[luke warm]

it seems to me that 'full disclosure' governs those areas where partner knows something about my hand that the opps don't know.. in the example ben gave, if completing the transfer denies 4 hearts, it surely needs to be disclosed... otherwise it's a hidden agreement

there's a diffenence between inferences and understandings... using support doubles, the x is an understanding... the pass is an inference.. does the pass guarantee that 3 card support is not held? not at all, though partner can and probably will infer as much...

[DrTodd13]

1m-1♥-1N. Partner will know whether that can contain 4♠ or not. The opps don't know whether it does or does not. Therefore, according to your rule this should be alerted. Do you agree?

I thought there was a time when we all agreed that style was not alertable and style is nothing more than agreements that don't rise to the level of "unexpected."

Some people do play that pass in your example denies 3 card support. Both that position and the position that it does not deny 3 card support are both agreements so maybe you can convince me more but I'm not buying into this inference vs. understanding thing. To me, partner makes inferences based on our understandings.

[McBruce]

DrTodd13, on Aug 16 2005, 02:01 PM, said:

40B is not as clear as you seem to think it is. If we are to assume (as we should) that every word in a regulation has a meaning and adds something to the regulation and that no word in a regulation is superfluous then we have to ask what the word "special" means in the context of "special partnership understanding." Note, it does not say simply "partnership understanding" but "special partnership understanding." To say that this statement is "clear" is incredible because surely the word "special" is vague in the extreme. Let the debate begin about what is a special partnership understanding versus a regular partnership understanding...somebody please draw the line. Basically, this is the issue we've been debating all along. Alerts are supposed to capture special agreements and not regular agreements. So, I don't see how referring to 40B is helping us at all. What would you say the corollaries to law 40B are? Can I make a bid without alerting based on a non-special partnership understanding that the opponents might not understand all the details of? Case in point, 1m-1♥-1N either denying or possibly containing 4♠. Are both 1m-1♥-1♠ and 1m-1♥-1N alertable because we know that people play it both ways and therefore someone might not understand the bid or should neither of these bids be alertable. My view is that neither of these are special understandings (instead they are a matter of style) and that neither should be alerted. If you are going to argue that both are alertable then I do think you are going down the road to defining every partnership understanding as a special partnership understanding since many pairs will play sequences differently.

I'm not ignoring any rule. I am trying to come up with a non-vague substitute for the term "special" so that we can all know what we should alert. Ben is a bright guy with lots of insight so I was hoping he'd provide us with a workable definition of special. Correct me if I'm wrong but all I've seen so far are examples and not definitions.

I agree with the idea that a partnership agreement has to be 'special' in some way before it should be alertable. This is 40B again:

A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization.

From this I infer the following rule:

A bid need only be alerted if:

--it is based on a partnership understanding
--an opposing pair may be misled unless the agreement is disclosed with an alert (or whatever the sponsoring organization requires)

The responsibility for deciding whether an agreement is 'special' enough that an opposing pair may be misled, ultimately rests with the Director, so careful players should alert almost all of their partnership agreements. Anytime you don't alert you are liable to an adjustment, but only if the opponents are clearly damaged.

It would take a really exceptional situation for me as TD to adjust because a pair alerted when they shouldn't have. Players take inferences from alerts and especially from the abscence of alerts -- and they shouldn't: they should ask.

But, one does not need to alert psychic bids, since there is no partnership agreement. One does not need to alert many of the trivial understandings that opponents should be asking about, including many of the examples given in this thread.

[inquiry]

Special agreements... versus non-special...

For most people I guess,

1NT - 2D*
2H

Where, 2D* is jacoby. 2H is you told me to bid 2H and I did. I will always bid 2H. No clarification needed (call it full disclosure if you like).

On the otherhand, if 2H shows less than 4H or 4H's with minimum, nothing also needs to be said, but of course explained if asked.

