Alerting 1/2NT responses

[mishovnbg]

 

-----------------------------------------------

Hi all directors!

 

 

------

I had a problem at table playing abalucy tournament with Ben. Opp respond 2♥ to 1NT weak opening without alerting, Ben double and I passed because though it is transfer and his double is penalty. They make their contract with 2 overtricks, while we had 4♠. Later Ben told me that he asked about meaning of 2♥ and double for take out. After his question opp didn't alert his bid nor explain it to me private. How do you judge this casus at table if I call you at table? And if they must not alert 2♥ natural bid, must they alert 2♥ transfer bid? How many of players do it?

Actually I was too sleepy, else I will probably ask too. I feel no need to ask director, because in my opinion opp are not guilty for my absent-mindedness ;) .

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

Misho

[hrothgar]

This is a good example why it is highly problematic to rely on alert structures to disclose agreements. Simply put, NO ONE agrees what should be alerted/announced/whatever. This issue is exacerbated in an international environment like BBO where different geographic regions have very different philosophies regarding alerts.

 

Convention cards are designed to disclose information

Its a pity that they aren't actually used...

[Cascade]

The Abalucy rules seem to require an alert.

 

"ALL conventional or non-standard bidding (Standard = Sayc) bid MUST be alerted."

 

2H natural is non-Sayc so 'MUST' be alerted. However they also require an alert of 2H transfer as a transfer is conventional.

 

Personally I think that a rule that requires a natural 2H to be alerted is flawed.

 

A person who has never heard of transfers (and I assure you there are some) wanders into a game only to find they are in trouble for failing to alert.

 

It is much better in my opinion to require the alert of the conventional bid (transfer) and to teach players to alert when they learn the convention.

[Rado]

hi Misho and all,

 

First I think Misho had answered to himself that he should not been lazy and should protect himself by simply asking Opps what 2♥ was:-))))) I'm sure he has many many times in live bridge when someone "Know all bids" player puts himself in funny situations like the quoted above :-)))))

Second when I play online or live I use to allert both transfer and natural 2♥ to avoid further complications, TD calls etc.

1NT-pass - 2♦ = transfer

1NT-DBL - 2♥= natural NF

 

In my view better 10 times alert when no need, than to miss one when really needed

 

Regards

Rado

[Free]

In my country, it's not necessary to alert Jacoby Transfer, because most people play it and you're not hiding information to opps. If however you play it natural, you would be hiding info because everybody asumes it's transfer while it's not, so this should be alerted. It's a paradox of alerting, but it's logical.

 

In online bridge the situation is different ofcourse. I think SAYC is considered as the standard for weither or not an alert is needed (no?). So if you draw the logical line further on, you shouldn't alert Jacoby transfer, but natural 2M should be alerted.

Btw, after a weak NT, most people don't play transfers for some reason. So here you can say again that natural bidding shouldn't be alerted, while transfers should. Paradox again.

 

Ofcourse, it's not a big effort to just alert every bid after 1NT, so you won't get any confusions. :D

[bearmum]

-----------------------------------------------

Hi all directors!

 

 

------

I had a problem at table playing abalucy tournament with Ben. Opp respond 2♥ to 1NT weak opening without alerting, Ben double and I passed because though it is transfer and his double is penalty. They make their contract with 2 overtricks, while we had 4♠. Later Ben told me that he asked about meaning of 2♥ and double for take out. After his question opp didn't alert his bid nor explain it to me private. How do you judge this casus at table if I call you at table? And if they must not alert 2♥ natural bid, must they alert 2♥ transfer bid? How many of players do it?

Actually I was too sleepy, else I will probably ask too. I feel no need to ask director, because in my opinion opp are not guilty for my absent-mindedness :rolleyes: .

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

Misho

OK my 2c worth -------- and maybe not worth even 2¢ :blink:

Misho YOU thought that the 2♥ was transfer – even though not alerted- and STILL were willing to play in 2♥X? Ben asked what 2♥ was and STILL doubled – in your system for penalty I believe?

