BBO

[LoneMonad]

why do we have to self alert on BBO

it seems Like it ought to be easy enough to do it normally

you could even do it now with no extra programming

[Jlall]

Self alerting is BETTER not worse than the "normal" way.

 

The only reason the "normal" way exists is because self alerting cannot exist in a live environment without giving away UI at times.

[Hanoi5]

Yeah. Bridge is ruled in a way that partner's are supposed to know EVERYTHING they do in terms of meaning and opponents are entitled to know this, too. Unfortunately as we are not computers we can forget or err when we bid or think of the meaning of a call, which means that the way F2F bridge is played wrong explanations and bids are bound to happen (with the occasional UI) but if BBO's system were in use in F2F (and i agree this system might make more sense) then cheating would be just too easy:

 

1♥ 2♠ (self alert: 6 spades to the AK with an Ace in the minors: while partner listens...)

 

Two tables later:

 

1♥ 2♠ (self alert: weak in spades!)

[pooltuna]

why do we have to self alert on BBO

it seems Like it ought to be easy enough to do it normally

you could even do it now with no extra programming

I only self alert agreements with partner. It is really a pet peeve when opps demand to know what your bid is but you have no agreement with partner(I play with a lot of pickup partners). IMO at that point general bridge knowledge applies and my frequent reply to the demands is gfy&thyrio

[matmat]

why do we have to self alert on BBO

it seems Like it ought to be easy enough to do it normally

you could even do it now with no extra programming

I only self alert agreements with partner. It is really a pet peeve when opps demand to know what your bid is but you have no agreement with partner(I play with a lot of pickup partners). IMO at that point general bridge knowledge applies and my frequent reply to the demands is gfy&thyrio

I have a slight issue with this, actually.

A lot of times playing with a partner with whom I've not discussed systems (I very rarely do) but who, I believe, plays similiar stuff to what I do, I will make a call that I expect will be understood in a particular way despite having no explicit agreement. I think those bids need to be alerted. General bridge knowledge in one geographical area might be different from another, thinking that opps will understand your call the same way as you and your partner do, in those cases, is ridiculous.

[olegru]

A lot of times playing with a partner with whom I've not discussed systems (I very rarely do) but who, I believe, plays similiar stuff to what I do, I will make a call that I expect will be understood in a particular way despite having no explicit agreement. I think those bids need to be alerted.

What cause you think partner will understand your call particular way?

Do you have some agreements for similar situations? Did it already come up? Do you know something about your partner that opponents do not know? Probably in those cases you have to alert implicit agreements.

But if you are playing with truly picked up partner and think he will understand (for example) your mini-splinter based solely on word "expert" in his profile there is no agreements to alert - opponents have about your bid the same information what your partner has.

[Codo]

I am with Matmat.

 

What do I lose, if I explain the bids which my partner may understand better because he his from the same age/country/level/whetever?

 

Some imps at the MBC?

Some % in a free tourney?

Some Master points at ACBL events?

 

I only refuse to explain when I am sure that everybody at the table has the same chance to understand my bid.

[awm]

To give a simple example:

 

I sit down with a Canadian expert. The extent of our discussion is "2/1 partner? OK."

 

He opens 1♠ and I have four-card spade support and 18 hcp. I bid 2NT. Now, we never explicitly discussed that we play Jacoby 2NT. However, it is part of 2/1 as played in North America. Despite the fact that I have never played with this person before, we live on the same continent, play in the same sanctioning organization (ACBL), and have agreed to play one of the most common systems in North America. I'm on pretty solid ground believing that he will take my 2NT as a forcing spade raise.

 

My opponents are both from France. Do they play Jacoby 2NT in France? I don't know. Most people in France play the standard system there (SEF) which is not the same as 2/1 as played in north america (although both are "natural" five-card major systems). Will it be as obvious to them that 2NT is a forcing spade raise as it will be to me and my partner?

 

I really think I owe them an alert, don't you?