But if 2H promises SPECIFICALLY less than 4 hearts, this is SPECIAL agreement. This is non-standard, and while your partner will surely know your agreement, there is no reason to suspect that your opponents will know. Full disclosure requires you tell them.

In the examples

1m-p-1H-1S
2H

If 2H absolutely positively promises 4H, that is a special agreement. It is so special you play double of to show 3H's. This requires an alert. IF all 2H shows is heart support (wiht no etched in stone definition of the nature of that support), it is not special and does not require an alert.

In

1m - 1H
1NT

If 1NT absolutely, positively denies 4S, it is an alert, if 1NT will be always be bid with a balanced hand even with 4S's, it requires an alert. At least in my view because each of these are examples of a SPECIAL agreement. If your partner is free to use his judgement on what to bid 1NT with (including 4S), it does not require an alert because you ahve no SPECIAL rule (must bid 1NT with balanced even with 4S or must bid 1S with four even when balanced).

I am simple minded... this seems extremely clear to me.

[hrothgar]

coyot, on Aug 16 2005, 02:36 PM, said:

Richard, the biggest problem here is the lack of jurisdiction!

Is "conforms to SAYC" a jurisdiction? I don't think so.

The only jurisdictions I know are WBF, EBU, EBL, ACBL etc, plus BBO.

I'm not sure that "jurisdication" is quite the word that you're looking for. "Sponsoring Organization" is much closer to the mark...

With this said and done: BBO is NOT a sponsoring organization. BBO seems to have decided to devolve responsibility for alert standards, convention charts, etc to the entities that actually host tournaments. Accordingly, when the ACBL decides to run a tournament using BBO's infrastructure, the ACBL acts as the sponsoring organization. Equally significantly, if SkyClub or Joe Bob's bridge club runs aa tournament they also serve as sponsoring organizations.

I agree with you that having 1001 separate sponsoring organizations running arround makes like a bit complicated. However thats part and parcel with any new market.

1. A new technology becomes available
2. You have a surge of companies entering the market
3. A dominant design is introduced
4. The market consolidates

The beat goes on...

[helene_t]

inquiry, on Aug 17 2005, 04:14 AM, said:

Special agreements... versus non-special...
[.....]

If 1NT absolutely, positively denies 4S, it is an alert,  if 1NT will be always be bid with a balanced hand even with 4S's, it requires an alert. At least in my view because each of these are examples of a SPECIAL agreement. If your partner is free to use his judgement on what to bid 1NT with (including 4S), it does not require an alert because you ahve no SPECIAL rule (must bid 1NT with balanced even with 4S or must bid 1S with four even when balanced).

I am simple minded... this seems extremely clear to me.

This seems extremely vague to me.

All my calls are based on some kind of agreement with partner. They are all special in the sense that they are foreign to people who have never heard of such agreements and they are all non-special in the sense that they are immediately understood by people who have never heard of alternative agreements. Advanced opps will generally assume that we have some kind of agreement, they will not be surprised by our agreements but they will not assume them either.

You and I know that certain natural agreements (negative freebids, 4-card major openings, Walsh) are more likely to cause surprise than certain less natural agreements (four-cards up the line, t/o doubles, Stayman). So we alert non-standard agreements. But that's not the issue. You and I can easily adapt to any alert procedure and besides we alert virtually everything anyway.

[david_c]

On the subject of agreements about natural bids being alertable, you might be interested in Appeal no. 2 from this week's EBU event in Brighton:

page 5 of this document

[mike777]

david_c, on Aug 18 2005, 05:03 AM, said:

On the subject of agreements about natural bids being alertable, you might be interested in Appeal no. 2 from this week's EBU event in Brighton:

page 5 of this document

Good grief how can 3h be alertable. What the heck is South doing making a free bid of 3d? Partner can assume South has 6 hcp for goodness sakes. South can balance in over 2h later, yes?

My guess and only wild speculation is that this committee wanted to punish ew for playing a 10-13 nt style, oh well.

