[helene_t]

1eyedjack, on Jul 27 2005, 10:20 AM, said:

On the face of it, the alerting of bids based on their natural flavour (option {A}) appears to have greater simplicity and upholds principle {1}, but this is in my opinion an illusion.  It appears to be simple and understandable only because the rule is easy to express in a brief sentence.

There is some truth in this. For example, if the opps open a non-alerted 1NT and I hold a ballanced 17 points I may pass because that's what would make sense against a strong notrump opening. And maybe a dbl would have an artificial meaning because we're used to playing against strong notrump bidders. But a natural 1NT opening could also be 6-9 HCPs, of course.

But I don't see any solution to this problem, unless we can either force everybody to study hundred pages of specific alert rules or make some culture-specific assumptions.

I think the simple rule that artificial calls must be alerted serves an important purpose: the defense against artificial methods is different from the defense against natural methods:
1NT-(pass)-2♥-dbl take-out w/ short hearts
1NT-(pass)-2♥*-dbl lead-directing

Summary:
1) Alert all artificial calls (Stayman, Transfers, strong artificial 2♣, Blackwood etc)
2) When in doubt (Canapé, short minor suit openings, t/o dbls, gambling notrump, rescue rdbl, forcing pass etc): alert and explain
3) When opps don't alert: do not make any assumptions about strength (0-37 HCPs). Do not make any assumptions on negative inference. All they are saying is that they have some length in the suits they bid.
4) However, if you make a natural call which is extremely deviating from what you think the opps may expect (forcing 3-openings etc.): alert and explain.

This is not perfect but it should cover most cases, it is simple and it does not give advantages to particular cultures.

[mink]

Walddk, on Jul 27 2005, 08:48 AM, said:

Fine with me if you want to dump alerts altogether, but if you decide to keep them, I can't see the wisdom if you must alert natural bids as well.

Roland

In online bridge, I see no reason why I should alert anything since the version arrived where I can type in an explanation together with the bid. Since then, I always explain if I chose a call which is artificial or unusual enough that is reasonable to think that opps probably assume a truely different meaning if not explained.

Some calls, that have no widely-agreed meaning, like 2♠ after partner opened 1nt, I would always explain no matter what it means, as opps would reasonalby have to ask anyway, because it would be no good policy to assume that this 2♠ is natural - in most cases where such a 2♠ is not alerted it is artificial, and the alert has been forgotten.

On the other hand, if I encounter a 2♥-bid by an opp in response to his partner's 1nt opening, I assume that this is a transfer, simply because this is true most time and asking always would slow down the game too much, especially in tourneys. Consequently, I would expect that anybody who does not play tranfer to majors alerts his 2♥, even if it is natural. Those players should be aware after a short time playing at BBO that their natural responses to 1nt are very rare and that their opps assume something wrong if this is not alerted.

It makes no sense to discuss some alert policy here, if you are really considering to implement it. The reason for that simply is that you would not succeed with the implementation. Even if Fred would try this and work hard to advertise some alert policy that is better defined than today, he would probably fail because most people just play in BBO and do no read anything.

So the only solution is to expect no alert for treatments that are really wide-spread like weak 3-level-openings with a 7 card suit, stayman, transfer to majors and takeout doubles (yes, this is artificial, the natural meaning of a double is penalty). All who feel that some of this should be alerted are free do so and explain, but I doubt they achieve much by doing so (e.g. I explain my tranfers).

Roland, your repeated posts stating that natural calls should not be alerted sound like an ideolgy to me. In the first place alerts where invented in order to alert opps about the fact that the agreed meaning of a bid will probably be different from what they expect. In early days, what they expected was the natural meaning. Today in many sequences this is not true anymore.

Karl

[coyot]

mink, on Jul 27 2005, 06:43 AM, said:

On the other hand, if I encounter a 2♥-bid by an opp in response to his partner's 1nt opening, I assume that this is a transfer, simply because this is true most time and asking always would slow down the game too much, especially in tourneys. Consequently, I would expect that anybody who does not play tranfer to majors alerts his 2♥, even if it is natural. Those players should be aware after a short time playing at BBO that their natural responses to 1nt are very rare and that their opps assume something wrong if this is not alerted.

...

Roland, your repeated posts stating that natural calls should not be alerted sound like an ideolgy to me. In the first place alerts where invented in order to alert opps about the fact that the agreed meaning of a bid will probably be different from what they expect. In early days, what they expected was the natural meaning. Today in many sequences this is not true anymore.

Karl

This is IMHO wrong approach.

Anyone who comes from a country with weak NT openers will tell you...