[awm]

Here's another point.

 

Say two Polish players sit down at a table. They have never met, never played together before. They don't discuss anything; they just start bidding.

 

Somehow it turns out that they both play Polish Club. But they don't alert anything because they never discussed.

 

This actually happens on BBO fairly often. Opponents complain bitterly about the unalerted natural 2♣ openings, the unalerted artificial 1♣ openings, and so forth and so on. The Poles are accused of cheating, kicked out of free tournaments, etc.

 

But yet... two American players sit down at the table. They have never met, never played before. They don't discuss anything; they just start bidding.

 

Somehow it turns out that they both play 2/1. But they don't alert anything because they never discussed. Somehow this is "just bridge" -- even though when the Poles did the exact same thing it was cheating. Double standard anyone?

[ArtK78]

why do we have to self alert on BBO

it seems Like it ought to be easy enough to do it normally

you could even do it now with no extra programming

Just thought that I would point out that this was the original post on this thread. It seems that people have gotten WAY off track.

[Fluffy]

why do we have to self alert on BBO

it seems Like it ought to be easy enough to do it normally

you could even do it now with no extra programming

You actually do not have to, if you agree with your opponents, you can alert both opponents privatelly about partner's bids. It will be just a bit more messy, and not good for the kibitzers, but it can be done.

[olegru]

To give a simple example:

I sit down with a Canadian expert. The extent of our discussion is "2/1 partner? OK."

He opens 1♠ and I have four-card spade support and 18 hcp. I bid 2NT. Now, we never explicitly discussed that we play Jacoby 2NT. However, it is part of 2/1 as played in North America. Despite the fact that I have never played with this person before, we live on the same continent, play in the same sanctioning organization (ACBL), and have agreed to play one of the most common systems in North America. I'm on pretty solid ground believing that he will take my 2NT as a forcing spade raise.

 

I really think I owe them an alert, don't you?

Agree.

You have agreement to play 2/1, you know that Jacoby 2NT is a part of 2/1 for Canadians. You have an agreement you must alert it.

 

Now look at my example. I am the first time playing with BBO expert from, ok let's it be Canada. We agree to play Standard.

Partner open 1 ♣, 1♠ from me and 1NT from partner. Now I bid 2♦. I have absolutely no ideas in NMF is a part of a "Standard” for Canadians or not, but no other reasonable bids appears. My partner and opponents have the same amount of information about my bid. Do you think I should alert?

[matmat]

My partner and opponents have the same amount of information about my bid. Do you think I should alert?

yes.

 

you are making this bid with some level of expectation that it will be understood as new minor forcing by your partner. it seems right to err on the side of alerting too much rather than too little.

[h2osmom]

Every now and then, playing on BBO, someone mistakenly believes that partner sees alerts; doesn't realize that software is set up so that opponents and kibs see it, but partner does not. Could this be the reason some people object to self alerts?

[helene_t]

My partner and opponents have the same amount of information about my bid. Do you think I should alert?

In such a situation I sometimes alert and say "no agreement". Failure to alert could be misleading as it might suggest that we have the agreement that it is natural.

 

Of course if opps are aware that you have no agreements, you don't need to alert. For example if you sub and get a p with a blank profile, I think it is wrong to alert anything during the first round you play.

[jillybean]

Every now and then,  playing on BBO, someone mistakenly believes that partner sees alerts;  doesn't realize that software is set up so that opponents and kibs see it,  but partner does not.  Could this be the reason some people object to self alerts?

Not if you are using the FD CC, then everyone, inlcuding your partner, see the explanation.

[neilkaz]

To give a simple example:

 

I sit down with a Canadian expert. The extent of our discussion is "2/1 partner? OK."

