[newmoon]

I was playing in a Tourney and the bidding went 1NT on my right, pass by me, 2♠ by leftie. Pass by CHO and Pass (!) by rightie.

I enquired, and was told that 2♠ is weak and natural. I said that the bid should be alerted, as transfers are the standard online at BBO. "Huh? That is natural!"

I said: "Well, transfers are standard. Ask support@bridgebase.com"

The next hand it went 1NT by leftie, 2♥ by rightie - alerted ths time.

I gave him a smiling face. Nice.

Perhaps a little popup at entry into BBO listing standard non-alert bids? I think some education is necessary. My feeling is that SAYC Basic bids are ok with no alerts.

What thinks you?

Newmoon

[the hog]

I think that alerting a natural bid is the height of absurdity. A transfer should of cousre be alerted. Also I would like to know according to whose authority "transfers are the standard."

[bearmum]

newmoon, on Jul 27 2005, 01:20 PM, said:

I was playing in a Tourney and the bidding went 1NT on my right, pass by me, 2♠ by leftie.  Pass by CHO and Pass (!) by rightie.

I enquired, and was told that 2♠ is weak and natural.  I said that the bid should be alerted, as transfers are the standard online at BBO.  "Huh?  That is natural!"

I said: "Well, transfers are standard.  Ask support@bridgebase.com"

The next hand it went 1NT by leftie, 2♥ by rightie - alerted ths time.

I gave him a smiling face.  Nice.   

Perhaps a little popup at entry into BBO listing standard non-alert bids?  I think some education is necessary.  My feeling is that SAYC Basic bids are ok with no alerts.

What thinks you?

Newmoon

Why would a 2♠ bid BE a transfer if not alerted??
Btw SAYC is not the only system out there, and conventional bids in ANY system are most definately alertable ( and if not made could be subject to some sort of penalty I believe?)

And if a bid is made which carries a meaning to your partnership which is different to that which the opposition would reasonably infer it's alertable (at least here in Australia) -for example our 1NT 2d/h(transfer) followed over the 2h/s by a second bid suit shows four in the transfer suit and five in the second suit (reversing the meanings that most people play it) and therefore we alert it even though the second bid is 'natural' actually showing the suit bid

[epeeist]

newmoon, on Jul 26 2005, 07:20 PM, said:

....
Perhaps a little popup at entry into BBO listing standard non-alert bids? I think some education is necessary. My feeling is that SAYC Basic bids are ok with no alerts.

What thinks you?

Newmoon

I disagree with you. UNLESS opps had specifically agreed to a bidding system which uses transfers, or the tournament was specifically "SAYC only" or something like that. Since you don't so state, I assume such was not the case.

I've even played with partners who were okay with me using transfers, but refused to use transfers themselves (don't ask... ). So if they bid 1NT I bid a transfer, I alerted it. If I bid 1NT, they bid a non-transfer, no alert.

[Walddk]

I am sorry, but the day the authorities demand that I start alerting my natural bids (self-alerting) or my partner's (f2f with no screens), I am out of it for good.

Roland

[mike777]

Walddk, on Jul 26 2005, 11:30 PM, said:

I am sorry, but the day the authorities demand that I start alerting my natural bids (self-alerting) or my partner's (f2f with no screens), I am out of it for good.

Roland

Over my weak nt I have been told I must alert my natural 2h , 2s......not sure if this is correct but agree with Roland, gave up tourneys.

[Walddk]

mike777, on Jul 27 2005, 06:38 AM, said:

Over my weak nt I have been told I must alert my natural 2h , 2s......not sure if this is correct but agree with Roland, gave up tourneys.

I'll give up on anything related to bridge, except the weekly game with and against my python, bird spider and canary. They don't demand alerts of natural bids.

Roland

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Jul 27 2005, 07:30 AM, said:

I am sorry, but the day the authorities demand that I start alerting my natural bids (self-alerting) or my partner's (f2f with no screens), I am out of it for good.

Roland

Sad attitude....

The purpose of an alet structure is to provide the opponents with useful information. Given the enormous number of artificial treatments in use, flagging bids as "natural" or "artificial" doesn't tell the oppoentns anything. I'd prefer not to have any alerts rather than adopt an alert "artificial" treatments strucutre.

This case is a perfect example. VERY few pairs play natural suit bids over NT openings. The 2S response clearly caught the opponents by surprise. They deserve some warning that the response is non-forcing.

