[Tcyk]

gordontd, on Aug 12 2009, 01:07 PM, said:

awm, on Aug 12 2009, 12:29 AM, said:

It seems to be common that there are some calls which officially require an alert, but where no adjustment will ever be made for a failure to alert regardless of potential damage.

If an alert is required and damage exists from failing to alert, then an adjustment should be given.

Quote

Nonetheless this is seemingly policy in a lot of places, for example:

Alerting stayman in the EBU

Stayman is not alertable in the EBU.

We always alerted Stayman, "Does not promise a 4+card major." Similarly, we alerted 1NT, "Does not contain two 4-card majors."

My pet peeve is those that only promise two clubs when the open 1C (or two diamonds when they open 1D for that matter) and never alert the bid. Directors seem to be unwilling to adjust a board for this infraction although they are more likely to adjust a board when the opening is an unalerted short diamond.

[se12sam]

Tcyk, on Aug 17 2009, 08:50 AM, said:

We always alerted Stayman, "Does not promise a 4+card major." Similarly, we alerted 1NT, "Does not contain two 4-card majors."

a. The Stayman does not need an alert even if it does not promise a 4-card major.
You alert 2NT if bidding goes 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦/2♥/2♠ - 2NT, alerted as "need not promise 4-card in either major / other major".
b. You only announce range of 1NT opening. If the partnership opens 1NT with singletons, the announcement should include this fact. Opener cannot have both majors is not alertable.

[Cascade]

se12sam, on Aug 17 2009, 08:56 PM, said:

Tcyk, on Aug 17 2009, 08:50 AM, said:

We always alerted Stayman, "Does not promise a 4+card major." Similarly, we alerted 1NT, "Does not contain two 4-card majors."

a. The Stayman does not need an alert even if it does not promise a 4-card major.
You alert 2NT if bidding goes 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦/2♥/2♠ - 2NT, alerted as "need not promise 4-card in either major / other major".
b. You only announce range of 1NT opening. If the partnership opens 1NT with singletons, the announcement should include this fact. Opener cannot have both majors is not alertable.

This depends on where you play.

I would have thought a special agreement like "denies two four-card majors" definitely needs some disclosure somehow everywhere. If it is not alerted then it would need to be on your system card or part of a pre-alert. It seems completely wrong that you can keep this sort of thing secret.

[paulg]

Cascade, on Aug 17 2009, 12:22 PM, said:

se12sam, on Aug 17 2009, 08:56 PM, said:

Tcyk, on Aug 17 2009, 08:50 AM, said:

We always alerted Stayman, "Does not promise a 4+card major." Similarly, we alerted 1NT, "Does not contain two 4-card majors."

a. The Stayman does not need an alert even if it does not promise a 4-card major.
You alert 2NT if bidding goes 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦/2♥/2♠ - 2NT, alerted as "need not promise 4-card in either major / other major".
b. You only announce range of 1NT opening. If the partnership opens 1NT with singletons, the announcement should include this fact. Opener cannot have both majors is not alertable.

This depends on where you play.

I would have thought a special agreement like "denies two four-card majors" definitely needs some disclosure somehow everywhere. If it is not alerted then it would need to be on your system card or part of a pre-alert. It seems completely wrong that you can keep this sort of thing secret.

True, it does depend on where you play. They do not have pre-alerts in England so I'd expect it to be on the front page of the convention card in the box for 'Shape constraints of 1NT'*.

Of course, on many convention cards such a handy little box is not available and disclosure would need to compete with the myriad of other conventions that you play. 'Keeping it a secret' is not the same as 'not alerting because it is not required and there is no room for it to fit on the CC, given everything else we play'.

Paul

*of course many of us believe that this box should not exist, since few use it and it consumes a lot of space, but Tcyk must be in seventh heaven

[Free]

I've seen a lot of situations where asking about a call gives information to opponents when you don't want that. For example, (3♦)-3♠-(X)-? If you now ask if this Dbl is penalty, you pretty much imply that you'll raise if it's not. Even asking for carding methods in the middle of the hand may have this effect.

