[Echognome]

Adam - It sounds like you got some bum rulings over the years according to your post. I've had several bad rulings (at least from my POV) as well.

As per the alerting of obvious bids, I've wondered sometimes whether there should be a standard defined system per region. The U.S. may be the toughest for this having large numbers of players playing both SAYC (or some variety) and 2/1 (or some variety). Anyway, all bids according to the determined system are not alertable. Any variance from the defined system is alertable. Obviously, you would also need a standardize competitive system.

The problem with that is that you will have a pretty complicated alert system, even if the system is supposed to represent the most commonly played system. I know the EBU alerting system is very easy to describe, but is often non-sensical when compared to what we consider standard bidding (e.g. 3♦ - (3♠) - Dbl is alertable if penalty, but not if takeout). But the rule is simple. So you have a tradeoff for a simple rule versus a more complicated rule that is standard. The simple rule has the advantage of not having to change when "standard" does.

[awm]

Echognome, on Aug 13 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

Adam - It sounds like you got some bum rulings over the years according to your post. I've had several bad rulings (at least from my POV) as well.

Obviously this is true, and I get seemingly more dubious rulings than a lot of players. But this is more an issue of precedent and long-term policy than a few potentially erroneous rulings.

The directing staff here in the ACBL (and I mean national-level directors here) consistently rule in this way. My view is that this undermines the alert policy -- basically there are bids that officially require an alert, but not alerting them occasionally gets you a bonanza (if opponents assume natural and forget to protect themselves by asking) and never gets you a bad result (director will never adjust). Even players who know that they need to "always protect themselves by asking" (such as me, at this point) occasionally forget especially when the auction "looks" natural or when they play a certain bid as natural in all their own partnerships. The second example I gave (with the 4♣ call) fits this description -- sure I am aware that partnerships exist who play this as a cuebid or as gerber, but I always play it as natural in all my partnerships and it just didn't "click" for me at the table that this unalerted call might be something unusual and I should interrogate my opponents about it. I suppose this is "my fault" but it seems weird to be punished for this even though the meaning in use required a delayed alert which was never given.

Suppose that in the EBU you have the auction:

3♦-3♠-X(1)-4♠(2)-Pass-Pass-X-All pass

(1) Penalty, but not alerted.
(2) Assuming without asking that double was takeout; would've passed a penalty double.

Would there be an adjustment? My assumption would be that directors would rule that almost everyone plays penalty doubles in this auction and "the 4♠ bidder should've asked" rather than make the "weird" assumption that double is takeout. But perhaps things work differently in EBU?

[TimG]

Echognome, on Aug 13 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

As per the alerting of obvious bids, I've wondered sometimes whether there should be a standard defined system per region. The U.S. may be the toughest for this having large numbers of players playing both SAYC (or some variety) and 2/1 (or some variety). Anyway, all bids according to the determined system are not alertable. Any variance from the defined system is alertable. Obviously, you would also need a standardize competitive system.

Unless you want different sets of alerts for different events, you would need to make the alert system very simple to accommodate beginners.

Even something like 4th suit forcing will not be obvious to a beginner, but would not be alerted if you define the alert system as being based upon deviation from SAYC or 2/1.

[gnasher]

awm, on Aug 13 2009, 10:56 PM, said:

Suppose that in the EBU you have the auction:

3♦-3♠-X(1)-4♠(2)-Pass-Pass-X-All pass

(1) Penalty, but not alerted.
(2) Assuming without asking that double was takeout; would've passed a penalty double.

Would there be an adjustment? My assumption would be that directors would rule that almost everyone plays penalty doubles in this auction and "the 4♠ bidder should've asked" rather than make the "weird" assumption that double is takeout. But perhaps things work differently in EBU?

No, you'd never get an adjustment, because when responder doesn't alert the double the overwhelming likelihood is that it's a failure to alert rather than a correctly not alerted takeout double.

That seems perfectly sensible to me, and very different from the examples you gave earlier.

[Echognome]

gnasher, on Aug 13 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

awm, on Aug 13 2009, 10:56 PM, said:

Suppose that in the EBU you have the auction:

3♦-3♠-X(1)-4♠(2)-Pass-Pass-X-All pass

(1) Penalty, but not alerted.
(2) Assuming without asking that double was takeout; would've passed a penalty double.

Would there be an adjustment? My assumption would be that directors would rule that almost everyone plays penalty doubles in this auction and "the 4♠ bidder should've asked" rather than make the "weird" assumption that double is takeout. But perhaps things work differently in EBU?

No, you'd never get an adjustment, because when responder doesn't alert the double the overwhelming likelihood is that it's a failure to alert rather than a correctly not alerted takeout double.

That seems perfectly sensible to me, and very different from the examples you gave earlier.