[hrothgar]

bearmum, on Jul 27 2005, 03:48 AM, said:

Why would a 2♠ bid BE a transfer if not alerted??
Btw SAYC is not the only system out there, and conventional bids in ANY system are most definately alertable ( and if not made could be subject to some sort of penalty I believe?)

There are some benighted parts of the world that advocate alerting any/all conventional bids. (Great Britiain comes to mind). With this said and done there are alot of other locales which have adopted much more reasonable standards.

Case in point... You aren't going get penalized at ACBL tournaments if you don't alert Stayman.

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Jul 27 2005, 07:42 AM, said:

Walddk, on Jul 27 2005, 07:30 AM, said:

I am sorry, but the day the authorities demand that I start alerting my natural bids (self-alerting) or my partner's (f2f with no screens), I am out of it for good.

Roland

Sad attitude....

The purpose of an alet structure is to provide the opponents with useful information. Given the enormous number of artificial treatments in use, flagging bids as "natural" or "artificial" doesn't tell the oppoentns anything. I'd prefer not to have any alerts rather than adopt an alert "artificial" treatments strucutre.

This case is a perfect example. VERY few pairs play natural suit bids over NT openings. The 2S response clearly caught the opponents by surprise. They deserve some warning that the response is non-forcing.

I disagree strongly. If I bid a natural 2♠, it is more than silly if I have to tell my opponents that it is natural.

Do you also want me to alert my 1♥-opening next time? It shows hearts and not spades!

What you are saying is that I must alert my 2♠ bid whether it's natural or a transfer to clubs. I am lost. Is this a contest of bridge or alert skills I wonder.

Roland

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Jul 27 2005, 08:52 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 27 2005, 07:42 AM, said:

Walddk, on Jul 27 2005, 07:30 AM, said:

I am sorry, but the day the authorities demand that I start alerting my natural bids (self-alerting) or my partner's (f2f with no screens), I am out of it for good.

Roland

Sad attitude....

The purpose of an alet structure is to provide the opponents with useful information. Given the enormous number of artificial treatments in use, flagging bids as "natural" or "artificial" doesn't tell the oppoentns anything. I'd prefer not to have any alerts rather than adopt an alert "artificial" treatments strucutre.

This case is a perfect example. VERY few pairs play natural suit bids over NT openings. The 2S response clearly caught the opponents by surprise. They deserve some warning that the response is non-forcing.

I disagree strongly. If I bid a natural 2♠, it is more than silly if I have to tell my opponents that it is natural.

Do you also want me to alert my 1♥-opening next time? It shows hearts and not spades!

What you are saying is that I must alert my 2♠ bid whether it's natural or a transfer to clubs. I am lost. Is this a contest of bridge or alert skills I wonder.

Roland

An alert is a "binary" flag.
An individual bid can take one of two states: Alertable and non-Alertable

You seem to be advocating that this flag is used to indicate whether a bid is natural or artificial. I argue that this information is almost meaningless. Why should I give a rats ass that RHO's 2♣ response to a 1NT opening is artificial?

I claim that this flag should be used to indicate whether a bid has an unusual or unexpected meaning. For example, a 1H opening that shows 5+ Hearts would be considered perfectly standard in North America and needs no alert. I would see nothing wrong with requiring an alert for a 1H opening that shows 4+ Hearts and would note that a canape style 1H openings that could conceal a longer suit are examples of a natural treatment that requires and alert in most locales.

As I noted in the past, I beleive that individual zones should define "detailed standard" bidding systems. Said sysem would be used a number of purposes including:

1. Forming the basis for educational materials
2. Providing a standard system for restricted no-fear type events
3. Establishing a standard system for alerting. If you're playing standard, you don't need to alert.

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Jul 27 2005, 08:15 AM, said:

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

If 2♠ showing spades is unusual, then I don't understand the word "unusual". It seems much more unusual to me that it shows clubs.

A spade is a spade, especially when it's not alerted!

Roland

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Jul 27 2005, 09:37 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 27 2005, 08:15 AM, said:

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

If 2♠ showing spades is unusual, then I don't understand the word "unusual". It seems much more unusual to me that it shows clubs.

A spade is a spade, especially when it's not alerted!

Roland

Once again, you seem to be fixating on the assumption that "unusual" = artificial. I claim that "unusual" = unexpected.

Personally, I think that a Heart is a Spade, at least when NT openings are involved. I don't have any firm figures in front of me, but I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of players to respond 2♠ to 1NT with 5+ Spades is pretty damn small. I'd certainly consider it infrequent enough to be unexpected.

Potentially Ben could be of some help here...

