[Grazy69]

Again hopefully an easy one.

What is the policy for BBO TD's for (additional) alerting when a pair of players have a BBO type CC running

If the decription of an alertable bid is there for the opponents to see should the player self alert as well or not

A Full Disclosure BBO type CC of course cannot contain every possible bidding sequence so it should be obvious to alert any artificial bid that has no description attached to it.

Sometime ago a well known expert I was playing against, insisted that all artificial bids should be (additionaly) alerted by the player even though the bid was clearly defined on the displayed BBO type Convention Card

Policy please

Thanks

[hrothgar]

There isn't any BBO wide policy regarding alerts.

Alerting standards are defined by the sponsoring organization. For example, if you play in an ACBL sponsored tournament, the alerting policies - and for that matter the convention regulations - are very different than those you'll find in an event sponsored by the EBU.

[uday]

What I find sensible is to require an alert for alertable calls, regardless of whether there is an auto-generated explanation.

I believe that this is what we do in the acbl games on BBO.

Uday

[csdenmark]

There is no point in duplication of alert explanations. Using full disclosure you alert all bids. Thats a good service. If opps. dont like it they can look away.

To alert bids which require no alert is not illegal. What is illegal is to forget to alert alert-requiring bids.

If a person ask you additional to press the alert button - do so and be glad you will soon have new and hopefully serious opponents.

[shintaro]

uday, on Aug 23 2009, 09:05 AM, said:

What I find sensible is to require an alert for alertable calls, regardless of whether there is an auto-generated explanation.

I believe that this is what we do in the acbl games on BBO.

Uday

Surely Uday this is a pointless exercise as the Alert is already on screen and even if opponents forget they merely have to 'Hover' thier cursor over the bids for it to be re-displayed

[jillybean]

shintaro, on Aug 24 2009, 11:55 PM, said:

uday, on Aug 23 2009, 09:05 AM, said:

What I find sensible is to require an alert for alertable calls, regardless of whether there is an auto-generated explanation.

I believe that this is what we do in the acbl games on BBO.

Uday

Surely Uday this is a pointless exercise as the Alert is already on screen and even if opponents forget they merely have to 'Hover' thier cursor over the bids for it to be re-displayed

No, the explanation is on the screen , the ALERT is missing, 2 different things.

[csdenmark]

jillybean, on Aug 25 2009, 09:01 AM, said:

No,  the explanation is on the screen , the ALERT is missing, 2 different things.

Well then the question is what the alert rules are for.

To wake sleepy persons or to help with explanations to be able to come out the dark?

The alert rule complex is outdated. It was created long before online bridge was invented. It is one of several examples that the bridge community has not been able to move into modern society.

[jillybean]

csdenmark, on Aug 25 2009, 01:45 AM, said:

jillybean, on Aug 25 2009, 09:01 AM, said:

No,  the explanation is on the screen , the ALERT is missing, 2 different things.

Well then the question is what the alert rules are for.

To wake sleepy persons or to help with explanations to be able to come out the dark?

The alert rule complex is outdated. It was created long before online bridge was invented. It is one of several examples that the bridge community has not been able to move into modern society.

The alert is needed to notify your opponents that your bid carries special meaning.

I can't see how it is outdated with the creation of online bridge, or specifically with the BBO FD CC unless you are putting the onus on the opps to check each bid.

[A2003]

jillybean, on Aug 25 2009, 07:41 AM, said:

I can't see how it is outdated with the creation of online bridge, or specifically with the BBO FD CC unless you are putting the onus on the opps to check each bid.

The alert is needed to notify your opponents that your bid carries special meaning.

BBO FD CC unless you are putting the onus on the opps to check each bid.
This is the best method when u want to know what is the meaning of the bid.

It looks like players cannot function without alert.
Waste of time in typing repeated alert messages.

No one knows how the alert system started. What is the intent behind this?

The alert is needed to notify your opponents that your bid carries special meaning.
This is not true.
By rule, cuebid does not require alert which carries special meaning.

[jillybean]

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, I didn't think I needed to be specific about which bids need an alert.
Once you alert your bid it is up to the opps to ask for an explanation or as in the case of the FD CC, read the description that pops up.

Alas, I still think we disagree on the function of the alert and of the explantion.

[blackshoe]

I don't know for certain how the alert procedure came to be, but I am certain there are people around who do.

Alerting rules are different in different places. That a cuebid does not require an alert in ACBL land proves nothing, as a cuebid does require an alert in other places.

[shintaro]

The main problem Grazy69 and I have is the 'Self Abuse' oopps Self Alerting is not done in the UK

[csdenmark]

jillybean, on Aug 26 2009, 03:10 AM, said:

Alas, I still think we disagree on the function of the alert and of the explantion.