I mean, imagine I play weak NT and natural stop-bids. I come to BBO for the first time, play a passed 2♥ and you call a TD for an adjust because I did not alert my natural call? This would earn you the top place on my enemy list :-)

Or would you expect BBO newbies to spend a few hours trying to find bidding custom for the "locals"? (Now, I would understand that if BBO happened to be country-specific, but if you look at the country profile, this is a real Babel melting pot).

The only way out is to alert artifical bids and not alert natural bids.

I will NEVER alert my natural responses to 1NT, EVER!
(At least until WBF says that Transfers get the same treatment as Stayman, which is, as far as I know, the only widely accepted non-alerted conventional bid.)

The only alternative WOULD be an alert policy (see the poll I started today) - which could possibly explicitly name the calls that are considered non-alertable while not exactly natural. But, then, it would be something that everyone would be told to read before playing on BBO.

[Limey_p]

Here's a suggestion: rather than look for rules as to what is "alertable", ask yourself a question about the bid you are making:

Is this a common situation where agreements frequently differ significantly? If so, always announce your agreement. Examples of this would be opening NT range; two level transfers or natural bids in response to 1N; 1N response to a major suit opening.

By doing this you will:

- get in the habit of "full disclosure"

- have no worries about drawing inferences from a failure to alert, at least in common situations. If no explanation is provided, you ask for one.

- save the mental strain of worrying about what's alertable (and perhaps you won't even need to read this thread )

- find yourself providing education to newbies in situations where explanations are expected. But it's along the lines of "please explain" rather than "you broke a rule"


Further notes:

1. Alerting regulations are not laws handed down from on high. They are social rules that we choose to follow. AND, given the newness of on line bridge, we have the opportunity politically and technologically to break the mold of face-to-face regulations.

2. Don't think of it as an alert. Think of it as providing your opponents with the information they are entitled to.


AP

[hrothgar]

coyot, on Jul 27 2005, 11:04 AM, said:

Sorry to inform you, but alerting rules are NOT based on what you personally think, or what majority of users of BBO think, or what some statistics on BBO will prove to be major treatment.

I don't know the exact wording of ACBL alerting rules, but I assume that it will quite similar to what is used in other countries:

You have to alert bids that are not "natural" in the sense of showing length in the suit bid or interest to play in this suit.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion about what the ACBL rules about alerting might say...

With this said and done, if you were to base a long post on such speculation you would run the risk of looking like an idiot if said alert rules did not correspond to your assumption.

Alerting "artificial" bids is far from universal...
I'd also argue that it is far from optimal

[hrothgar]

coyot, on Jul 27 2005, 03:11 PM, said:

The only way out is to alert artifical bids and not alert natural bids.

I will NEVER alert my natural responses to 1NT, EVER!
(At least until WBF says that Transfers get the same treatment as Stayman, which is, as far as I know, the only widely accepted non-alerted conventional bid.)

Alerting all "artifical" bids is assine. It puts the cart before the horse.

I agree that such alert rules are simple to following, but they don't provide any useful information. Alert systems are not designed because we like to hear people say the word alert, they are put in place because want to provide the opponents with useful information.

Sadly, alerting "artifical" bids does not provide any useful information.

Such a system might have made sense 50 years ago when the "antural" meaning of a bid was also the "expected" meaning of a bid. Today, such systems are a waste of time...

[ochinko]

hrothgar, on Jul 27 2005, 09:15 AM, said:

I claim that this flag should be used to indicate whether a bid has an unusual or unexpected meaning.

I am with hrothgar here. The need for alerting is to draw attention of opps that something is happening that they should know about, not that it's artificial. Everyone expects 2C after 1NT to be Stayman, so logically here you'd alert only the natural 2C if you happen to play it like that.

At the local club the bidding from our side went 1H - 3H. We play Bergen raises. Opps complained afterwards that we didn't explain that 3H was a weak hand. I found that very strange at the time, since 3H is completely natural. So I went to the TD, who was also an expert player, and it was explained to me that we should have alerted it, because it's too modern for some people. He said he expected that in 10 years the opposite would be true, and 3H should be alerted only if strong.

Since then I had to review what is alertable, and what isn't, and more importantly, why.

Petko

[McBruce]

My take on this:

Alerts are a response to the problem that players in f2f bridge, when asking questions about calls, pass unauthorized information to their partners by asking. Alert rules are an attempt to minimize (total elimination is impossible) this UI, not to force pairs playing unusual conventions to disclose: disclosure is expected anyhow, through explanations, pre-alerts, convention cards, etc.