[inquiry]

helene_t, on Aug 17 2005, 03:44 AM, said:

inquiry, on Aug 17 2005, 04:14 AM, said:

Special agreements... versus non-special...
[.....]

If 1NT absolutely, positively denies 4S, it is an alert,  if 1NT will be always be bid with a balanced hand even with 4S's, it requires an alert. At least in my view because each of these are examples of a SPECIAL agreement. If your partner is free to use his judgement on what to bid 1NT with (including 4S), it does not require an alert because you ahve no SPECIAL rule (must bid 1NT with balanced even with 4S or must bid 1S with four even when balanced).

I am simple minded... this seems extremely clear to me.

This seems extremely vague to me.

All my calls are based on some kind of agreement with partner. They are all special in the sense that they are foreign to people who have never heard of such agreements and they are all non-special in the sense that they are immediately understood by people who have never heard of alternative agreements. Advanced opps will generally assume that we have some kind of agreement, they will not be surprised by our agreements but they will not assume them either.

You and I know that certain natural agreements (negative freebids, 4-card major openings, Walsh) are more likely to cause surprise than certain less natural agreements (four-cards up the line, t/o doubles, Stayman). So we alert non-standard agreements. But that's not the issue. You and I can easily adapt to any alert procedure and besides we alert virtually everything anyway.

Let's deal with why I think there should be or should not be ONLINE (at the very least) alerts on these two auctions...

Auction A
1m-1H
1NT

Auction B
1m-1H
1S

If Auction "A" can or can not include a four card spade suit, then I see no need to alert. That is, with a four card spade suit, opener uses his own judgment about what the best rebid is, there is no problem. If OPEN MUST rebid 1NT anytime he holds a balanced hand EVEN IF HE holds a four card spade suit, that is if this rebid is FORCED UPON him by agreement, then it is an alert.

Take the second auction. Same situation exist, but is even clearer. That is, if opener MUST rebid 1NT on this auction ANYTIME he is balanced even when he holds 4S's, then the 1S bid carries a lot of extra information. That is, not only 4S, but also unbalanced.

But now if opener gets to decide what to rebid with out SPECIAL AGREEMENT with his partner, then there is no alert, and in fact, responder is just as in the dark as the opponents.

Now to the appeals case mentioned in the last post. The director got it right, the committee went off the deep end... and I like the concept of alerts, so you know this must be true. The reason being, there could not be a SPECIAL AGREEMENT about the meaning of 3♥ on that hand. Even looking at WEST's hand it is hard to determine what he wanted opener to do (I wish they would have told us the meaning of ALERT 3). But one thing you have to do is explain the meaning of the bids you make, not the ones you didn't make. No doubt 1N-3H was marked as "preemtpive" on EW convention card. I believe the free 3H was exactly what it should be... hearts and willingness to bid on, with no SPECIAL AGREEMENT. In light of the redouble of 2♦ it probably promised 6♥'s, but even that is not alertable, that is bridge.

[Brandal]

DrTodd13, on Aug 16 2005, 05:01 PM, said:

I am trying to come up with a non-vague substitute for the term "special" so that we can all know what we should alert.

I think what Ben said "to use 1N-2D-2H to DENY four hearts"
is a perfect example of a special agreement that should be
alerted and explained.

Reason is there is something more to the bid that you
can't expect the opps to inquire about or know about.

I think it's when a pair deviates? from the standard use
and understanding of a convention or bid,it really needs
to alert the opps without assuming the opps will ask.

[coyot]

Good point Ben! If you HAVE the agreement, alert. If you're just using your judgement and don't have an agreement, no need for alert.

I've used superacceptance of a transfer with a 4fit and good hand without agreements, hoping that partner will take it naturally (invitational). Rebidding 1NT when you have no agreement about spade suit is the same - judging that it will be a good bid even when you happen to have 4 spades.

