Alert Rules

[A2003]

Can the opponents say no alert required before the start of the bidding?

When the unusual system is played, is the alert mandatory to say, irrespective of what opponent say?

Opponent thinks by alerting it wakes up the partner and gives unauthorized information to the partner.

Opponents wants to ask the meaning of each bid at the end of the auction and not during the bidding. Is that acceptable or within the rules?

 

2nd question?

Alerting the bid-----------When and who started this alert system?

 

3rd question?

No alert required for cuebid.

Why? Actually there is a lot meaning for the cuebids.

Is it due to the difficulty in explaining the bid?

[DrTodd13]

1st question:

You should be more concerned about people who play a natural system and very infrequently alert. When they do alert, then that is much more likely to alert partner than a pair who plays an unusual system with a lot of alerts. If you alert almost every bid anyway and very few bids are natural then hearing partner alert tells you nothing since you know almost every bid has a special meaning anyway. Personally, I don't feel that saying "no alert" should be allowed. People have an obligation according to the rules of bridge to pay attention to the game. You may want to alert some artificial bid in the auction to tell partner what suit to lead. If you don't have alerts then you won't know what is natural and what is artificial and so you wouldn't be able to double. As such, just ignoring opponents while they are bidding I think is a violation of the rules.

 

2nd question:

When bridge was invented, they decided that the meanings of bids would not be secret. As soon as they made that decision, they needed alerts for when bids had unusual meanings. How else would you know when a bid was normal or when it wasn't? Occasionally, somebody will run a tournament on BBO that is technically not a bridge tournament because it makes the meanings of bids private. I've played in these and even though I usually play unusual systems, I don't really like these tournaments.

 

3rd question:

The reason that most cue bids are not alerted (some are) is that people expect cue bids to have unusual meanings and so they can always ask if they want to know.

[Mbodell]

Many of these things will depend on where you are playing as different places have different rules (I.e., EBU vs. ACBL) and also it could depend on if you are playing F2F normally, F2F with screens, or online with self-alerts. I'll answer for ACBL F2F since that's what I'm most familiar with:

 

Can the opponents say no alert required before the start of the bidding?

 

They can and do, but they shouldn't be allowed to say it. For one thing it implies you or your partner are unethical. For another it can be difficult to break common habits (like always alerting you partners 1♣ opener) so you might do it accidentally by reflex. For another, they can get mad at you when you don't alert something even after they asked you not too. Fairly recently I had an incident where after wanting no alerts they called the TD after we didn't announce our weak NT range after they specifically said no alerts (and with the NT range always being announced as part of the aler procedures, not just when non-15-17, they'd know we were not announcing as part of their request and could ask if they wished to know). But if your opponents do this I'd suggest calling the TD and asking for a ruling and only not alerting if the TD tells you to do so.

 

When the unusual system is played, is the alert mandatory to say, irrespective of what opponent say?

 

It may be, but rulings will vary so call the TD. After all being asked not to alert is irregular, no?

 

Opponents wants to ask the meaning of each bid at the end of the auction and not during the bidding. Is that acceptable or within the rules?

 

That is in fact standard. Assuming both opponents agree. And they can change their mind, obviously, if some hand occurs where they want to know the meanings of you bids (alerted or not alerted) during the auction. It can be very awkward when both opponents don't agree. Which has also happened to me where one opponent wants no alerts and the other one wants alerts.

 

For instance 2 weeks ago my partner and I, who play a scientific system with lots of alerts, were playing at a table with a pickup partnership. One opponent is pretty good, but very grumpy and hates alerts and explanations and wants to basically ignore our bids. His partner was a newer player and doesn't like it when she doesn't know what is going on so wants to ask what is going on. Sure enough in the middle of one of our auctions one opponent starts to inquire about a bid (not with a direct question, but with one of those curious looks and vague statements that the ACBL directs us to treat as a "please explain"), and her partner jumps down her throat and tells her not to ask and us not to explain. Now we are in a tough spot as it is clear that one opponent would kind of like to know, but got told to shut up by her partner, and the other told us not to say anything. This was towards the end of the evening and the opponent who wanted to know ended up in tears, and talked to the TD, and ended up leaving the game mid round.

 

When and who started this alert system?

 

no idea, but the rules on alerting get changed every so often as what is "expected" or not changes.

 

No alert required for cuebid.

Why? Actually there is a lot meaning for the cuebids.

Is it due to the difficulty in explaining the bid?

 

Some cuebids are considered self alerting (I.e., no one expects them to be natural so they alert themselves as unusual). But some cue bids do require alerts (for instance, if your cuebid is in fact natural it does need an alert!). The ACBL also likes people to err on the side of overly alerting, so while I'm not 100% sure you are required to alert a cuebid that is a transfer advance (I.e., (1♦)-1♠-P-2♦! where the 2♦ bids means you have hearts and says nothing much about spades or diamonds) my partner and I do as do others around us who play transfer advances.

