[coyot]

I just looked at the ACBL alerting rules in detail:
ACBL alerts.

Since both WBF and EBL have only quite loose alerting rules on their pages (basically saying alert all artificial and conventional bids and bids that carry explicit or implicit agreement in your partnership), ACBL is the only one that goes deep down.

I find them quite good. The interesting bit in there says:
The "highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage.

Also, minimum lengths for various openers are specified as natural (and that includes minor 3cards, weak 2s on 5card).

Why this poll? Well, the main reason for me is to see what people here prefer. I have seen a lot of very bad TD rulings recently on these forums - and some of them caused damage just because the involved parties made "reasonable" assumptions and the TD had a different point of view.

I think it would be a very good idea to include "alerting scheme" as a tournament parameter - so that when I enter a tournament, I know what are the expected meanings of bids and I am able to alert all departures from them. I don't want to depend on the TD's point of view in cases when there are reasonable authorities.

Having an "assumed" alerting policy for every tournament, we could improve the quality of TDs while not scaring them away. The TDs should KNOW what is the "expected" meaning of any call and so should the players.

Rough outline of what should "Tight scheme" include the following (as expected behaviour) - examples only! (just to provide depth):

- NT opening range (anything that goes farther than 2 HCP from 16 either side should be alerted)
- major suit preference (i.e. 1♣-1♥ may be bid with 6♦ and 4♥
- NT preference (i.e. 1♣-1♥-1NT may be bid with 4♠)
- new suit in competitive bidding NF on 2nd level, F on 1st and 3rd level
- any jump F

I am personally somewhere between ACBL and Tight scheme. When I play in a local club, I rigorously alert almost every bidding sequence we have, because I truly believe in the principle of FULL DISCLOSURE - and if my partner KNOWS that 1♣-1♥-1♠ denies balanced hand, opps should know it too.

That is why the tight scheme might be better than ACBL in my point of view - it would allow all players around the table to get the same inferences from absence of alerts.
Note that the example with 1♠ versus 1NT rebid is a typical case where you would find advocates for both possibilites - and they would all say "why alert, it's a NATURAL bid".

[helene_t]

I don't like any of the schemes. I would prefer something much simpler. But generally, an alert scheme for online bridge should be stricter than one designed for f2f bridge.

[scoob]

i like the idea that there should be -some- kind of scheme on bbo, as the general mode is to alert anything that isn't natural to you, which i'm sure we've determined isn't the same for everyone at an international venue.

if i ran the zoo, it would look something like this:

- NT range always alerted
- 2+ level openings always alerted
- all forcing bids alerted as such
- all other artificial bids* always alerted

* i might exclude slam auctions from this in the name of speed

[david_c]

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

if i ran the zoo, it would look something like this:

- NT range always alerted
- 2+ level openings always alerted
- all other artificial bids* always alerted

* i might exclude slam auctions from this in the name of speed

I'd agree with this. In fact, what you describe is exactly what the face-to-face rules will be here in England, starting at the beginning of next year (if you replace 2+ by 2). I think it's going to work very well.

[coyot]

I would be more interested in opinions regarding the subtler issues (major preference or notrump preference). Would you assume one variant as standard or simply alert all 1NT rebids (telling opps either "denies spades" or "can have spades")?

[scoob]

coyot, on Jul 27 2005, 06:53 AM, said:

I would be more interested in opinions regarding the subtler issues (major preference or notrump preference). Would you assume one variant as standard or simply alert all 1NT rebids (telling opps either "denies spades" or "can have spades")?

these details, IMO, should be left to the opponents desires. if they want to know if my 1NT denies a spade holding, they should enquire.

the logic being that too much unrequested disclosure will bog down the games. as it is i make a point of playing against friends whenever possible to avoid the constant "??????????????????????????" when i take longer than 2 seconds to bid.

[coyot]

scoob, on Jul 27 2005, 07:56 AM, said:

these details, IMO, should be left to the opponents desires. if they want to know if my 1NT denies a spade holding, they should enquire.

the logic being that too much unrequested disclosure will bog down the games. as it is i make a point of playing against friends whenever possible to avoid the constant "??????????????????????????" when i take longer than 2 seconds to bid.

I fear the exact opposite - if there is no standard, I will be bothering people all the time, asking whether they can or cannot have 4 spades in their rebid .

If the majority plays major suit preference, it would be easier to agree as a standard and alert NT preference.

Basically, that is the purpose of the Tight scheme option in the poll - establishing a BBO standard (or whatever) else system that you're assumed to know when you play here and whose "seminatural" bids don't have to be alerted even when they contain hidden inferences (= the full disclosure is not necessary because those inferences should be publicly known)

[david_c]

coyot, on Jul 27 2005, 01:53 PM, said:

I would be more interested in opinions regarding the subtler issues (major preference or notrump preference). Would you assume one variant as standard or simply alert all 1NT rebids (telling opps either "denies spades" or "can have spades")?

Personally I strongly agree with scoob. I don't think that an inference about major-suit lengths should make a 1NT rebid alertable. Futhermore, it ought to be clear from the alerting regulations that all the opponents can assume from a 1NT rebid is that it shows a hand suitable for play in 1NT. Then the opponents will know that if they want more information they have to ask, rather than assuming that they know what the answer is. Similarly, as long as 1♣:1♥,1♠ promises four spades (and 1♣ was natural), it should not be alertable. If the opponents want to know whether it could be a balanced hand, then they can ask. Here it's good that we are playing online, because people can ask questions without their partner knowing they have done so.