Any chance that you'd be willing to do a quick search on Bridge Browser?
Ideally I'd like the following information

Find all hands where player X opened 1NT with 10-14 HCP, LHO passed and partner holds 5+ Spades.

1. What percentage of the time did partner bid 2♥?
2. What percentage of the time did partner bid 2♠?
3. What percentage of the time did partner bid something else?

Repeat for those examples where partner opened 1N with 15-17 HCP...
If you're feeling REALLY energetic, perform the same for 10 HCP, 11 HCP, 12 HCP...

[Walddk]

You don't seem to see the danger if you must alert a natural as well as an artificial 2♠. Say you alert 2♠ because it's natural. What do you think LHO will assume? That it's a transfer to clubs or MSS and that he will get one more chance.

Much to his surprise the auction is over after pass, pass, pass. Who do you think has been damaged now? Did the alert of the natural 2♠ help him? No, on the contrary!

It is plain daft if you must alert 2♠ whether it's natural or a transfer to clubs, or MSS or whatever. This adds to the confusion.

The search you are asking for doesn't interest me one bit. I want to play bridge, and alerting natural bids is not part of that in my opinion.

Roland

[helene_t]

Richard: Your requirement that "unexpected" calls should be alerted make perfect sense in a culture where everybody play the same general approach but each pair has its own two or three deviations. You agree that you alert those deviations. That's a clear an usuful definition.

On BBO, there is no such thing as a standard system. Yes, we have BBO-basic and BBO-advanced, but a lot of players have no idea what those systems are about.

It may be true that certain artficial conventions (Stayman, FSF, maybe even transfers) are so widespread that they don't need to be alerted. This is how the rules are in the Netherlands: there is a long list of conventions that must/should/may/cannot be alerted. It is vague and it changes every year. Even certified directors don't know the list by heart. Allthough many argue that you can/should allways default to the general rule that "unexpected" calls must be alerted, a lot of directors try to extrapolate the specific rules to all other situations, arguing that the term "unexpected" is impossible to define.

In the Netherlands, non-jump transfers to majors don't need to be alerted in uncontested auctions, if in response to a 1NT or 2NT opening or a 2NT rebid after an artificial 2♣ or 2♦ opening followed by a relay. I've encountered this problem so many times: people play transfers in contested auctions and don't alert it. Opps call the director. A transfer after an auction beginning with a 2♣ opening which was doubled, but the auction was otherwise uncontested. Stayman is not alerted, but there are so many conventions called "stayman" that it only shows 13 cards. Yet some people will interpret an unalerted 2♣ response to 1NT as it is defined in whatever textbook they happen to have read.

This is so ridicoulous that a lot of people (including me, fwiw) argue that we would be better of without the alert cards. Just put everything on your CC and if the opps dont read it it's their own problem.

A lot of BBO tournaments specify that you must alert all artificial calls. It goes without saying that stayman and transfers must be alerted, you can't argue that those are natural calls.

It's fine if you alert natural calls that carry an unusual partnership agreement, such as kamikaze notrump openings, non-forcing shifts etc. In fact, it can do no harm if you alert whenever in doubt as long as you supply an explanation.

But if we define natural responses to notrump openings as alertable, it becomes a slippery slope. What's next? A natural 2♣ opening? What about a natural 2♦ opening then? In some countries 2♣ and 2♦ are played as artificial in every coffiehouse. It's unreasonable to expect people from such countries to memorize which calls must be alerted and which need not.

[badderzboy]

I thought I had seen it all,

All you have to do is click the 2♠ bid and they'll tell u.
You can asssume it's natural or artficial at your own risk.

There's enough problem with not alerting their bids when they really should than worrying about them when they don't alert a bid they shouldn't.

I suspect it's symptomatic of the whole alerting issue online.

Steve

[1eyedjack]

Two possibilities:

( 1 ) We accept that there is no standard set of responses to 1NT. In such cases an alert is redundant: the bidder will normally be required to explain the bid. It would be nice if he did so before receiving a request. But either way, whether the explanation accompanies an alert is irrelevant, the information is imparted. Requiring a compulsory alert of all responses seems a bit illogical, but I believe in the UK we certainly used to have such a rule for the 2C response to 1NT - it had to be alerted if it showed clubs, being an unusual treatment, and it had to be alerted if it was Stayman, being a conventional treatment. So, we just sigh, alert and move on. After the alert everyone just assumes it is Stayman, so those who play it as Clubs, Gladiator or whatever get away with murder. If in this case we agree that an alert is not required, the defender is on notice that the bid could mean anything at all and could enquire.

