WBF alerting policy

[helene_t]

The WBF alerting policy says

 

1  Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not.

(my emphasis)

 

but also:

2  Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners.

 

It seems to me that if we play, say, weak notrump, Walsh, strong 2 openings, negative freebids, 4-card majors etc. and those agreements are considered nonstandard in the local environment, we should not alert according to 1 (they are natural treatments), but we should according to 2 (they are based on special understanding between us).

 

So: alert or not? Does it depend on how unusual they are? Does it depend how significantly they deviate from standard (Walsh may be a minor deviation while strong 2 openings may be a major deviation)? Because if not, I would interpret 2 as an obligation to alert everything except in completely undiscussed situations.

 

Is there a gray zone where opps may expect us to alert, while we can never be punished for not doing so?

[Grazy69]

The WBF Alert Policy is only half a page long

 

It is obvious that if there is ANY DOUBT on YOUR part you should alert

 

It makes a big point about full disclosure so do so when asked about a bid.

 

So if you think that your bid MAY not be understood by the opps you should alert.

If you play a system that is quite unique then expect your side to make many alerts. Thats the name of the game that YOU chose to play.

 

I have met you so I know you are an experienced player so you will know what the "ordinary" player may not understand.

 

There are thousands of players out there who wouldn't know a "Walsh relay" from an "Exclusion Blackwood" .

 

Cheers

[jdonn]

It makes sense that if your bid should be alerted under any of the rules then you should alert it, even if it's explicitely not alertable under some other rule.

[helene_t]

Agree, that makes sense.

 

But the rule that dbls, and calls at the 4+ level, must not be alerted, still trumps that, doesn't it?

 

Sounds like "non-conventional bids should not [be alerted]" means nothing and just adds confusion.

[jdonn]

You're right about that sentence, and also your example is a good point that shows my statement is too general. So as usual common sense must win. :)

[peachy]

I like the interpretation that "when in doubt whether to alert or not, Alert". The regulation may be cryptic or difficult to read or even contradicting itself, but the spirit of diclosure remains, regardless.

[bluejak]

The WBF alerting policy is designed for international events with experienced players, while poorly written - as most WBF regulations - it relies very much on players having sufficient understanding to know what to alert and what not to alert.

[pran]

Agree, that makes sense.

 

But the rule that dbls, and calls at the 4+ level, must not be alerted, still trumps that, doesn't it?

 

Sounds like "non-conventional bids should not [be alerted]" means nothing and just adds confusion.

Do you really mean must not be alerted?

 

I never consider it wrong to alert a call (at least not here in Norway), the alert IMHO simply means: "you may have a reason to ask about this call".

 

And I shall be very uncomfortable with a regulation that actually forbids alerting certain calls; is such a regulation in force anywhere?

 

Regards Sven

[duschek]

And I shall be very uncomfortable with a regulation that actually forbids alerting certain calls; is such a regulation in force anywhere?

I believe that the following statements are valid under WBF rules, assuming no screens:

• Alerting a double is forbidden.
  
• Beginning at opener's second turn to call, alerting calls above 3NT is forbidden.
  

In both cases because the risk of passing unauthorized information is considered greater than the value of being able to discern penalty doubles from other doubles without having to ask.

 

In my view, the do-not-alert-doubles rule should be amended to the effect that artificial doubles of one-level opening bids (except ordinary takeout doubles of one-of-a-suit) should be alerted.

[pran]

And I shall be very uncomfortable with a regulation that actually forbids alerting certain calls; is such a regulation in force anywhere?

I believe that the following statements are valid under WBF rules, assuming no screens:

• 
   
  
• Alerting a double is forbidden.
   
  
• Beginning at opener's second turn to call, alerting calls above 3NT is forbidden.
   
  

In both cases because the risk of passing unauthorized information is considered greater than the value of being able to discern penalty doubles from other doubles without having to ask.

 

In my view, the do-not-alert-doubles rule should be amended to the effect that artificial doubles of one-level opening bids (except ordinary takeout doubles of one-of-a-suit) should be alerted.

These rules make sense as they are not associated with the actual interpretation of the specific call(s).

 

What I am concerned about is a regulation that states something like:

 

Alerting this call is required if the interpretation is so and so,

alerting the call is forbidden if the interpretation is anything else.