Complicated rules on when to alert and when not to don't help sell bridge. Players who waste time arguing about what is and is not alertable when they do not have a problem keep people away from bridge who might otherwise come back: the opponents.

Online bridge has no need for alerts since either opponent can ask about the bid without passing any UI to partner. You can even ask both opponents separately and find out if they both agree. There is never any trouble with viewing the opponent's convention card-if they have one-online, no coffee cups or bid-boxes in the way. An alert system online would be an unnecessary complication.

What might work, especially now that BBO is multilingual, is a dialog box that could pop up whenever someone wants a bid explained:

The 2♠ call in this auction is:

[__] forcing (partner cannot pass unless his RHO calls)
[__] invitational (partner needs extra values to bid on)
[__] non-forcing (partner can pass this call)
[__] other (explain below)

[__] natural (shows willingness to play in the denomination)
[__] artificial (says nothing about the denomination)
[__] other (explain below)

Description of this call: [_____________]
(select from a list of common descriptions: transfer, game try, slam try, asking bid, relay, etc.)

More information: _____________________________ (user enters text)

The bidder would not be able to bid again until the call was explained with a minimum of one box in each of the first two groups checked, and at least some text entered if 'other' was chosen. Such a dialog box could be translated into other languages easily.

[ochinko]

McBruce, on Jul 28 2005, 02:57 AM, said:

Online bridge has no need for alerts since either opponent can ask about the bid without passing any UI to partner.

This, unfortunately, is not true. I've seen occasions when an opp clicks on a bid of yours, and you have to explain it. Sometimes it serves exactly as an unauthorized information, because the other opp gets the message that his partner is interested in that suit. Intentionally, or not, it happens. It could cost you the hand because opps find the only defense.

In those cases it is even worse than a f2f tourney, because you don't know who was the interested party

Petko

[McBruce]

You are saying that when you are waiting for your partner to make a call and an explanation of LHO's call comes up, you know that partner is interested in that suit because obviously if you didn't ask for the explanation, he did.

What's to say that the bidder himself didn't simply add an explanation?

[Echognome]

It seems to me that alert procedures should clearly lie under the regulation of the sponsoring organization. Perhaps it makes sense to discuss a standard alerting procedure available to TDs that run tournaments on BBO. It would make sense that TDs can either accept the standard procedure or require one of their own. (For example, I might run a tourney and say that EBU alert procedures are in effect.)

On a personal note, I have to say that when I first came to England after learning alerting in the ACBL I thought they alerted all too often and it was a bit ridiculous. However, now I am a firm believer that the EBU actually makes a lot of sense. At the very least, the alert procedures are quite clear and transparent, although there are of course gray areas like there are everywhere. Note I can state them here as they are that short:

Quote

You must alert a call if
(a) it is not 'natural' (see 5.3).
(b ) it is natural, but you have an agreement by which it is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect.
(c ) it is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect.

Note also that a bid is only natural if it does not say anything about another suit, and hence why canape bids are not considered natural.

[ochinko]

McBruce, on Jul 28 2005, 08:58 AM, said:

You are saying that when you are waiting for your partner to make a call and an explanation of LHO's call comes up, you know that partner is interested in that suit because obviously if you didn't ask for the explanation, he did.

What's to say that the bidder himself didn't simply add an explanation?

It is the delay of the explanation that tells the tale. If it came a few bids later, it is almost obvious that the declarer didn't add the explanation on his own accord.

Let's say that I have a strong hand with ♦KQTxx. LHO opens 1NT, partner passes, RHO bids 2D, unalerted. Even though it's important for me to know whether this is a transfer, or not, I believe I should not click at the bid. Why? Because most probably it is, and I'd be passing UI to my partner if I do it. The click over a bid plays the role of a cheap Leitner double.

The declarer can play that game himself if he decides to be unethical. He could explain a bid that noone asked for an explanation in order to receive a lead there. You can make an experiment at a friendly table where you know all the players well enough. Do it, and ask them later what was their feeling about the unnecessarily explained bid.

Petko

[McBruce]

Perhaps you have a point. OKBridge, when I was there, did not have this ability to click on bids: we relied on private chat to the opponents only. This was made easy on OKB by directing messages to LHO with <, RHO with > and both opponents with =. It's a convention BBO should adopt.

Maybe the solution is simpler than we realize:

--when a bid is clicked on, the explanation only goes to the person who clicked on the bid and kibitzers
--if the other opponent later clicks on the bid, he gets the same explanation automatically after a random time interval between 3 and 5 seconds

[Echognome]

Note that I brought up thise problem of UI before. Fred had mentioned he'd look into it. Not sure if it's still being considered:

http://forums.bridge...wtopic=7254&hl=

[hrothgar]

Echognome, on Jul 28 2005, 09:24 AM, said:

Note also that a bid is only natural if it does not say anything about another suit, and hence why canape bids are not considered natural.