This gives information to opps, which they are allowed to use! Asking about calls which weren't alerted is always suspicious, asking about alerted calls is never suspicious. So I think asking more is not the best solution. Imo it's better to alert more, the "when in doubt, alert" principle. This protects people during the auction.

[gnasher]

cardsharp, on Aug 17 2009, 02:05 PM, said:

*of course many of us believe that this box [shape constraints for 1NT] should not exist, since few use it and it consumes a lot of space

I think it needs a better name. In practice, it gets filled in by people whose openings have few constraints, and left blank by those who have many.

For example, for me that box usually reads "Includes all 5332s/4441s in range. 6m/5422 common." Taking the wording of the card literally, I should be writing "none", and other people should be writing "Denies singleton, 6m rare, 5M only if bad suit ..."

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-August-17, 08:35

[skjaeran]

se12sam, on Aug 17 2009, 10:56 AM, said:

Tcyk, on Aug 17 2009, 08:50 AM, said:

We always alerted Stayman, "Does not promise a 4+card major." Similarly, we alerted 1NT, "Does not contain two 4-card majors."

a. The Stayman does not need an alert even if it does not promise a 4-card major.
You alert 2NT if bidding goes 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦/2♥/2♠ - 2NT, alerted as "need not promise 4-card in either major / other major".
b. You only announce range of 1NT opening. If the partnership opens 1NT with singletons, the announcement should include this fact. Opener cannot have both majors is not alertable.

b. We don't announce range in Norway (yet). However, 1NT which can't contain (one or) both 4-card majors as non-alertable is insane IMO.

[barmar]

Free, on Aug 17 2009, 09:30 AM, said:

I've seen a lot of situations where asking about a call gives information to opponents when you don't want that. For example, (3♦)-3♠-(X)-? If you now ask if this Dbl is penalty, you pretty much imply that you'll raise if it's not. Even asking for carding methods in the middle of the hand may have this effect.

If you don't ask about carding habitually at the start of the play, the best thing to do is wait until AFTER the trick whose carding you're concerned about. If you ask earlier, the opponents will be warned that you watch their carding, and they'll be less likely to give true count or attitude. If you don't ask, they're more likely to give accurate carding.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on Aug 17 2009, 10:26 PM, said:

Free, on Aug 17 2009, 09:30 AM, said:

I've seen a lot of situations where asking about a call gives information to opponents when you don't want that.  For example, (3♦)-3♠-(X)-?  If you now ask if this Dbl is penalty, you pretty much imply that you'll raise if it's not.  Even asking for carding methods in the middle of the hand may have this effect.

If you don't ask about carding habitually at the start of the play, the best thing to do is wait until AFTER the trick whose carding you're concerned about. If you ask earlier, the opponents will be warned that you watch their carding, and they'll be less likely to give true count or attitude. If you don't ask, they're more likely to give accurate carding.

or maybe a trick or two later, when you are going to use the information ---less likely to get a lie.

[AnJoe]

I quote from a previous post:
This seems a bit weird to me, because it would be advantageous to the "offending side" to simply never alert such calls, on the off chance that the opponents forget to ask (or are afraid to ask because of the potential information asking gives to the opponents or to partner). Nonetheless this is seemingly policy in a lot of places, for example"


The foregoing attitude bothers me a lot. Are we playing ethical bridge or gotcha?

Is it the intention of sneaking through a convention that may be misinterpreted by opponents?? I hope I don't play at your table.

love
joan

[awm]

AnJoe, on Aug 19 2009, 12:25 AM, said:

The foregoing attitude bothers me a lot. Are we playing ethical bridge or gotcha?

In my opinion, there is ethical bridge and there is winning bridge. The laws should be constructed in such a way that these two things are the same as often as possible. It should not be the case that people who are ethical put themselves at a huge competitive disadvantage as opposed to people who are not ethical. So any place where the laws substantially reward unethical behavior should be rewritten.

I suggest that this situation where a failure to alert will never lead to any adjustment (and thus creates a potential advantage to the offending side) creates a situation where ethical players (who alert their alertable bids) are at a big competitive disadvantage compared to unethical players (who do not alert their alertable bids). Thus ethical bridge and winning bridge have diverged. This is bad and should be corrected.