[jillybean]

david_c, on Aug 18 2005, 03:03 AM, said:

On the subject of agreements about natural bids being alertable, you might be interested in Appeal no. 2 from this week's EBU event in Brighton:

page 5 of this document

David Stevenson says here "...The wording thus is intended only to make players alert their opponents where something totally unexpected may have occurred" (EBU I assume)

ACBL code of ethics on the other hand says...
A major tenet of active ethics is the principle of full disclosure. This means that all information available to your partnership must be made available to your opponents.

This is going to be an ongoing debate atleast until all parties agree on the above.

And perhaps another reason to move towards an electronic playing environment so full disclosure is possible without fear of unuthorized information to partner.

[david_c]

jillybean2, on Aug 18 2005, 05:44 PM, said:

David Stevenson says here "...The wording thus  is intended only to make players alert their opponents where something totally unexpected may have occurred" (EBU I assume)

ACBL code of ethics on the other hand says...
A major tenet of active ethics is the principle of full disclosure. This means that all information available to your partnership must be made available to your opponents.

Well, those two quotes aren't necessarily contradictory, as David Stevenson is referring to specifically the alerting regulations. The ACBL quote says that full disclosure must be achieved, but not necessarily by alerting.

But the appeal certainly does illustrate that there's a lot of disagreement on this subject.

[jillybean]

david_c, on Aug 18 2005, 10:17 AM, said:

but not necessarily by alerting.

Oh, how else?

[david_c]

jillybean2, on Aug 18 2005, 06:43 PM, said:

david_c, on Aug 18 2005, 10:17 AM, said:

but not necessarily by alerting.

Oh, how else?

By giving a complete and accurate description when the opponents ask for one.

As far as "full disclosure" is concerned, that's all there is to it. Full disclosure is only indirectly connected with alerting. This was all discussed in the "information requests" topic a couple of weeks ago - if you don't understand, I suggest you reread some of Frances's posts there.

[jillybean]

Thanks, I will. I always think (incorrectly) of alert and disclosure as one action, an alert without an explanation is useless imo.
In ONLINE bridge

This post has been edited by jillybean2: 2005-August-18, 21:38

[Rebound]

I hope you will all forgive me for saying so, but I am of the impression this whole discussion is a bunch of hoohaw. I firmly believe we can assume that the vast majority of players wish to be fair to their opponents while at the same time obtaining the best result possible on a given hand.

By fair, I presume they do not wish to obtain a result through misleading their opponents in obfuscating the meaning of a given call. The intent of the alert procedure, as has been pointed out, is to prevent the opponents being mislead by a call they may, for whatever reason, believe to mean something other than it does. But the whole thing is overblown to me. The part of the regs I seem to quote most often is, "- Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." This statement echoes my belief that too much reliance is placed on the opponents protecting you with alerts.

This does not eliminate the responsibility of the "offending" side to alert those calls which carry a special meaning but in the original example given, I would basically dismiss the entire thing out of hand. Inquiry's example of 2♥ promising fewer than 4 is a prime example of imformation that I believe must be communicated (or at least offered via an alert). If I play old-style Standard American and a double raise of a major shows a game forcing hand, should it be alerted? I think so, natural or not, since almost no one plays that way anymore and your opponents should be informed. Would I cry if I came in over this auction and went for a telephone number without asking about the bid, alerted or not? No.

On the other hand, any cue-bid of a suit bid by the opponents pretty obviously carries meaning other than a desire to play in the denomination named. Whether it's alerted or not I would have no sympathy for anyone who made a poor bidding decision due to not asking what it means. (Mind you, I think this implies that a natural call in a suit bid by the opponents should be alerted.)

I realize this may be a minority view, especially given the number of posts relating to the apparent dismissal of alerting natural calls. But to quote Brandal, "I think it's when a pair deviates? (sic) from the standard use and understanding of a convention or bid,it really needs to alert the opps without assuming the opps will ask." I believe this applies equally well to natural calls with highly unusual meanings.