 

He opens 1♠ and I have four-card spade support and 18 hcp. I bid 2NT. Now, we never explicitly discussed that we play Jacoby 2NT. However, it is part of 2/1 as played in North America. Despite the fact that I have never played with this person before, we live on the same continent, play in the same sanctioning organization (ACBL), and have agreed to play one of the most common systems in North America. I'm on pretty solid ground believing that he will take my 2NT as a forcing spade raise.

 

My opponents are both from France. Do they play Jacoby 2NT in France? I don't know. Most people in France play the standard system there (SEF) which is not the same as 2/1 as played in north america (although both are "natural" five-card major systems). Will it be as obvious to them that 2NT is a forcing spade raise as it will be to me and my partner?

 

I really think I owe them an alert, don't you?

Re: your J2N bid, what I do is make the bid and then type in "GF trump raise" to avoid any confusion among the opps.

 

However, if playing with all North Americans and everyone lists SAYC or 2/1 (J2N is part of SAYC) then I might not bother to type in anything.

 

Playing vs an ACOL pair when I opened 1NT I typed in 15-17 since there's is weak.

 

Playing vs Turks who both had Multi listed, I typed weak when I opened 2♦.

 

These simple things make the flow of the game better and minimize UI to the opps based on one of them thinking his pard's delay is to ask..etc.

 

But playing with 3 other American 2/1er's all friends who have all played together, I might not type in so much unless they ask.

[olegru]

you are making this bid with some level of expectation that it will be understood as new minor forcing by your partner.  it seems right to err on the side of alerting too much rather than too little.

I believe we mixing up two different cases. Lets take a look at 2 examples.

 

Example first:

I am playing with somebody I know but do not really have to much discussion about bidding. I open 1NT, lefty bid 2♠ and my Partner 2NT. Are we playing Lebenzohl here? I have no ideas. But... I know my Partner knows what Lebenzohl is. And he knows I know about Lebenzohl. I feel safer to bit 3♣ here. If Partner meant 2NT as a Lebenzohl we are OK. If he did not, he has a good chance to figure out where my 3♣ bid came from and probably we will land in some reasonable contract.

In this example me and my Partner know about each other something that opponents do not know. I agree - I have to alert 3♣ and Partner should alert 2NT and let opponents know that possition was not discussed.

 

Example second:

I am playing with completely unkown person. I never played with him, I have no ideas about his level and convention knowledge. Matchpoints. He open 1NT, RHO bid 2♠. We are non vul and I have long clubs with almost no points. What to bid? Pass is loosing bid, 3♣ is way to risky, he will expect some points for that bid. We never discussed Lebenzohl and I have no ideas if Partner even know about existance of this convention. But I will bid 2NT anyway. I am not expecting my Partner to understand it as a Lebenzohl. In the best scenario he will try to guess is it Lebenzohl or not. If not... minus 100 for down 2 could still be better then -110 for 2♠ from opps. In this example my opponents and Partner have exactly the same information about my bid and I see no reason why opponets should have advantage. I think no alert should be here exactly the same way how no alert requered for psyche bid.

[LoneMonad]

Every now and then,  playing on BBO, someone mistakenly believes that partner sees alerts;  doesn't realize that software is set up so that opponents and kibs see it,  but partner does not.  Could this be the reason some people object to self alerts?

Not if you are using the FD CC, then everyone, inlcuding your partner, see the explanation.

! did not know that partner could not see it

 

what is FD CC

[barmar]

Here's another point.

 

Say two Polish players sit down at a table. They have never met, never played together before. They don't discuss anything; they just start bidding.

 

Somehow it turns out that they both play Polish Club. But they don't alert anything because they never discussed.

 

This actually happens on BBO fairly often. Opponents complain bitterly about the unalerted natural 2♣ openings, the unalerted artificial 1♣ openings, and so forth and so on. The Poles are accused of cheating, kicked out of free tournaments, etc.

 

But yet... two American players sit down at the table. They have never met, never played before. They don't discuss anything; they just start bidding.

 

Somehow it turns out that they both play 2/1. But they don't alert anything because they never discussed. Somehow this is "just bridge" -- even though when the Poles did the exact same thing it was cheating. Double standard anyone?