Another similar case is where an insufficient bid provides authorized information to partner. This creates opportunities for people to benefit from an insufficient bid. Again, the ethical players (who pay attention to the auction and make sufficient calls) are at a competitive disadvantage.

If you want to read this as "I am looking for ways to cheat and think I just found one" that's your choice. My view is more that "I am looking for ways where I, as an ethical player, am at a big disadvantage to people who cheat (or are simply lucky enough to frequently "forget" to alert)" Either way, these opportunities to people who intentionally violate the laws to benefit should be eliminated.

[RichMor]

awm, on Aug 19 2009, 01:43 AM, said:

In my opinion, there is ethical bridge and there is winning bridge. The laws should be constructed in such a way that these two things are the same as often as possible. It should not be the case that people who are ethical put themselves at a huge competitive disadvantage as opposed to people who are not ethical. So any place where the laws substantially reward unethical behavior should be rewritten.

Adam,

Sounds like Edgar Kaplan, and that's a good thing.

RichM

[qwery_hi]

RichMor, on Aug 19 2009, 06:34 AM, said:

awm, on Aug 19 2009, 01:43 AM, said:

In my opinion, there is ethical bridge and there is winning bridge. The laws should be constructed in such a way that these two things are the same as often as possible. It should not be the case that people who are ethical put themselves at a huge competitive disadvantage as opposed to people who are not ethical. So any place where the laws substantially reward unethical behavior should be rewritten.

Adam,

Sounds like Edgar Kaplan, and that's a good thing.

RichM

I would go further and say that I'd be more comfortable with awm in a position of power to decide laws/conventions than I am with the current people in their ivory towers who never seem to have the time to participate in these kinds of discussions online.

[FrancesHinden]

qwery_hi, on Aug 19 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

RichMor, on Aug 19 2009, 06:34 AM, said:

awm, on Aug 19 2009, 01:43 AM, said:

In my opinion, there is ethical bridge and there is winning bridge. The laws should be constructed in such a way that these two things are the same as often as possible. It should not be the case that people who are ethical put themselves at a huge competitive disadvantage as opposed to people who are not ethical. So any place where the laws substantially reward unethical behavior should be rewritten.

Adam,

Sounds like Edgar Kaplan, and that's a good thing.

RichM

I would go further and say that I'd be more comfortable with awm in a position of power to decide laws/conventions than I am with the current people in their ivory towers who never seem to have the time to participate in these kinds of discussions online.

Well, that's jeremy69, mamos, bluejak, dburn and me put in our place. Maybe we shouldn't bother posting, as apparently it's not noticed when we do.

[h2osmom]

Frances,

I hear compliments and respect for your opinions on BBO forums very often. This thread didn't mention you or the people you named, but it sure doesn't indicate a lack of respect or interest in your opinions regarding bridge. I have never read anything that indicated a lack of respect for you, and I can't say that about many regular posters; even ones who are generally respected. Do you really believe that this post negates all that?

[RMB1]

h2osmom, I'm affraid you miss Frances's point.

FrancesHinden, on Aug 20 2009, 02:19 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Aug 19 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

I would go further and say that I'd be more comfortable with awm in a position of power to decide laws/conventions than I am with the current people in their ivory towers who never seem to have the time to participate in these kinds of discussions online.

Well, that's jeremy69, mamos, bluejak, dburn and me put in our place. Maybe we shouldn't bother posting, as apparently it's not noticed when we do.

The previous poster complained that those in "ivory towers" who "decide laws/conventions" but "never seem to have the time to participate in these kinds of discussions online". Frances refuted this by listing five members of the EBU Laws and Ethics committee who contribute to these online forums (or the previous incarnation of IBLF). Members of the WBF laws commission contribute to other online discussions, and others follow the discussions and make their contributions through intermediaries (when so moved).

Robin

[qwery_hi]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 20 2009, 06:19 AM, said:

qwery_hi, on Aug 19 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

RichMor, on Aug 19 2009, 06:34 AM, said:

awm, on Aug 19 2009, 01:43 AM, said:

In my opinion, there is ethical bridge and there is winning bridge. The laws should be constructed in such a way that these two things are the same as often as possible. It should not be the case that people who are ethical put themselves at a huge competitive disadvantage as opposed to people who are not ethical. So any place where the laws substantially reward unethical behavior should be rewritten.