( 2 ) We accept that there is a standard set of responses to 1NT. It would make some sense for a bid to be not alertable if it is within that standard, alertable otherwise. In that case some "natural" bids would be alertable if they fall outside of that standard.

BB-Basic, being apparently a deemed system imposed upon undiscussed pickup partnerships by the site rules, would appear to be a sensible standard unless overridden by (eg) a tournament host as part of the tourney rules.

Whatever we do we MUST not fall into the trap of having a rule on alerting that is so complex that players fail to alert only because they honestly but wrongly thought that the bid was not alertable. Personally I favour option ( 2 ). If an alert is available, may as well give it some meaning. Particularly, given the wide variety of interpretations placed on the description "natural" I would not want a bid's alertability to be based on such a subjective criterion.

Anyway, I do not want to win on the technicality of accurately alerting or not according to some set of rules with which my opponents are unfamiliar and who draw the wrong conclusion from an alert failure, even if it is their fault for an unjustified inference. It is no secret in this forum that I prefer 2C response (yes Clubs) as a transfer to Hearts. Online I would say so when responding 2C. It is a bit more problematic at f2f. I reckon telling them before the commencement of the round is the best way.

Personally I think that the alert button is a waste of time and a disincentive to ethical behaviour. When you alert you are almost always going to have to give an explanation anyway, so it just delays the explanation if not provided with the alert. If you provide the explanation with the alert then the alert itself becomes redundant. There is no shortage of software out there that enables an explanation to be provided with minimal effort.

[Walddk]

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

[coyot]

hrothgar, on Jul 27 2005, 01:57 AM, said:

Personally, I think that a Heart is a Spade, at least when NT openings are involved. I don't have any firm figures in front of me, but I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of players to respond 2♠ to 1NT with 5+ Spades is pretty damn small. I'd certainly consider it infrequent enough to be unexpected.

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 have to alert bids that are not "natural" in the sense of not being the next longest suit. (yes, 1♣-1♥ SHOULD be alerted if you can have longer ♦ than ♥!)
(and yes, in most of Europe you HAVE to alert SAYC minor openings.)

You have to alert bids that carry additional information, which is not expected in "natural" meaning of the bid. (Same example, also inverted raises etc.)

Only after this comes the requirement to alert bids with unusual/unexpected meaning - but this does not mean "I expect everyone to play transfers so I will not alert trasnfers and will alert my natural bids". This means that you have to alert "forcing passes", you have to alert bids that are unexpectedly forcing or nonforcing.

I know these rules are not perfect, but they have to be obeyed.

We all know that these rules will evolve slowly. Almost everybody uses Stayman and a simple Stayman is one of the few exceptions from alerts. When the NATIONAL authorities feel that transfers became significantly major treatment, they will change the rules (as they have done with better minor openings in the US).

But, BBO is international, despite situated in the US, and this means that it's rules should follow WBF rules unless directly specified (ACBL tourneys).

Bridge cannot be ruled by local majority customs. This would mean that any Polish player going to BBO would have to study whole lot of (for him artifical) bids that his opponents will not alert.

Our goal should be to make the game enjoyable to everyone - and following a GLOBAL set of rules is the easiest way.

[1eyedjack]

Walddk, on Jul 27 2005, 02:48 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

You can in theory impose any set of rules on what determines whether a bid is alertable. If you are going to have alerts, there are two fundamental principles that must be upheld:

{1} The rules must be simple enough to operate with minimal confusion.
{2} The rules should minimise the need to ask for further clarification.

Principle {1} above takes precedence over principle {2}.

One simple rule {A} would be to make non-natural bids alertable, natural bids not.
Another rule {B} might be to make a standard system not-alertable, departures alertable.
Mixing a combination of the two would be a recipe for disaster, being entirely contrary to principle {1}, so you are left with a straight choice between {A} and {B}.

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. But its application is less clear-cut. Certainly it is less compliant with principle {2} than option {B}. This is because "natural" embraces a wide variety of interpretations. That variety is likely to be relevant to the opponents, so they will end up asking for explanations regardless of whether or not the bid is alerted, if a non-alerted bid has a wide range of meanings, once again rendering the alert itself as redundant. But more importantly I think option {A} also breaches principle {1}. I have seen numerous arguments over whether a bid should be alerted even among opponents both of whom agree that whether an alert is required is determined by whether the bid is natural.

If you have a rule of alerts that is based on a POPULAR system that is WELL DEFINED, and any (and only) departures from that system are alertable, that would I believe, with a bit of mass education, serve both principles, assuming we are to be stuck with alerts at all.