[Free]

1st question: yes opps can demand that you and partner don't alert any bids. However, they can't change their decision. It's valid until the end of the round! Also they can't ask that one player alerts and another does not :)

 

2nd question: no idea

 

3rd question: over here it's obligated when it's below 3NT, so this clearly depends on country and jurisdiction.

[LH2650]

The ACBL Alert Procedures contain no provision allowing your opponents to specify that you should not alert. I suppose that they can ask, but you cannot legally comply.

[pclayton]

1. Requesting no alerts borders on zero tolerance. It's saying, you need alerts to effectively bid in your system so you cant have them.

 

2. No idea.

 

3. Stupid rule. I think this will be revised soon so that if the cue bid is an unexpected meaning (ie anything but Michaels), then it will be alerted. I had a partner say recently, we should play Top and Bottom because we don't have to alert and the opponents will be expecting the majors :)

[mrdct]

1. In Australia you most definately cannot ask your opponents not to alert. Alertable bids must be alerted irrespective of whether or not your opponents have asked you not to alert. I would be quite surprised if this was different in any other bridge jurisdiction and note that quite different opinions on the rules in ACBL-land have been expressed in this thread.

 

2. Dunno - but it probably emerged when partnership agreements began to enter the game.

 

3. In places like Australia where you don't alert cue bids, doubles, redoubles or bids above 3NT, technically those bids are still alerted but they are "self-alerting calls" which are automatically assumed to be artificial so the making of the calls itself automaticaloly alerts the call.

[fred]

3. Stupid rule. I think this will be revised soon so that if the cue bid is an unexpected meaning (ie anything but Michaels), then it will be alerted. I had a partner say recently, we should play Top and Bottom because we don't have to alert and the opponents will be expecting the majors  :)

Agree that this rule is (beyond) stupid.

 

My regular partner and I played Astro instead of Michaels. We alert it even though we are not supposed to.

 

Most of our opponents are grateful.

 

But some of them feel obliged to smugly remind us that "cuebids carry their own alert" or even call the Director. I suppose there will always be a few Secretary Birds in every game :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

3. Stupid rule. I think this will be revised soon so that if the cue bid is an unexpected meaning (ie anything but Michaels), then it will be alerted. I had a partner say recently, we should play Top and Bottom because we don't have to alert and the opponents will be expecting the majors  :)

Agree that this rule is (beyond) stupid.

 

My regular partner and I played Astro instead of Michaels. We alert it even though we are not supposed to.

 

Most of our opponents are grateful.

 

But some of them feel obliged to smugly remind us that "cuebids carry their own alert" or even call the Director. I suppose there will always be a few Secretary Birds in every game :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Not that you need my verification, but I'm quite sure you are doing the right thing. There should always be allowance for following the spirit of the law when the letter of the law is dumb in the actual situation.

 

As for being requested not to alert, if your opponent requests it then I don't see why you would alert after that. The only purpose of alerting is to benefit your opponents. This is another situation where I don't think the "letter of the law" really matters.

[pclayton]

3. Stupid rule. I think this will be revised soon so that if the cue bid is an unexpected meaning (ie anything but Michaels), then it will be alerted. I had a partner say recently, we should play Top and Bottom because we don't have to alert and the opponents will be expecting the majors  :)

Agree that this rule is (beyond) stupid.

 

My regular partner and I played Astro instead of Michaels. We alert it even though we are not supposed to.

 

Most of our opponents are grateful.

 

But some of them feel obliged to smugly remind us that "cuebids carry their own alert" or even call the Director. I suppose there will always be a few Secretary Birds in every game :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I've been told by some (not all) directors that we need to alert our overcall structure cue bid (surrounding suits). I get the same reaction as Fred gets - usually grateful, but sometimes a pedantic reminder about the league's policy.

[xcurt]

As for being requested not to alert, if your opponent requests it then I don't see why you would alert after that. The only purpose of alerting is to benefit your opponents. This is another situation where I don't think the "letter of the law" really matters.

What happens when you play against such a pair, and you have an auction where the meaning of the opponents calls is dependent on the meaning of your calls?

 

There is going to be a UI problem around questions asked or not asked, or tempo, or both.

[jdonn]

As for being requested not to alert, if your opponent requests it then I don't see why you would alert after that. The only purpose of alerting is to benefit your opponents. This is another situation where I don't think the "letter of the law" really matters.

What happens when you play against such a pair, and you have an auction where the meaning of the opponents calls is dependent on the meaning of your calls?