 

 

Unfortunately in INTERNATIONAL bridge the alerting /announcing rules are SO different it’s unbelievable

Here in Australia is no announcement of your NT range until asked!

And--- ANYTHING above 3NT you are NOT allowed to alert

 

So I believe UNLESS BBO decides to REQUIRE ANY bid at ANY level which does not show at LEAST 4 cards in the suit bid to be alerted (AND explained BEFORE the bid is made!) there will be an onus on the opps to ask for explanation of the bid BEFORE making a bid – ESPECIALLY if the bid (or PASS or DOUBLE) means something to the partner of the bidder (as in this case Misho took the 2♥X as penalty – even tho HE took the 2♥ as transfer to ♠)

[inquiry]

OK my 2c worth -------- and maybe not worth even 2¢ :rolleyes:

Misho YOU thought that the 2♥ was transfer – even though not alerted- and STILL were willing to play in 2♥X? Ben asked what 2♥ was and STILL doubled – in your system for penalty I believe?

First, I had to ASK what 2♥ was despite this being a tournment and despite EW being a regular partnership BECAUSE THEY HAD NO POSTED CONVENTION CARD.

 

Second, I had to ask privately, because to ask publically would have conveyed unauthorized information to my partner (if I don't double and it was "natural", he would know (and opponents would know) that I might have been going to make a ♥ showing double. If it turned out to be transfer, and then I don't double, it would have conveyed to my partner (and both opponents) that I am probably short in ♥'s and need to ask so that if it WAS natural I could make a takeout double.

 

To Bearmum, misho's pass was right if my double was showing ♥'s. When the opponents bid a suit for transfer, we use double to show good holding in the transfer suit and suggest lead of that suit. However, if they bid the suit to PLAY, then my double is takeout and shows interest in ♠ and my partner had four good ♠ and a good hand. So we ended up defended 2♥x making two overtricks (one on bad defense based upon wrong assumption of our combined hands), when we can make 4♠... easily reachable if Misho had known my double was takeout of hearts... 2♥x -670 and -12.97 imps, while 4♠ making +620 and 8 imps. Quite a swing.

 

But as Rado pointed out, Misho could and should have asked the meaning of 2♥ or maybe I should have been unethical and asked publically what the meaning of the 2♥ bid. What is a little odd, is that our opponent, who replied in private to me that 2♥ was natural, didn't alert my parnter to this fact as well.

[bearmum]

OK my 2c worth  -------- and maybe not worth even 2¢ :rolleyes:

Misho YOU thought that the 2♥ was transfer – even though not alerted- and STILL were willing to play in 2♥X?  Ben asked what 2♥ was and STILL doubled – in your system for penalty I believe?

First, I had to ASK what 2♥ was despite this being a tournment and despite EW being a regular partnership BECAUSE THEY HAD NO POSTED CONVENTION CARD.

 

Second, I had to ask privately, because to ask publically would have conveyed unauthorized information to my partner (if I don't double and it was "natural", he would know (and opponents would know) that I might have been going to make a ♥ showing double. If it turned out to be transfer, and then I don't double, it would have conveyed to my partner (and both opponents) that I am probably short in ♥'s and need to ask so that if it WAS natural I could make a takeout double.

 

To Bearmum, misho's pass was right if my double was showing ♥'s. When the opponents bid a suit for transfer, we use double to show good holding in the transfer suit and suggest lead of that suit. However, if they bid the suit to PLAY, then my double is takeout and shows interest in ♠ and my partner had four good ♠ and a good hand. So we ended up defended 2♥x making two overtricks (one on bad defense based upon wrong assumption of our combined hands), when we can make 4♠... easily reachable if Misho had known my double was takeout of hearts... 2♥x -670 and -12.97 imps, while 4♠ making +620 and 8 imps. Quite a swing.

 

But as Rado pointed out, Misho could and should have asked the meaning of 2♥ or maybe I should have been unethical and asked publically what the meaning of the 2♥ bid. What is a little odd, is that our opponent, who replied in private to me that 2♥ was natural, didn't alert my parnter to this fact as well.

