[helene_t]

barmar, on Sep 3 2009, 05:38 AM, said:

But unless we're going to go overboard and alert EVERYTHING, you need a common understanding. If natural systems are the most popular worldwide, it makes sense to use that as the baseline.

Alerting online is sooooo easy. Whenever in doubt, alert.

Alerting IRL s much more difficult, even when playing at the local club where people are supposed to know the local "standards" and the local alert rules. For example, in EBU land:
- Am I supposed to alert all those doubles that are completely standard yet technically alertable? Keep in mind that many players alert on the basis of the old rules and may (or may not) expect me to do the same.
- What about a 1♣ opening that can be as short as 3?
- Exactly when are transfers/stayman to be announced? I am not sure what to do after a 2NT opening, for example.
- What about a 1NT reponses that can be as strong as 11?

All those problem don't occur online. Because whenever it occurs to you that something might be alertable, you just alert it.

[Codo]

barmar, on Sep 3 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

The big difference is that 2/1 is a natural system, so almost all opening bids, and most of the responses, are natural.

2♣ openings in systems based on artificial 1♣ is a thorny issue. This is typically the one artificial opening in most natural systems, and that's what most players expect.

I know that the Polish players belive that there system is natural too.

And I would not bet that 2/1 contains fewer non natural bids then wj2005.

No, Helene hits the jackpot- as often:
Just alert what they may misunderstand and everysthing is nice and easy.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Sep 3 2009, 07:29 AM, said:

Alerting online is sooooo easy. Whenever in doubt, alert.

Alerting IRL s much more difficult, even when playing at the local club where people are supposed to know the local "standards" and the local alert rules. For example, in EBU land:
- Am I supposed to alert all those doubles that are completely standard yet technically alertable? Keep in mind that many players alert on the basis of the old rules and may (or may not) expect me to do the same.
- What about a 1♣ opening that can be as short as 3?
- Exactly when are transfers/stayman to be announced? I am not sure what to do after a 2NT opening, for example.
- What about a 1NT reponses that can be as strong as 11?

All those problem don't occur online. Because whenever it occurs to you that something might be alertable, you just alert it.

The same principle applies in f2f bridge.

OB 5B10 said:

A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player’s partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement.

There's more in OB 5B that implies, but does not say explicitly, what the ACBL regulation says:

Quote

When in doubt, Alert!

This is one case where I think the ACBL got it right.

Personally, I don't care what stupid assumptions about "the old rules" my opponents may make. If the current rules say I should alert it, I alert it. If they call the TD and complain, well, hopefully eventually they'll learn.

The EBU regs are pretty clear that a minor suit opening which could be as short as 3 cards in the suit does not require an alert. If it could be shorter than that, it does.

The EBU regs are also clear regarding when Stayman and transfers are to be announced: only over an uncontested 1NT opening. Stayman and transfers over a 2NT opening are explicitly defined as requiring an alert (OB 5G1{c}{1}).

That last one may be difficult, I'll grant you. I see nothing in the OB that would require an alert, unless it's forcing.