Having said that, I voted that there should be no default alerting scheme in BBO. People simply aren't interested enough in things like this - they would just go on alerting (or not alerting) in the same way as they always did.

[david_c]

coyot, on Jul 27 2005, 02:00 PM, said:

if there is no standard, I will be bothering people all the time, asking whether they can or cannot have 4 spades in their rebid .

Fine - you do that if you like. But remember that

1. For a very large proportion of players on BBO, it will never make the slightest bit of difference whether their opponents' 1NT rebids can conceal a 4-card major or not. So a lot of these explanations would be a complete waste of time.

2. The players who are good enough to understand the difference are also good enough to know when to ask, if the answer would affect their play.

3. If there was a rule that said certain "natural" 1NT bids had to be alerted, it would be useless because hardly anyone would comply. New players on BBO aren't going to read a detailed policy on alerting.

[FrancesHinden]

I haven't voted because I don't play online.

But I think a "tight" scheme is crazy.

Some law-abiding people will realise they have to learn & understand the tight scheme. They do so, then get cross with anyone who doesn't, and get a load of rulings (rightly) in their favour in the process.
Some law-abiding people who don't know the tight scheme will be put off playing, because they don't want to learn it.
And the majority will continue along as they currently play and hope for the best.

[hrothgar]

Couple quick comments before I disappear for the day (not sure if there is Internet in the table lands)

I think that its important to differentiate between alerts and announcements...
Once again, and alert is best pictured as a binary flag. It conveys a single bit of information.

The comment that people should "alert" NT ranges is almost nonsensical

[scoob]

hrothgar said:

I think that its important to differentiate between alerts and announcements...
Once again, and alert is best pictured as a binary flag.  It conveys a single bit of information.

The comment that people should "alert" NT ranges is almost nonsensical

i think everyone taking part in this thread has played f2f bridge and is at least partially familiar with the difference between the two; to imply otherwise is, frankly, insulting.

this discussion is specifically directed towards play on BBO, where alerts and announcements are not only self-made, but barely distinguishable as they are both inputted in the same fashion. no doubt that one can consciously make a point of inputting explanations for their bids without pressing the alert button itself so that, at least visually, the two can be differentiated by whether or not the bid appears grey.

having said that, i dare you to argue that this is consistenly done by more than a small percentage of the BBO general.

now that we have dealt with your pedantic fly-by, did you have anything of quality to add to the discussion?

[bearmum]

I don't like the choices offered

ONLINE alerts are self alerts and cannot be seen by partner -- and therefore you can alert what YOUR bid is according to partnership agreements --EVEN if it's NOT alertable in your 'home' country

In MY opinion THIS IS even better than f2f where you alert partner's bids (and MAYBE 'alert' partner also -- if he has made a 'wrong' systematic bid)


IMHO asking opps if a particular NATURAL bid (ie one which is NOT alertable) can or cannot have a specific number of cards in one suit SURELY should not be allowed ??

[scoob]

bearmum, on Jul 28 2005, 08:35 AM, said:

IMHO  asking opps if a particular NATURAL bid (ie one which is NOT alertable) can or cannot have a specific number of cards in one suit SURELY should not be allowed ??

this goes against the spirit of full disclosure as i understand it from the laws. the opps should be welcomed and encouraged to ask anything they want. if i have an agreement with my partner that a specific natural bid cannot have a specific number of cards in another suit, they should be allowed to know that.

i'm particular to this because with my reg p, our natural 1♥♠ opens specifically deny:

holding a singleton or void anywhere in the hand
4+ in the other major

[hrothgar]

scoob, on Jul 28 2005, 03:47 PM, said:

now that we have dealt with your pedantic fly-by, did you have anything of quality to add to the discussion?

Count me in the "other" category...

I don't believe that Polls or discussion is going to solve this problem. People are lazy and will follow the path of least resistance. I believe that the best solution is a technical one.

If BBOs truly believes that alerts/annoucements/whatever are a serious problem, then implement a technical fix by providing something similar to convention files.

Properly implemented such a system would

1. Allow alerts/announcements to be automatically generated for a variety of systems (please note: this means that a "tight" alert system could be used with minimal effort required for end users)

2. Provide an easy mechanism by which end users could learn new systems. Ideally, this would cause the bulk of the user base to consolidate arround a small number of standard systems (WJ 2005, SAYC, Acol, etc.)

[Echognome]

Along the lines of technology helping things out, I had a thought. I spent some time filling out our BBO convention card including all of the responses I could under the little .. box for most bids.

Now, I know that sometimes opponents post their convention cards, but I pretty much never read them when playing. It just seems easier to ask. However, wouldn't it be nice if the software automatically posted the meanings listed on the cc if they were filled in. It could be done only for the uncontested part of the auction (post until other side bids) and only for opening bids and responses. Also, the cc alert would only show up to opps and not the bidder or bidder's partner and they could alert as normal if they wanted to override this.

This would have the following benefits:

1) Those that filled out cc's carefully, could rely on the software alerting for them, thus giving them the incentive to fill out a cc.
2) If alerts started varying widely from the cc, you would have a basis for MI in a tournament.
3) More bids would be alerted properly.

I know some people effectively do this with scripting, but I cannot see why this couldn't be done through the system itself. Of course if no cc is posted, we are no worse off than before.

Well, just a thought.

[1eyedjack]

I also think it would be quite nice if a flag on your screen showed whether or not an opponent's completed CC had been loaded. It is such a small request, and I KNOW that I can tell by actively opening their CC to see if it is blank, but equally it should be such a small bit of code to program.