I understand the point, but doesn't it seem non-sensical? Why would you raise to 4♠ over the penalty double unless you thought it was takeout? So obviously this player doesn't think that double is penalty. Perhaps the player is a beginner? It wouldn't even make sense to "try one on" by raising, when 3♠X would give you a better score just by passing (as opener isn't going to be pulling).

So all roads of rationality lead to advancer not believing the non alerted double to be takeout and there should be an adjustment (back to 3♠X which is what would have happened had the player known it was penalty!). I wouldn't feel bad for the offending side at all. First because they are getting the result they would have if they had alerted and second because it is there responsibility to know the alerting rules.

The consequence of this is that it may lead people to be unhappy with the alerting rules. But that is what the rules are. You and I and most people we know might know that double here is penalty. But then what are we supposed to do with a hand where it doesn't make sense? Suppose we had five-card support? Are we going to ask, hear that it is penalty and then pass?

[awm]

Agree with gnome on this one. To put things simply:

(1) The penalty double of 3♠ required an alert.
(2) It was not alerted.
(3) The side which failed to alert obtained a result almost surely better than they would've obtained if they had alerted.

Isn't this sort of situation exactly the reason we have directors to restore equity? Even if the failure to ask about the unalerted double is somehow a "failure to play bridge" (which is more or less what the "protect yourself" folks are ruling), shouldn't the offending side have their score adjusted?

[aguahombre]

partner has preempted showing one suit and no opening bid. next hand overcalls and a double is takeout????? what? 6-6 in the other suits? Sounds like penalty to me.

It is time to back way up. doubles (very few exceptions) should be alerted if they don't suggest penalty. NT bids should be alerted if they don't suggest NT. suit bids should be alerted if they don't show the suit or if they carry information about other suits. Jump raises should be alerted if they don't show the values for the level.

Nobody would then have to decide what the "norm" is for a particular region of the world. Life would be simple.

P.s. I would be waiting a long time for partner to reopen with a double after 3d (3S) p (P). so forget penalizing opponents for their ridiculous 3-level overcalls???

[Echognome]

1. If you read our arguments, we're not saying that double should be takeout. We're saying that, in fact, most people play double as penalty. However, the alerting rules (in the EBU) state that a penalty double in this situation should be alerted.

Orange Book said:

5 E 2 Doubles
The rules for alerting doubles are:
(a) Suit bids that show the suit bid.
Double of these bids is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise.

Therefore, we have as facts that the regulations state a penalty double should be alerted. The player in question did not think it was a penalty double (or else it makes no logical sense to raise partner). And we are going to say "no adjustment because you should have asked?"

2. Your simple rules mean that you would have to alert 1♥ - Dbl if it were for takeout. Seems worse than the current system.

[aguahombre]

Echognome, on Aug 13 2009, 10:45 PM, said:

2. Your simple rules mean that you would have to alert 1♥ - Dbl if it were for takeout.  Seems worse than the current system.

no, that would fall under "with few exceptions". EBU is smoking it's sox if everyone with a brain thinks a certain double is penalty, yet they require an alert.

[Echognome]

I think your "very few exceptions" clause covers a lot more than you think.

(1♥) - 2NT = Minors - Alert or No Alert?

1NT - (2♥) - Dbl = Takeout - Alert or No Alert?

1♥ - 3♥ = Limit - No Alert I assume.
1♥ - 3♥ = Preempt - Alert I assume.
1♥ - (1♠) - 3♥ = Preempt - Alert or No Alert?

1♣ - (1♠) - Dbl = Takeout - Alert or No Alert?

I'm sure we can add on to the list. My point is that alerting is a LOT more complicated when you consider all of the auctions with competition.

[aguahombre]

Yes, I over-simplified my position. But it is no more silly than EBu requiring stayman/1NT to be alerted, and some other silly examples.

the point is that the ACBL and other organizations have gone wrong with the alert procedures and need to get back to some fallback principles. Like, if it isn't what it sounds like alert it. If it is what it sounds like, don't alert it. A double of an overcall of your partner's 1NT, for instance, if agreed as a takeout, should be alerted. Maybe even pre-alerted, so they can feel free to bid on crap.

[cherdanno]

aguahombre, on Aug 13 2009, 11:52 PM, said:

Yes, I over-simplified my position. But it is no more silly than EBu requiring stayman/1NT to be alerted, and some other silly examples.

the point is that the ACBL and other organizations have gone wrong with the alert procedures and need to get back to some fallback principles. Like, if it isn't what it sounds like alert it. If it is what it sounds like, don't alert it. A double of an overcall of your partner's 1NT, for instance, if agreed as a takeout, should be alerted. Maybe even pre-alerted, so they can feel free to bid on crap.

Where I play you would need to alert the penalty double! And feel free to overcall on crap, my partner will usually reopen when I have 4 trumps behind you

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on Aug 14 2009, 05:52 AM, said:

But it is no more silly than EBu requiring stayman/1NT to be alerted

They don't.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on Aug 14 2009, 02:33 AM, said:

It is time to back way up. doubles (very few exceptions) should be alerted if they don't suggest penalty. NT bids should be alerted if they don't suggest NT. suit bids should be alerted if they don't show the suit or if they carry information about other suits. Jump raises should be alerted if they don't show the values for the level.

