opponent to pull their cards out of the board and sort their hand.

[TimG]

mrdct, on Oct 14 2008, 09:43 PM, said:

Pre-alerts take hardly any time at all

The pre-alert itself takes barely any time, but it requires processing by the opponents, especially if there is a series of them. It is an unnecessary distraction.

Not that you are in the wrong to provide the pre-alert.

[mrdct]

Cascade, on Oct 14 2008, 07:57 PM, said:

One of the weird things that has happened to me involved an opponent asking not to alert.

....

At the end of the match which had continued to be niggly I asked the director what the monitor had reported.  He said that the monitor had said that we were both to blame for inflaming the situation.  I further asked what exactly I had done to inflame the situation.  He said that the monitor had said that I had inflamed the situation by alerting my bids.  I pointed out that the regulations not only required me to alert but that they said it was my responsibility to make sure that my opponent saw the alert.  He said given the situation I should have just not alerted.

Interestingly, the WBF General Conditions of Contest do allow players to instruct their opponents to not alert:

"16. Alerts and Explanations
An alertable call is defined in the WBF Alerting Policy (see Appendix 3: WBF Alerting Policy) Subject to the provisions of the regulations to be published with regard to the use of screens (see Section 26), the partner of a player who has made an alertable call must immediately alert his opponents unless they have stated, before the auction started on the first board of the set, that they do not wish to be alerted."

However, they can only ask for no alerts before the start of the match and in any case this seems to only apply when screens are not in use. When screens are in use the opponents do not have the right to ask you not to alert in WBF events:

"26.2 Alerts and explanations

a) A player who makes an alertable call as defined in Appendix 3 must alert his screen-mate, and partner must alert on the other side of the screen when the bidding tray arrives there. The alert must be made by placing the Alert Card over the last call of the screen-mate, in his segment of the bidding tray; the alerted player must acknowledge by returning the Alert Card to his opponent. A player may, by written question, ask for an explanation of an opponent’s call; the screen-mate then provides a written answer.

At any time during the Auction a player may request of his screen mate, in writing, a full explanation of an opponent's call. The reply is also in writing.

c) At all times from the commencement of the Auction to the completion of play each player receives information only from his screenmate about the meanings of calls and explanations given. Questions during the play period should be in writing with the aperture closed. The screen is raised after the response has been made."

My local Regulating Authority quite clearly states in its regulations, "7.1 Alerts are compulsory - you may not ask the opponents not to alert. The requirement to alert applies even though the convention or other agreement may be listed on the system card".

It's a shame that the Laws of Bridge have delegated to local Regulating Authorities the power to determine what needs to be alerted. Surely uniformity on this would be best for everyone.

Self-alerting calls can give rise to some unusual situations such as when I open 1♦, LHO doubles and partner redoubles showing 4+ ♥. If my opponents don't ask and then my RHO bids 1♥ that is also a self-alerting call (being a cue bid of a suit that my side has shown) but chances are RHO may just be intending it as natural.

[1eyedjack]

mrdct, on Oct 15 2008, 04:15 AM, said:

It's a shame that the Laws of Bridge have delegated to local Regulating Authorities the power to determine what needs to be alerted. Surely uniformity on this would be best for everyone.

I think that there are more positive aspects to that delegation than negative

[helene_t]

mrdct, on Oct 15 2008, 04:15 AM, said:

It's a shame that the Laws of Bridge have delegated to local Regulating Authorities the power to determine what needs to be alerted.  Surely uniformity on this would be best for everyone.

I think it would be useful if WBF made some default alert rules for use in international competition. Then SO's can adopt those rules if they want.

I am against forcing SOs to uniformity. The Ducth BF decided to make Jacoby transfers non-alertable, makes some sense in a country where more than 99% of club players play them but may make less sense elsewhere. In the Netherlands, a strong 1NT opening is not alertable but a weak one is. Again, makes some sense in the Netherlands but would be absurd in many places.

[mrdct]

1eyedjack, on Oct 15 2008, 12:53 AM, said:

mrdct, on Oct 15 2008, 04:15 AM, said:

It's a shame that the Laws of Bridge have delegated to local Regulating Authorities the power to determine what needs to be alerted.  Surely uniformity on this would be best for everyone.

I think that there are more positive aspects to that delegation than negative

Like what?

[qwikjanz]

Whilst in favour of our current regs (New Zealand, Australia) for tournament players. and definitely in favour of uniform regs for high level tournament events, I would have to ask where our local (majority) player is left?

Either we promulgate two sets of regulations - Tournaments- lets all adopt the WBF standard, that's fine - but tournament style regulations and expectations create confusion with little old ladies and other ordinary club players, not to mention putting off players who are new to the game. Or do we set rules and regulations that encourage people to play and enjoy the game and to progress with easy rules and regulations and therefore set alerts at a low level and comply with the Laws defining reasonable expectation and complying with the spirit of the laws.

[paulg]

mrdct, on Oct 15 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Oct 15 2008, 12:53 AM, said:

mrdct, on Oct 15 2008, 04:15 AM, said:

It's a shame that the Laws of Bridge have delegated to local Regulating Authorities the power to determine what needs to be alerted.  Surely uniformity on this would be best for everyone.

I think that there are more positive aspects to that delegation than negative

Like what?

Well, we like alerting Stayman in Scotland and you'd all take this away from us.

More seriously, there is a philosophical difference between countries on the purpose of the Alerting Regulations. The ACBL focuses more on tournament players, and so conventions in regular tournament use are not alertable (such as, unusual 2NT, cue bids, Stayman). In England the focus is more the club player. In Scotland we go with the WBF rules so, I guess, slightly more interested in the experienced player.

Paul

[cherdano]

mrdct, on Oct 15 2008, 05:13 AM, said:

1eyedjack, on Oct 15 2008, 12:53 AM, said:

mrdct, on Oct 15 2008, 04:15 AM, said:

It's a shame that the Laws of Bridge have delegated to local Regulating Authorities the power to determine what needs to be alerted.  Surely uniformity on this would be best for everyone.

I think that there are more positive aspects to that delegation than negative

Like what?

Are you seriously asking this question??

Don't you think it is an advantage that you don't have to alert Polish club playing in a Polish club? Otherwise, everyone would alert their 1♣ opening. If there is actually a pair playing precision, opponents would completely miss out on that fact.

[skjaeran]

helene_t, on Oct 15 2008, 11:16 AM, said:

mrdct, on Oct 15 2008, 04:15 AM, said:

It's a shame that the Laws of Bridge have delegated to local Regulating Authorities the power to determine what needs to be alerted.  Surely uniformity on this would be best for everyone.

I think it would be useful if WBF made some default alert rules for use in international competition. Then SO's can adopt those rules if they want.

I am against forcing SOs to uniformity. The Ducth BF decided to make Jacoby transfers non-alertable, makes some sense in a country where more than 99% of club players play them but may make less sense elsewhere. In the Netherlands, a strong 1NT opening is not alertable but a weak one is. Again, makes some sense in the Netherlands but would be absurd in many places.

What do you mean would be useful? The WBF did just that ages ago.

[helene_t]

thanks Harald, wasnt aware of that