The exact same thing that happens when this situation occurs over our sides non alertable bids??

[PrecisionL]

Can the opponents say no alert required before the start of the bidding?

In ACBLand, yes. In fact I usually ask for no alerts when playing against unusual systems.

 

And since I play a Transfer Strong Club System, I always pre-alert although some opponents tell me I don't have to and they don't care to hear the alerts. Also we play unusual cue bids, so we alert them also (touching suits of the cue bid).

 

Larry

[helene_t]

I feel relieved when opps ask us not to alert anything. No ethical pressure from (non)alerts of bids with undiscussed meaning. Unfortunately it doesn't happy very often.

 

In general I would prefer opps not to alert unless they have too many alertable agreements to fit on their CC. Unfortunately many people don't have a CC and some get upset when asked not to alert. Not quite sure why but I can imagine a couple of reasons.

 

Of course alerts are useful in some situations, for example when playing speedcard so there is no time to look at the CC. But other than that it's a narrow category of decent-level national tournaments where the alert card is useful. In international tournaments nobody knows which alert rules apply and in local tournaments nobody knows any alert rules.

 

Yeah I know I will get flamed for this. Obviously those who frequent different tournaments than I do will have different experiences.

[pclayton]

Can the opponents say no alert required before the start of the bidding?

In ACBLand, yes. In fact I usually ask for no alerts when playing against unusual systems.

Larry this is incorrect. Ask any competent director.

[barmar]

As for being requested not to alert, if your opponent requests it then I don't see why you would alert after that. The only purpose of alerting is to benefit your opponents. This is another situation where I don't think the "letter of the law" really matters.

What happens when you play against such a pair, and you have an auction where the meaning of the opponents calls is dependent on the meaning of your calls?

They can ask the meaning of your calls whether or not you alert.

 

If they need your alerts to help them know when to make conventional defensive calls, they shouldn't ask you not to alert in the first place. Why shouldn't opponents be allowed to shoot themselves in the foot?

[DrTodd13]

As for being requested not to alert, if your opponent requests it then I don't see why you would alert after that. The only purpose of alerting is to benefit your opponents. This is another situation where I don't think the "letter of the law" really matters.

What happens when you play against such a pair, and you have an auction where the meaning of the opponents calls is dependent on the meaning of your calls?

They can ask the meaning of your calls whether or not you alert.

 

If they need your alerts to help them know when to make conventional defensive calls, they shouldn't ask you not to alert in the first place. Why shouldn't opponents be allowed to shoot themselves in the foot?

So opponents should be allowed to bid 3N or 7N every contract. They are just shooting themselves in the foot right? Well, bridge isn't fun if one side is ignoring their hands or your hands. The laws of bridge state they must be attentive to the game and not knowing which artificial bids to double or when the opponents have reached a final contract that you might like to double is not paying attention to the game.

[mrdct]

My regular partner and I played Astro instead of Michaels. We alert it even though we are not supposed to.

 

Most of our opponents are grateful.

 

But some of them feel obliged to smugly remind us that "cuebids carry their own alert" or even call the Director. I suppose there will always be a few Secretary Birds in every game :)

You could probably deal with this situation by giving your opps a "pre-alert" at the beginning of the round along the lines of "we don't play Michaels".

 

Until recently 2♣ stayman was an alertable call in Australia (although most never alerted it and even fewer asked if you did alert it). Accordingly, when using 2♣ as something other than stayman I alway used to "pre-alert" the opps at the beginning of the match. Now, however, the new Australian alerting regulations say that you don't alert normal stayman but you do alert if 2♣ is anything else so it's no longer an issue.

[TimG]

My regular partner and I played Astro instead of Michaels. We alert it even though we are not supposed to.

 

Most of our opponents are grateful.

 

But some of them feel obliged to smugly remind us that "cuebids carry their own alert" or even call the Director. I suppose there will always be a few Secretary Birds in every game :)

You could probably deal with this situation by giving your opps a "pre-alert" at the beginning of the round along the lines of "we don't play Michaels".

Seems like a lot of pre-alerts for a method that won't come up that often and can be easily handled by an alert when it does (even if not technically alertable).

[TimG]

As for being requested not to alert, if your opponent requests it then I don't see why you would alert after that. The only purpose of alerting is to benefit your opponents. This is another situation where I don't think the "letter of the law" really matters.

What happens when you play against such a pair, and you have an auction where the meaning of the opponents calls is dependent on the meaning of your calls?

They didn't ask us not to alert, did they?

[Cascade]

One of the weird things that has happened to me involved an opponent asking not to alert.

 

This was in an international tournament against a world class opponent.

 

Playing behind screens my opponent got quite annoyed at me alerting. The director was called two or three times - I forget now the details. Basically he instructed us to play bridge. He also arranged for a monitor to be put at the table. The director did not instruct me to not alert. So I continued to alert my bids.