All things are relative including Canape...

Some "canape" bids absolutely promise a longer suit. As Echognomes notes, these bids are conventional because they provide information about a denomination other than the one named.

Some canape bid are considered natural. For example, a Blue Cub style 1♥ opening could conceal longer clubs or diamonds. Opener could even hold a canape reverse with 4+ Hearts and 5+ Spades. However, this opening is considered a natural treatment.

[bearmum]

I think that JUST clicking "alert" should be INSUFFICIENT without a clear explanation of the bid means --- this would remove "UI" because opps could not ask for explanation and declarer could not give explaination as though one of opps had asked for it --- etc etc

THEN we get to "what is alertable" which is really problematical in a global site -- as for example - STAYMAN is not alertable in USA but is here in Australia so maybe alerts should be made AND explained as above (at least at above the 1 level) as 'a call that does not indicate a desire to play in that contract' - or SOMETHING like that??

ALSO if your call means that it has a second meaning -- for example Cappeletti over 1NT showing the suit called PLUS another HAS to be alerted

[Limey_p]

Much agreement here with bearmum, and I'll repeat myself a bit.

IMO its never enough to click "alert" on bbo - provide an explanation immediately. IMO the software should support a context-sensitive drop-box of explanations.

IMO "what should be aleratable" should be set by community norms, and this applies to f2f as well as bbo. At time of writing this, I couldn't find the poster who used the terms "rat's ass" and "alerting stayman". Regardless, I think I care a bit more about rats than he does.

[Winstonm]

How about making all this even more simple? Instead of applying rule upon rule, how about a player having to take at least some degree of self protection upon himself and asking when it is his turn if the bid just made was natural if he thought it was something else?

This ought to take every bit of 1 1/2 seconds:

1N-P-2S

"Nat?"
"Y"

WTP?

Winston

[1eyedjack]

Winstonm, on Jul 30 2005, 11:39 PM, said:

How about making all this even more simple? Instead of applying rule upon rule, how about a player having to take at least some degree of self protection upon himself and asking when it is his turn if the bid just made was natural if he thought it was something else?

This ought to take every bit of 1 1/2 seconds:

1N-P-2S

"Nat?"
"Y"

WTP?

Winston

I guess there are two problems.

The first is simple number-crunching:

We would prefer an environment in which play progresses as fast as possible without compromising the transmission of agreements to opposing sides. I think it takes more than 1.5 seconds per exchange that you mention, and it would certainly take less if the explanation were volunteered with the bid.

That would suggest no problem, if an explanation were to be provided with every bid, but of course that is not the case. In some cases the opponents decide that they know enough about your methods that an explanation is not required. A common sequence that may have already arisen earlier in the session and explained at that time is an example. If opponents are playing precision I only require an alert the first time 1C is opened (provided the definition does not change with position and vul). Same with range of 1N opener and whether 2C is Stayman or 2-red is transfer. In that individual case the fastest method of progression is to omit providing the explanation and to omit requesting one.

The overall fastest solution in the long term is to predict those occasions when an explanation is likely to be required and on those events provide the explanation with the bid. That is not an easy prediction to express as a "rule", and therein lies problem 1.

Problem 2 is one of courtesy and education. It is slightly more courteous and furthers ethical standards to provide an explanation in advance of an enquiry, rather than expect opponents to extract the information like blood from a stone. Sadly there are too many players in the latter category. I do not think that setting rules will educate this class of players, which rules may just irritate the ethical players.

Perhaps, after all, the best solution is to leave the software as flexible as possible, ie as it is now, and let the community sort out among themselves how to treat the transgressors.

[bearmum]

Limey_p, on Jul 31 2005, 04:15 PM, said:

Much agreement here with bearmum, and I'll repeat myself a bit.

IMO its never enough to click "alert" on bbo - provide an explanation immediately. IMO the software should support a context-sensitive drop-box of explanations.

IMO "what should be aleratable" should be set by community norms, and this applies to f2f as well as bbo. At time of writing this, I couldn't find the poster who used the terms "rat's ass" and "alerting stayman". Regardless, I think I care a bit more about rats than he does.

Actually what I should have said was that on BBO your bid should not be registered if you press "alert" and do not give explaination == however I do realise that would mean Fred and his team would have extra programming to do (sorry Fred )