Adam,

Sounds like Edgar Kaplan, and that's a good thing.

RichM

I would go further and say that I'd be more comfortable with awm in a position of power to decide laws/conventions than I am with the current people in their ivory towers who never seem to have the time to participate in these kinds of discussions online.

Well, that's jeremy69, mamos, bluejak, dburn and me put in our place. Maybe we shouldn't bother posting, as apparently it's not noticed when we do.

My apologies for hurting the feelings of EBU, the point I was making was ACBL specific.
Given that awm and I am in the ACBL, and furthermore your examples are all in Europe and not the ACBL, I'd say that my point is still valid. Perhaps the members of EBU are satisfied that their voices are being heard, but as a member of the ACBL, the people deciding the laws/conventions seem distant and aloof. How many of them are participants in either rec.games.bridge or the BBO forums? Does the ACBL have a blog for conventions/laws where the members on the committees regularly post?

[awm]

It seems to me that in many ways the EBU regulations are substantially better than the ACBL ones. I have to believe that part of this is due to folks like bluejak (and dburn, FrancesHinden, and any other EBU posters I might be missing) who (1) participate in online discussions (2) listen to and make logical arguments and (3) are willing to use their influence to "fix" problems with the regulations when they are compellingly pointed out.

The people holding equivalent positions in ACBL seem not to participate in such forums. When I contract those who are available to the general playing population via email, their responses often seem illogical, poorly thought out, and miss the points that I'm trying to make. Since the state of ACBL regulations often seems much worse than (for example) the EBU's orange book, I have to wonder if there is some correlation here.

Of course, on the particular issue at hand (adjustments for failure to alert obvious bids) it doesn't seem like the EBU situation is much different from ACBL. In fact, it may be worse, in the sense that the EBU alerting regulations are designed to be simple to understand, which means that many more commonly played conventions require alerts than in ACBL. This is not necessarily a bad thing (easy to understand regulations are nice!) but means that the situation where "everyone" plays an alertable meaning for a particular call probably comes up more frequently.

[mycroft]

It's a fight between:

a) certain pros (you know the type I mean here) and other rule-lawyerly people who make amazing inferences and show immense bridge skill until the auction goes 1NT-2C; 2D-2NT; 3NT and dummy hits with a 3=3=4=3 8-count, at which point they would have found the killing lead if they had known it couldn't have been (4-3)=3=3 (whichever way is right for the argument), but couldn't work out even the possibililty that that might be the case without their opponents' helping them along with the Alert, and

b) the situations here, where because *some* opponents don't do what they're supposed to, you're frequently in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation if you have any bridge experience at all.

(there's even c) where, on rare occasions, the Delayed Alert procedure harms the non-alertable-bid side. But that IS rare).

In the ACBL, there are a lot of a), earning them and their clients masterpoints and emnity with their tricks (that's why the LA line in the ACBL was drawn so strongly, and why the concept of you lose redress if you do something stupid later is pushed up to "failure to play bridge for a person of your ability" as well). b) annoys those of us who get caught by it, true; but the number of times it truly causes a problem if you do the recommended "expect[ed] to protect [one]self" really is also rare (but *very* memorable).

To answer the poll question, yes, there is a problem with the policy. The biggest problem with it is that it's really hard to come up with a better solution that doesn't drive the normals (as opposed to us geeks that not only read the Alert Chart, but know what parts of it apply to their system, *and are sure about it*) out of the game.

[barmar]

awm, on Aug 20 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

It seems to me that in many ways the EBU regulations are substantially better than the ACBL ones. I have to believe that part of this is due to folks like bluejak (and dburn, FrancesHinden, and any other EBU posters I might be missing) who (1) participate in online discussions (2) listen to and make logical arguments and (3) are willing to use their influence to "fix" problems with the regulations when they are compellingly pointed out.

I don't want to disparage any of those people, but I think another part of it is that EBU revised their alert regulations several years after ACBL's last major revision. They took some of the good ideas (like announcements) but were also able to learn from and avoid our mistakes.