Certainly we do.

You dare not speak frank words. You dare not say that you represent the opinion that people have the right to be sleepy and it is the obligation of opposition to wake them up.

Individual bids have no special meaning - each bid always relates to their predesessors as extensions.

[paulg]

uday, on Aug 23 2009, 03:05 PM, said:

What I find sensible is to require an alert for alertable calls, regardless of whether there is an auto-generated explanation.

I agree. It is easy to miss the FD explanation pop-up especially if you are not expecting it, so alerting makes the game run more smoothly and pleasantly.

What I do not understand is why people are against alerting all their artificial and conventional bids when they play on BBO (other than the games where there are specific alerting regulations in place). Are you trying to win like this? Or is it more fun misleading your opponents?

Paul

[csdenmark]

cardsharp, on Aug 26 2009, 02:02 PM, said:

uday, on Aug 23 2009, 03:05 PM, said:

What I find sensible is to require an alert for alertable calls, regardless of whether there is an auto-generated explanation.

I agree. It is easy to miss the FD explanation pop-up especially if you are not expecting it, so alerting makes the game run more smoothly and pleasantly.

What I do not understand is why people are against alerting all their artificial and conventional bids when they play on BBO (other than the games where there are specific alerting regulations in place). Are you trying to win like this? Or is it more fun misleading your opponents?

Paul

Paul in 1982 this world changed fundamentally. Distributed information technology was introduced by introducing the personal computer. Since then responsibility for information switched from sender to receiver.

An overwhelming mass of information we have to come to terms with. Not so easy but we are still getting better.

The problem for bridge is it has not yet reached the year 1982.

I am not sure what the old men in the new law-forum are discussing but I think I am pretty close assuming they are not discussing how to catch up with modern information technology.

[hrothgar]

cardsharp, on Aug 26 2009, 03:02 PM, said:

What I do not understand is why people are against alerting all their artificial and conventional bids when they play on BBO (other than the games where there are specific alerting regulations in place). Are you trying to win like this? Or is it more fun misleading your opponents?

Paul

It all boils down to signal to noise ratio...

As you increase the number of alertable bids, you decrease the amount of information that an alert provides. Consider two polar extremes:

1. I alert each and every bid
2. I alert no bids

From an information exchange perspective, neither system provides any useful information.

I can't speak for everyone, but from my own perspective, the reason that I diuslike systems that require enormous numbers of alerts is that you (quickly) end up in a situation where you alert for the sake of alerting. No useful information gets exchanged.

As an aside, I don't (normally) go around complaining that you're too stupid to understand concepts like signal to noise ratio. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from impugning my ethical standards.

[jillybean]

csdenmark, on Aug 26 2009, 02:18 AM, said:

jillybean, on Aug 26 2009, 03:10 AM, said:

Alas, I still think we disagree on the function of the alert and of the explantion.

Certainly we do.

You dare not speak frank words. You dare not say that you represent the opinion that people have the right to be sleepy and it is the obligation of opposition to wake them up.

Individual bids have no special meaning - each bid always relates to their predesessors as extensions.

When you are focused on your hand and the bidding, a silent text message in the top right hand corner of the screen, in my opinion, is not sufficient for an alert.

It is your responsibility to "wake up" and ensure the opps know you have made an alertable call, not for them to check each time you make a bid.

[blackshoe]

This "old man" doesn't discuss "how to catch up with modern technology" in the IBLF because he has plenty of other stuff to talk about — and because he disagrees completely with your premise. And he was an "information technologist" (ADM Hopper used to say "I'm a data processor, not a computer scientist") long before he became interested in the laws of bridge.

[csdenmark]

blackshoe, on Aug 26 2009, 03:42 PM, said:

This "old man" doesn't discuss "how to catch up with modern technology" in the IBLF because he has plenty of other stuff to talk about — and because he disagrees completely with your premise. And he was an "information technologist" (ADM Hopper used to say "I'm a data processor, not a computer scientist") long before he became interested in the laws of bridge.

Pity - very pity because he has plenty of other stuff to talk about.

I also like to talk about the good old days but sometimes duty calls. If you have the knowledge needed I think you have the obligation to be helpful.

[csdenmark]

jillybean, on Aug 26 2009, 03:33 PM, said:

When you are focused on your hand and the bidding, a silent text message in the top right hand corner of the screen, in my opinion, is not sufficient for an alert.

It is your responsibility to "wake up"  and ensure the opps know you have made an alertable call, not for them to check each time you make a bid.

Your priorities I have no intensions to interfere with Kathryn. It is completely up to yourself where you have your focus.

It is wise to focus on what is important.