OK Ben AND Misho - MAYBE u need to call director BEFORE bidding if opps fail to respond to your questions - I am NOT repeat NOT trying to be silly here-- ESPECIALLY if opps are a reg partnership ( REPORT THEM PLEASE) -- My original resopnse to Misho assumed (erroneously NOW I believe that opps were NOT BBO players) ok :blink:

[sceptic]

If you are unsure, I thought you had the right to ask what any bid is, so if that is the case, you have no one to blame but yourselves, for not asking or bidding before you have an answer

[inquiry]

If you are unsure, I thought you had the right to ask what any bid is, so if that is the case, you have no one to blame but yourselves, for not asking or bidding before you have an answer

I think this reply, and bearmum's, are both unfair to misho. First, he admitted that he should have asked the meaning of 2♥ -- especially after the double. Second, neither he nor I called the director and asked for a "corrected" score, because we both realized that he should have asked. What he is asking for is what should the practice be as it relates to this "natural" bid.

 

A side issue he raises, however, is that his partner did ask (in private chat), and his opponent having been made aware that misho's parnter (and thus maybe misho as well) was unclear as to the meaning of 2♥, she failed to make the meaning of her bid clear to both misho and his partner. In fact, this part of the reason for Misho's question in his post. "After his (meaning his partner) question opp didn't alert his bid nor explain it to me private. How do you judge this casus at table if I call you at table? And if they must not alert 2♥ natural bid, must they alert 2♥ transfer bid? How many of players do it?

 

Here is what a director should consider. There was no alert, so presumably the bid was natural. What if I had doubled the non-alerted bid for takeout, and my partner bids ♠ and it turns out 2♥ was a "transfer". Further assume we got a horrible score, would you offer correction for failure to alert? I happen to agree with the view that no alert means "natural", not that no alert means transfer. But one thing for sure, you should really go out of your way to make it clear to your opponents what your bids mean if your partner knows... and I think a convention card is the minimum protection ("I am sorry they are confused director, but it right there on our posted cc"), and when one opponent ask you in private, maybe you should find a way to let them both know...

 

Ben

[Free]

I don't agree that any bid which is natural should not be alerted, and every bid which is not natural should. If you're playing some kind of precision, you have to alert your 1M bids to show maximum 15HCP (still a natural bid). Alerting is actually saying to opps: "watch out, this bid might mean something else than you think". It's pure logic.

 

Why do you have to alert something which 95% of the online players play? It's crazy! But then we get back to my example, that most weak NT players DONT use transfers, while strong NT players DO use transfers. So what's the standard? None.

 

The best solution imo is to alert transfers as well as natural biddings after 1NT. That includes 2♣ if you don't need a 4 card M, Four Suit Transfers,... Only a normal Stayman and invitational 2NT are standard imo.

[hrothgar]

The best solution imo is to alert transfers as well as natural biddings after 1NT.

I've said it before, I've said it again...

 

Alerting "everything" is equivalent to alerting "nothing"

No information gets passed in either case.

 

If we both transfers and natural bids, then what, praytell are we not alerting?

And how precisely is this going to help Misho???

 

The fundamental flaw that everyone is running into is that by definition an alert contains a single bit of information. By now, it should be apparant to all that this is insufficient to achieve full disclosure. [Looks at all the fights about what should and should not be alerted, as well as the attempts to add "Special alerts" and the like.

 

I've now reached the point at which I'm willing to say that alerting systems actively hinder disclosure.

 

Efforts should be devoted towards popularizing appropriate tools.

[Cascade]

In my view better 10 times alert when no need, than to miss one when really needed

Exactly Rado and online an alert and a freely provided explanation are so easy to make.