 

At the end of the match which had continued to be niggly I asked the director what the monitor had reported. He said that the monitor had said that we were both to blame for inflaming the situation. I further asked what exactly I had done to inflame the situation. He said that the monitor had said that I had inflamed the situation by alerting my bids. I pointed out that the regulations not only required me to alert but that they said it was my responsibility to make sure that my opponent saw the alert. He said given the situation I should have just not alerted. I said he had been called to the table several times about the alerting issue and if he wanted me to stop alerting according to the regulations then he could have instructed me to not alert but that I wasn't going to do that on my own initiative and jeopardize my rights in there was a problem.

[mrdct]

My regular partner and I played Astro instead of Michaels. We alert it even though we are not supposed to.

 

Most of our opponents are grateful.

 

But some of them feel obliged to smugly remind us that "cuebids carry their own alert" or even call the Director. I suppose there will always be a few Secretary Birds in every game :P

You could probably deal with this situation by giving your opps a "pre-alert" at the beginning of the round along the lines of "we don't play Michaels".

Seems like a lot of pre-alerts for a method that won't come up that often and can be easily handled by an alert when it does (even if not technically alertable).

Pre-alerts take hardly any time at all and I usually worked them into the introduction: "Hi, I'm Dave and this is Nick. We are playing 5 card majors with a 15-17 NT, but we don't play stayman, our non-vul weak twos can be 5 card suits and we use transfers in some competitive auctions." That takes about 6 seconds so say which is less time that it takes the average opponent to pull their cards out of the board and sort their hand.

[TimG]

Pre-alerts take hardly any time at all

The pre-alert itself takes barely any time, but it requires processing by the opponents, especially if there is a series of them. It is an unnecessary distraction.

 

Not that you are in the wrong to provide the pre-alert.

[mrdct]

One of the weird things that has happened to me involved an opponent asking not to alert.

 

....

 

At the end of the match which had continued to be niggly I asked the director what the monitor had reported.  He said that the monitor had said that we were both to blame for inflaming the situation.  I further asked what exactly I had done to inflame the situation.  He said that the monitor had said that I had inflamed the situation by alerting my bids.  I pointed out that the regulations not only required me to alert but that they said it was my responsibility to make sure that my opponent saw the alert.  He said given the situation I should have just not alerted.

Interestingly, the WBF General Conditions of Contest do allow players to instruct their opponents to not alert:

 

"16. Alerts and Explanations

An alertable call is defined in the WBF Alerting Policy (see Appendix 3: WBF Alerting Policy) Subject to the provisions of the regulations to be published with regard to the use of screens (see Section 26), the partner of a player who has made an alertable call must immediately alert his opponents unless they have stated, before the auction started on the first board of the set, that they do not wish to be alerted."

 

However, they can only ask for no alerts before the start of the match and in any case this seems to only apply when screens are not in use. When screens are in use the opponents do not have the right to ask you not to alert in WBF events:

 

"26.2 Alerts and explanations

 

a) A player who makes an alertable call as defined in Appendix 3 must alert his screen-mate, and partner must alert on the other side of the screen when the bidding tray arrives there. The alert must be made by placing the Alert Card over the last call of the screen-mate, in his segment of the bidding tray; the alerted player must acknowledge by returning the Alert Card to his opponent. A player may, by written question, ask for an explanation of an opponent’s call; the screen-mate then provides a written answer.

 

:P At any time during the Auction a player may request of his screen mate, in writing, a full explanation of an opponent's call. The reply is also in writing.

 

c) At all times from the commencement of the Auction to the completion of play each player receives information only from his screenmate about the meanings of calls and explanations given. Questions during the play period should be in writing with the aperture closed. The screen is raised after the response has been made."

 

My local Regulating Authority quite clearly states in its regulations, "7.1 Alerts are compulsory - you may not ask the opponents not to alert. The requirement to alert applies even though the convention or other agreement may be listed on the system card".

 

It's a shame that the Laws of Bridge have delegated to local Regulating Authorities the power to determine what needs to be alerted. Surely uniformity on this would be best for everyone.

 

Self-alerting calls can give rise to some unusual situations such as when I open 1♦, LHO doubles and partner redoubles showing 4+ ♥. If my opponents don't ask and then my RHO bids 1♥ that is also a self-alerting call (being a cue bid of a suit that my side has shown) but chances are RHO may just be intending it as natural.

[1eyedjack]

It's a shame that the Laws of Bridge have delegated to local Regulating Authorities the power to determine what needs to be alerted. Surely uniformity on this would be best for everyone.

I think that there are more positive aspects to that delegation than negative