Both pairs should alert most of the artificial bids that are unique to their systems. The Poles should alert 1C, the Americans should alert Jacoby 2NT.

 

Neither of them needs to alert most of their natural bids.

 

The big difference is that 2/1 is a natural system, so almost all opening bids, and most of the responses, are natural.

 

2♣ openings in systems based on artificial 1♣ is a thorny issue. This is typically the one artificial opening in most natural systems, and that's what most players expect.

 

The real problem is that online bridge is so international. These problems don't come up much in f2f bridge, because practically everyone knows what's common in their part of the world, and alerting rules are often based on this. When you move into the world-wide environment of the Internet, you can't depend on local customs and knowledge. But unless we're going to go overboard and alert EVERYTHING, you need a common understanding. If natural systems are the most popular worldwide, it makes sense to use that as the baseline.

 

If you want to avoid this problem, seek out and play only with players from your area.

[helene_t]

But unless we're going to go overboard and alert EVERYTHING, you need a common understanding. If natural systems are the most popular worldwide, it makes sense to use that as the baseline.

Alerting online is sooooo easy. Whenever in doubt, alert.

 

Alerting IRL s much more difficult, even when playing at the local club where people are supposed to know the local "standards" and the local alert rules. For example, in EBU land:

- Am I supposed to alert all those doubles that are completely standard yet technically alertable? Keep in mind that many players alert on the basis of the old rules and may (or may not) expect me to do the same.

- What about a 1♣ opening that can be as short as 3?

- Exactly when are transfers/stayman to be announced? I am not sure what to do after a 2NT opening, for example.

- What about a 1NT reponses that can be as strong as 11?

 

All those problem don't occur online. Because whenever it occurs to you that something might be alertable, you just alert it.

[Codo]

The big difference is that 2/1 is a natural system, so almost all opening bids, and most of the responses, are natural.

 

2♣ openings in systems based on artificial 1♣ is a thorny issue. This is typically the one artificial opening in most natural systems, and that's what most players expect.

I know that the Polish players belive that there system is natural too.

 

And I would not bet that 2/1 contains fewer non natural bids then wj2005.

 

No, Helene hits the jackpot- as often:

Just alert what they may misunderstand and everysthing is nice and easy.

[blackshoe]

Alerting online is sooooo easy. Whenever in doubt, alert.

 

Alerting IRL s much more difficult, even when playing at the local club where people are supposed to know the local "standards" and the local alert rules. For example, in EBU land:

- Am I supposed to alert all those doubles that are completely standard yet technically alertable? Keep in mind that many players alert on the basis of the old rules and may (or may not) expect me to do the same.

- What about a 1♣ opening that can be as short as 3?

- Exactly when are transfers/stayman to be announced? I am not sure what to do after a 2NT opening, for example.

- What about a 1NT reponses that can be as strong as 11?

 

All those problem don't occur online. Because whenever it occurs to you that something might be alertable, you just alert it.

The same principle applies in f2f bridge.

A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player’s partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement.

There's more in OB 5B that implies, but does not say explicitly, what the ACBL regulation says:

When in doubt, Alert!

This is one case where I think the ACBL got it right. :lol:

 

Personally, I don't care what stupid assumptions about "the old rules" my opponents may make. If the current rules say I should alert it, I alert it. If they call the TD and complain, well, hopefully eventually they'll learn.

 

The EBU regs are pretty clear that a minor suit opening which could be as short as 3 cards in the suit does not require an alert. If it could be shorter than that, it does.

 

The EBU regs are also clear regarding when Stayman and transfers are to be announced: only over an uncontested 1NT opening. Stayman and transfers over a 2NT opening are explicitly defined as requiring an alert (OB 5G1{c}{1}).

 

That last one may be difficult, I'll grant you. I see nothing in the OB that would require an alert, unless it's forcing.