[Cascade]

OK Ben AND Misho - MAYBE u need to call director BEFORE bidding if opps fail to respond to your questions - I am NOT repeat NOT trying to be silly here-- ESPECIALLY if opps are a reg partnership ( REPORT THEM PLEASE) -- My original resopnse to Misho assumed (erroneously NOW I believe that opps were NOT BBO players) ok :rolleyes:

In principle I agree with you. In practice however, especially when playing in a clocked tourney you quickly run out of time with this approach. I know I have missed boards.

[Cascade]

I don't agree that any bid which is natural should not be alerted, and every bid which is not natural should.

I happen to agree with the view that no alert means "natural", not that no alert means transfer.

 

These positions are not opposites.

 

No alert means natural is not equivalent to natural means no alert.

[1eyedjack]

It is my obversation that damage arising from failure to alert (or, to a lesser extent, from alerting inappropriately) almost always arises, not from any wilful default nor oversight by any player, but rather from a confusion over what is and what is not alertable. Having said ALMOST always, this particular case appears to be an exception, as the failure to alert indicates negligence in a failure to research the alerting regulations as set down (however much you may agree or disagree with them), compounded by a failure to load a CC.

 

This particular exceptional case aside, that confusion is minimised (and consequential transgressions and damage are minimised) by minimising in turn the complexity of the algorithm that determines whether a call is or is not alertable.

 

It is undeniable that a cost of that regulatory simplicity is that there may arise particular auctions that are always (or conceivebly never) alertable regardless of the meaning. On those occasions no conclusion can be drawn from the alert (or failure to alert), and on those occasions it has to be accepted that the particular alerting regulations serve no purpose.

 

On those occasions, Hrothgar is correct in asserting that 'Alerting "everything" is equivalent to alerting "nothing"'. But this is not necessarily in itself sufficient to condemn the algorithm out of hand, the worth of which can only be judged by considering it "in the round", including its application in the vastly more frequent situations where an alert (or non-alert) is not mandatory.

 

To add further alerting regulations with no purpose other than to eliminate the occasional compulsory alert would result in increasingly complex alerting regulations that would increase overall the occasions of compliance failure and reduce, overall, the net benefit of the alerting requirements.

 

The Abalucy alerting regulations are not as I would choose. But they will almost never be the regulation-set of choice of any individual. I have to acknowledge however that the regulation: "alert either a conventional or non-SAYC bid" has the benefit of simplicity, and anyone who takes the trouble to look up the regulation will have little difficulty in complying, given the will to do so.

 

Personally, if it were up to me I would remove the reference to SAYC in the regulation, as on principle I would favour removing any reference that favours a national standard in an international forum.

[Cascade]

The Abalucy alerting regulations are not as I would choose.  But they will almost never be the regulation-set of choice of any individual.  I have to acknowledge however that the regulation: "alert either a conventional or non-SAYC bid" has the benefit of simplicity, and anyone who takes the trouble to look up the regulation will have little difficulty in complying, given the will to do so.

Then why is it that so few alert the convention transfer bid?

[mikestar]

On this specific issue, I htink the ACBL has it right (for once)

 

1NT-2H no alert means natural, you announce "transfer" if this is the case and "Alert" means "not natural and not a transfer."

[1eyedjack]

The Abalucy alerting regulations are not as I would choose.  But they will almost never be the regulation-set of choice of any individual.  I have to acknowledge however that the regulation: "alert either a conventional or non-SAYC bid" has the benefit of simplicity, and anyone who takes the trouble to look up the regulation will have little difficulty in complying, given the will to do so.

Then why is it that so few alert the convention transfer bid?

I cannot speak from experience of Abalucy events, not being a member. The alerting regulations laid down by Abalucy, being a private club, are not the same as those in the main playing area. There are no regulations for the main playing area (that I can find). If there are then they are not well referenced or indexed in the help system, which only tells you the mechanics of how to alert. That is my preferred state: No regulation in the main area, and leave to private clubs the discretion to regulate as they wish (and police those regulations as they wish). I can well understand that transfers are usually not alerted in the main area. Players should be on notice that a 2H response could with reasonable likelihood be either natural or transfer.