I guess maybe I am thinking of a perfect world where everyone wants to have a nice game of bridge and no one cheats or tries various sleazy tricks to obtain a result from the director they didn't get from playing the hand. Oh well. If we spend 99% of our time fussing over 1% of players we are doing a disservice to the rest of the bridge community. No matter what the SO, the intent is the same: be fair to the opponents. I really don't think we need to agree on a specific alert procedure (although, for the record, when running a tournament, I endure the conditions of contest specifically state that for the purposes of the regs, it is an ACBL event and post links to the Laws and the Alert procedure on their site.) What we need is to educate the players as to the purpose of alerting in the first place. Alltogether too many players I have encountered misunderstand even that. There was a thread a while back discussing players who expect you to alert and describe your actual holding rather than the agreed meaning of the call. This is the sort of stuff we need to educate people about, not whether EBU rules say you should alert a transfer.

Here's one for ya: the auction - 1♥-p-3♦ - when I asked what the 3♦ bid meant, the player said, "8-10, heart support". Now, having no first hand knowledge of Bergen raises at the time, I still didn't know if this was showing a diamond suit a la fit showing jump or not because he/she didn't specify the bid was artificial. It was my mistake not to ask for further clarification as I proceeded to misdefend the hand. It could be argued that the player should have disclosed that 3♦ was artificial, but at the time, I just went on with the next hand and counted myself to have learned a new lesson and made it a point to learn Bergen raises even tho I don't play them. My point? Sure, I could have called the director and made a big deal of being mislead by the explanation, but why would I? Because I failed to protect myself by making an unfounded assumption? I don't think so. I have no reason to believe the player in question had any intent to mislead me. And that, to me, is the key consideration. Good judgement of the tournament director is what is required. This explains why terms such as "special agreement" are deliberatley left vague.

I hope I have offended no one. And sorry for the long post. I guess I just want us all to get along and enjoy this great game and waste less time crying foul.

[david_c]

Rebound, on Aug 18 2005, 11:32 PM, said:

If I play old-style Standard American and a double raise of a major shows a game forcing hand, should it be alerted? I think so, natural or not, since almost no one plays that way anymore and your opponents should be informed. Would I cry if I came in over this auction and went for a telephone number without asking about the bid, alerted or not? No.

But there's a third question, which is more important as far as this forum is concerned. Suppose you're a TD, and you get called to a table where the bidding has gone 1♠:3♠ etc., and their opponents complain that the 3♠ bidder's hand is too strong - they want an adjustment because they think 3♠ should be alerted if it is game forcing. Now you have to decide, how do you rule? You have precisely two choices (usually):

1. "I don't think you can expect your opponents to alert 3♠ here." [and to the 3♠ bidder: "I'm not going to adjust the score, but please alert 3♠ in future because most people play it as showing a weaker hand."]

2. "Your 3♠ bid is very unusual - you really need to alert it if you've agreed that it is forcing. I will look at the hand, and if it seems that the result might have been different if 3♠ had been explained properly then I will adjust the score."

Both sides here are probably "innocent" in that they aren't trying to gain any unfair advantage. But you have to rule one way or the other.

I doubt this one would actually come up; but still, it's important to discuss this sort of thing.

[Rebound]

Agreed. However, since the opinion I stated differs from the community at large, when directing, I adhere to the currently accepted practice. In this case, the bid is natural and therefore not alertable.

Under the given scenario, however, I would choose option 1. It could further be argued that by failing to examine the convention card, assuming it exists, the opposing pair would be entitled to nothing in that example.

[LH2650]

david_c, on Aug 18 2005, 06:44 PM, said:

You have precisely two choices (usually)

Hopefully there is a third option. You pull out your Alert Chart, and look it up. If you are running an ACBL tournament, you then say "Not Alertable."

Your Appeals Committee case realizes my worst fears about 12C3 rulings. The committee now tries to placate everybody, avoiding tough decisions. Has there been any increase in marginal appeals, now that you have a good chance of getting at least a small piece of the pie?