That is approximately what the EBU's rules were until about five years ago, except that there were no exceptions. It was a rule which was very easy to understand, but it meant a lot of useless alerts, and (for the diligent) a lot of questions about bids where both the normal and the abnormal meanings would be alertable.

I think your "very few exceptions" might turn out to be quite a long list. For example:
- Negative doubles
- Responsive doubles
- A takeout double after (1x) p (1NT)
- Stayman
- Jacoby transfers
- A 2C opening which doesn't promise clubs
- A 1C opening that doesn't promise four cards
- A 1C opening that denies a four-card major if it's balanced.
- 1C-1D-1S when it promises four clubs rather than the original three
- 1♠-2♣ which might a 3433 shape
- 1D (1S) 2S, whatever it means
- A Michaels cue-bid

Once you start making exceptions, you also have to define when they apply, and what happens when someone isn't playing the non-alertable method. For example, if you say that Stayman isn't alertable, presumably people should alert a natural 2♣ bid. That sounds OK if you're talking about a 1NT opening, but what about:
  1NT 2C
  2NT 3C
  (1S) 1NT (p) 2C
  (2S) 2NT (p) 3C
  (1D) p (p) 1NT (p) 2C
  (1D) dbl (2D) p; (p) 2NT (p) 3C

Your rules are starting to get quite complex, and I've only just started.

[helene_t]

In Amsterdam I played at a very non-serious club where people would never alert a strong artificial 2♣ opening, although the rules probably say you should. (There is some contradictory advice from the BF here, but the regulations say that all artificial calls are alerted with a few exceptions which do not include the 2♣ opening). As a consequence, we would alert our natural 2♣ opening although the regulations clearly say that purely natural 2-openings (i.e. not Muiderberg etc) are not alertable. This makes sense since there is a general rule saying that calls with unexpected meaning must be alerted, and given that people don't alert the artificial 2♣ opening it is fair to say that a natural 2♣ opening is unexpected.

I don't think I have ever had a bad ruling because of such things. That said, with the exception of international events where differences in predominate bidding systems, alert regulations and languages causes tons of MI issues, director calls due to lack of alerts are extremely rare.

So I voted no. I don't see a serious problem. It only comes up in international events, and there players are aware that they need to study convention cards carefully, ask all the time, and alert all the time.

[Fluffy]

In Spain they have ruled that alerting of doubles is forbidden, you've got to ask for them.

But nobody will get penalized for alerting them, so I guess some people could make special agreements on that.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, in attempting to show that my suggestion for simplifying can get complicated, has illustrated exactly what has happened to the whole alert process.

I would vote for rules which are "easy to understand" and be willing to hear a few extra alerts. sounds like the EBU five years ago had a good thing, easy to understand, so they decided to complicate it.

I believe there are very few who believe the current alert procedures, different in different places of the world, are ok as they are.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on Aug 14 2009, 03:10 PM, said:

I would vote for rules which are "easy to understand" and be willing to hear a few extra alerts. sounds like the EBU five years ago had a good thing, easy to understand, so they decided to complicate it.

Are you the same Aguahombre who described it as "silly" to require an alert of Stayman over 1NT? That's what we used to do when the EBU's rule was essentially "alert anything that's conventional".

[aguahombre]

yes, alerting stayman seems silly to me. But there must be some way to simplify and to get out of the quagmire that the alert system has become. And, if that means suffering through a few alerts of obvious callls which are not natural --then maybe that should happen. there has to be something that is universal and easy to comply with.

The alert system should not change every time a certain convention becomes accepted by the majority, rather than just a significant minority. This happened with negative doubles, and might happen soon with support doubles. What about those people who don't know what the majority plays in a particular place at a particular time? Should a double which suggested penalty 40 years ago, and still suggests penalty to some people today be alerted and subject to penalty if not alerted?

Where it becomes ridiculous, I don't know. Takeout doubles of opening bids, unusual NT, and other common non-natural bids would fall under that category. but, The list of non-natural calls which do not require an alert, and the list of natural calls which require an alert should be very short -- shorter than now.

[barmar]

The purpose of the alert system is to inform opponents that a call probably doesn't mean what they think it does, and they may want to ask for an explanation. This is why it's intimately tied with what the majority of people play in a particular area at the current time.

Players are expected to know what's common in the area they play. Yes, this places visitors from foreign lands at a disadvantage, since they may not realize that some non-alerted calls are conventional, or may not know which calls of their require an alert. Sorry, that's the price we pay for not having alerts that are silly and useless for all the locals, who are the majority of players. It's similar to the problem they have in the outside world of not knowing the language well. Bidding is a language, and each country has its own dialect.