 

If there is widespread abuse of the alerting regs in Abalucy then I speculate that it is because of widespread ignorance of the regulation. There is a responsibility of members to familiarise themselves with the rules and a responsibility on the club to publicise them. There may have been a failure on both counts, but complicating the regulations can only exacerbate the problem.

 

Players who are not the most logical in the organisation of their thoughts may have subconsciously read "and" instead of "or" in the regulation "Alert calls that are conventional or non-SAYC". It is possible that the link to SAYC could be positively harmful to the aim of unifying behaviour.

 

At other bridge sites that purport to cater for the international community I have experienced a (dare I say it) arrogance on the part of *some* players from a nameless country to expect the world to conform to their own local alerting regulations. They simply cannot imagine that the regulations could be anything other, and for that reason do not bother to investigate if that is the case.

 

If everyone were encouraged to use OKScript then they could volunteer context-sensitive system explanations at a single mouse-click, and that is the way forward for any regular partnership in my view.

[mishovnbg]

 

-------------------------------------------

Hi all!

 

 

------

Thanks all! But nobody give answer to my main question for director's decision... Basic principle about alerting is: "Any bid which MAY BE uncorrect understanded by opponents, MUST be alerted". It was sure for 2♥ bidder that his bid can be understanded by opponents as transfer, especially AFTER one of opponennts asked about his bid, so I will judge fail to alert in this case not as slip, but as intentional try to gain advantage by hiding information. It can be and probably was carelessness, but like in court, innocence through ignorance of law is unacceptable. So, instead of penalty them standard 40%/-3IMP for not alerting 2♥ (obligatory by abalucy rules) I will penalty them to 0%/-6IMP and warn them that repeating intentional/carelessness fail to alert can cost them future competition in tournaments where I am director. You probably now understand, why most of players liked me very much as director :P .

 

-------

What about opposite side? Probably you expect I to say that I judge for them 4♠ with double for example? ;) . Lack of interest about opponent's bids can't be exused by opponent's fault. If some player like to win, he need to be all time informed and not "know all bids", thanks to Rado ;) . If this player don't like to win, director is not a person who need to be obstacle for him :P . But I can't leave deserved bad result, because it will be unfair for other competitors at the tourney. So I will ajust score to 50%/0IMP for them. This is a bit severe and if they contest my decision, they probably win 60%, but I don't believe they will do so, with such lack of interest about what happen at table B) .

 

 

-----------------------------------------------

Misho

[1eyedjack]

On this specific issue, I htink the ACBL has it right (for once)

 

1NT-2H  no alert means natural, you announce "transfer" if this is the case and "Alert" means "not natural and not a transfer."

The only reason that there are any bids that are alertable but NOT announcable in face-to-face games, in ACBL or elsewhere, is the risk of UI being transferred on the occasions when the partners disagree as to the meaning of a bid. That problem does not arise in on-line games as the explanation is hidden from partner. The problem that arises in on-line games that is absent from face-to-face games is the practical inconvenience of having to do so much typing, which could significantly detract from the enjoyment of the game and also slow it up on those occasions when the opponents would have correctly interpreted the meaning in the absence of an explanation. OKscript even gets around that problem.

 

To be invited to membership of abalucy you need to be an experienced player.

Any experienced player will appreciate the potential for confusion over the meaning of the 2H bid. A combination of (a) failure to read the alerting regulations, (B) failure to load a CC, (c ) failure to issue a protective alert in these circumstances by an experienced player, and (d) failure to volunteer an explanation on specific request warrants, in my view, the sanction of a one-way economy class ticket to Myanmar with a rucksack of political leaflets extolling the virtues of the government opposition.

[inquiry]

There are no regulations for the main playing area (that I can find). If there are then they are not well referenced or indexed in the help system, which only tells you the mechanics of how to alert.

The bbo guidelines for the open room on alerts are clear....

 

"If you have ANY doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert it." and also, "It is up to our members to try their best to provide their opponents with information that may be helpful to them.

