inquiry Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 announcing failure to alert not a probllem seems to violate the rules of bridge, and teh general alert rules on BBOI don't think that this is strictly correct. I have searched through the entire laws of duplicate, both US and UK versions, for instances of the character string "alert". The word crops up regularly but in no instance do the laws stipulate a requirement to alert. They do stipulate a require to explain on enquiry, but not to alert itself. Please note I said the rules of bridge, not the laws of bridge. The rules of bridge are clear, no hidden agreements between partnerships are allowed, your opponents are expected to know your methods (carding, conventions, other agreements). Thus, failing to make sure your opponents have an equal opportunity to understand your partners methods (bids and plays), as far as I am concerned is a failure of bridge rules, not to mention poor sportsmanship. As for the BBO, the alert rule which is very vague is clear. If you think your opponents will not or might not understand your bid you should alert. The wording is something like, "when in doubt, alert". Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 announcing failure to alert not a probllem seems to violate the rules of bridge, and teh general alert rules on BBOI don't think that this is strictly correct. I have searched through the entire laws of duplicate, both US and UK versions, for instances of the character string "alert". The word crops up regularly but in no instance do the laws stipulate a requirement to alert. They do stipulate a require to explain on enquiry, but not to alert itself. Please note I said the rules of bridge, not the laws of bridge. The rules of bridge are clear, no hidden agreements between partnerships are allowed, your opponents are expected to know your methods (carding, conventions, other agreements). Thus, failing to make sure your opponents have an equal opportunity to understand your partners methods (bids and plays), as far as I am concerned is a failure of bridge rules, not to mention poor sportsmanship. As for the BBO, the alert rule which is very vague is clear. If you think your opponents will not or might not understand your bid you should alert. The wording is something like, "when in doubt, alert". Ben There are two separate issues here. 1) Rules of Bridge If the rules of bridge are clear it is only because they have been codified in writing. The rules are made up of the combination of the laws and of secondary legislation set out by the sponsoring organisation under powers delegated to it under the Laws. Laws 40B and 75A prohibit the concealment of methods. Law 20F requires an explanation to be provided on enquiry. Laws 80E and 80F delegate to the sponsoring organisation the authority to prescribe such additional regulations as it sees fit that are consistent with the primary laws. It has until now been something of a theoretical point because never before have I encountered a duplicate competition that permits artificial conventions without a requirement to alert (that requirement being expressly set out by the sponsoring organisation under powers delegated to it by the primary laws). I would never play in such an event and I do not encourage such events. Nevertheless the rules do not prohibit them. Nor are rules necessary, in my view, where market forces are sufficient. There is a difference between "concealing your methods" and "not thrusting your methods into your opponents' faces". Law 20F prevents concealment. Alerts do the thrusting. Convention cards are something of a halfway house - a sort of passive thrust. Alerts and CCs are regulated by the sponsoring organisation. I stand by my original contention that, however abhorrent, it is not illegal for the sponsoring organisation to dispense with alerts. 2) BBO alerting policy I am well aware of the BBO general alerting policy in the site rules. However clear they are is not the point. The only question of relevance is whether the host of a tournament has the authority within the conditions of contest of a specific tourney to override those rules with others (which may be equally clear). It certainly makes sense to grant the host that authority. This does not mean that he has to act on it. Presumably when the ACBL tourneys start up they will be overridden by the ACBL alert procedures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayUK Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 Sticking my two pennyworth in again.... The reasons why we have TDs at face to face events is to sort out problems that occur at a table. In the main the majority of these problems are leads out of turn, revokes, bids out of turn etc etc. None of these things can happen with online bridge as the software will not allow it. This then leaves very few problems that need sorting - the main one being claims for adjustments because of failure to alert causing perceived damage to either declarer or defender. I can confirm that it is perfectly legal to regulate out of a tourney the need to alert (although of course anyone can still ask for an explanation of a bid! - the Principle of full disclosure according to Laws of Dup Bridge 1997 can be observed while playing in a non alerting environment) Playing TDs are the rule rather than the exception in the UK and since most of the reasons for calling the director have now gone out of the window I do not see any problem with having playing TDs online. The rules of "Anything Goes" are clear - adjustments will only be made in exceptional circumstances and the software allows you to do this anyway without visiting a table. Adjustments are not made for not completing a hand - this is a timed event and participants are advised to call the TD if there are problems with opponents/partners not responding or playing very slowly. Once again this is easily sorted out and there is still no reason to visit a table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 Well, I signed up as a sub, waited 10 minutes, and started typing an email. When I got done, I went back and looked...I found out that I'd been asked to be a substitute, been made a substitute, and been kicked out of the tourney, all without me being there! I didn't even know that was possible. Along with tone/pop in front for subbing, can we also have that for open partnership requests at the tournament, please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.