 

To read more on the BBO rules on alerts and other issues, be sure to go to the online gaming site, click on "EXPLORE BRIDGE", then Brige library, pick your language, and then click on "The RULES of this site".

 

I also want to clear up any misconceptions. I asked the 2♥ bidder what 2♥ meant in private chat... meaning no one else can see the question. And my rho answered me quickly and correctly. So the perception that there was a failure to answer the question is incorrect. Sadly, my partner didn't think to ask the same question and my opponent didn't think it was necessary to make sure that my partner understood the meaning of 2♥s.

 

Ben

[1eyedjack]

<Snip>

 

The bbo guidelines for the open room on alerts are clear....

 

"If you have ANY doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert it." and also, "It is up to our members to try their best to provide their opponents with information that may be helpful to them.

 

To read more on the BBO rules on alerts and other issues, be sure to go to the online gaming site, click on "EXPLORE BRIDGE", then Brige library, pick your language, and then click on "The RULES of this site".

 

<Snip>

 

Ben

That is useful to know. Thank you. The trail that leads to that information is (perhaps in my unique view) not particularly intuitive.

 

Having launched the software I clicked on "Help".

 

The web page thus launched contained a menu down the left hand side.

 

The first item in that menu under the Ace of Spades symbol is "Show Index".

Clicking on "Show Index" helpfully reveals the index, in which one item is "Alerts".

Clicking "Alerts" takes you to a description of the mechanics of alerting, but no guidance on the appropriateness.

 

An alternative route to the same help page, from the main menu, instead of clicking on "Show Index" is to click on "Other Information"/"At A Table". The top frame then shows a link to "Alerts". Again this is limited to a technical description of the operation of the software.

 

Having explored both of those routes I concluded that this was the limit of help provided on alerts by BBO.

 

I grant that there is a reference to "Site rules" and "Library" within the "Show Index" section. However there is no link from the technical help on Alerts to the policy help on alerts. You have to know where to look in the index before you get there. Now, I was probably being more stupid than usual even for me, but hence my original and erroneous conclusion that there were no alerting guidelines for the main area.

[Yzerman]

Hi all, I think this is interesting thread, for many reasons. This is kind of a way for me to judge what is most commonly accepted as standard as well as get a feel for what is in highest demand with respect to alert procedures/convention charts.

 

In response to Misho, I think in such cases it is the directors responsiblity to do the following;

 

1 - Be privvy to and have experience with the convention chart as per that specific event (in this case have read/studied abalucy convention chart and be familiar with SAYC)

 

2 - Acquire ALL the relevant facts from ALL 4 players participating in deal.

 

3 - Determine IF their was unfair advantage gained due to the lack of explanation or lack of alert.

 

4 - Make an intelligent decision based upon facts above.

 

I have had experience with this very problem both as online director and player. Personally, in this case I would have reviewed the deal and determined if there was unfair advantage, if unfair advantage was gained I think director should penalize the offending side and reward the non-offending side. IF no unfair advantage was gained, I think the director should let result stand BUT the offending side should be warned (whatever mechanism the tourney host uses to record warnings of such nature).

 

So the problem then lies in that particular directors JUDGEMENT as to whether unfair advantage was gained. In this case, a director that tends to rule "by the booK" would penalize/reward but another director might not adjust at all. My personal opinion is this should have been adjusted to Ave+/Ave- and a warning should be issued.

 

Unfortunately, there are subsets of "types" of players. There are players that;

 

1 - Alert everything (agreements and as per conv chart)

2 - Alert what they feel like (only what they "feel" should be alerted)

3 - Alert as per rules (only alert as per conv chart)

 

I agree that a player should alert EVERYTHING in which their partner knows something more than the opps know as well as EVERYTHING mandated by rules. To have "hidden" agreements and not to alert is just as wrong as not alerting anything that is required BECAUSE not alerting agreements is done to gain unfair advantage.

 

Regards,

MAL

[olmet]

A+- the must alert 2!h