 

Regards Sven

[PeterE]

And I shall be very uncomfortable with a regulation that actually forbids alerting certain calls; is such a regulation in force anywhere?

Yes, in Germany it is.

 

It's forbidden to alert

• 2♣ Stayman - if promising a major - after 1NT opening
  
• 3♣ (normal) Stayman after 2NT opening
  
• 2♣ as strongest opening bid - as long as there's no hand typ with less than 11 HCP included
  
• "classic" semi-forcings in ♠, ♥ and ♦
  

[duschek]

What I am concerned about is a regulation that states something like:

 

Alerting this call is required if the interpretation is so and so,

alerting the call is forbidden if the interpretation is anything else.

I am afraid that I do not understand what you mean. Could you provide an example to illustrate your point?

[pran]

What I am concerned about is a regulation that states something like:

 

Alerting this call is required if the interpretation is so and so,

alerting the call is forbidden if the interpretation is anything else.

I am afraid that I do not understand what you mean. Could you provide an example to illustrate your point?

If I fail to alert a call for which an alert is required I have given MI to opponents (who according to our Norwegian regulations are then entitled to assume that the call was "natural")

 

Whenever I alert a call in Norway I essentially "alert" opponents that it may be in their interest to ask about that call.

 

If it then turns out that the call is not alertable all the "sanction" I get is the warning that the call does not need to be alerted.

 

I am not comfortable with a situation where I could be sanctioned against in any way for alerting a call that does not need an alert, and I shall not automatically as director accept that opponents have been misinformed from an unneccessary alert. There might be so many different reasons why an alert is required that they cannot safely assume they know why a call was alerted without consulting the system card and/or asking. When they then have the correct information there is no longer any MI from the unneccessary alert and no reason for any sanction.

 

So with every possible call available in an auction there are IMHO good reasons for having a rule that an alert (depending on the interpretation of that call) is required or that an alert is not required, but never that an alert is forbidden.

 

regards Sven

[Grazy69]

It is quite plain that if there is doubt you should alert.

It is also very plain there are bids that you should not alert.

 

<Quote> from preamble (3)

However, players who participate in WBF events are expected to protect themselves to a large extent.

<Unquote>

 

A player may then still ask about any non-alerted bid if they so wish ( "forbidden" ones for example ) of course bearing in mind possible UI

 

A catch 22 situation maybe ?

 

Cheers

[paulg]

So with every possible call available in an auction there are IMHO good reasons for having a rule that an alert (depending on the interpretation of that call) is required or that an alert is not required, but never that an alert is forbidden.

The WBF is quite clear:

 

"If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following:

• All doubles.
  
• Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract.
  
• Any call at the four level or higher, with the exception of conventional calls on the first round of the auction."
  

The capitalisation of NOT is the WBF's emphasis, not mine.

[jeremy69]

The WBF is quite clear:

 

"If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following:

 

You will, of course, be challenged to find a WBF event that is not behind screens and perhaps their regulations are written with screens in mind and thus not entirely suitable for the game with no screen.

[dan_ehh]

What I am concerned about is a regulation that states something like:

 

Alerting this call is required if the interpretation is so and so,

alerting the call is forbidden if the interpretation is anything else.

I am afraid that I do not understand what you mean. Could you provide an example to illustrate your point?

If I fail to alert a call for which an alert is required I have given MI to opponents (who according to our Norwegian regulations are then entitled to assume that the call was "natural")

 

Whenever I alert a call in Norway I essentially "alert" opponents that it may be in their interest to ask about that call.

 

If it then turns out that the call is not alertable all the "sanction" I get is the warning that the call does not need to be alerted.

 

I am not comfortable with a situation where I could be sanctioned against in any way for alerting a call that does not need an alert, and I shall not automatically as director accept that opponents have been misinformed from an unneccessary alert. There might be so many different reasons why an alert is required that they cannot safely assume they know why a call was alerted without consulting the system card and/or asking. When they then have the correct information there is no longer any MI from the unneccessary alert and no reason for any sanction.

 

So with every possible call available in an auction there are IMHO good reasons for having a rule that an alert (depending on the interpretation of that call) is required or that an alert is not required, but never that an alert is forbidden.

 

regards Sven

The reasoning behind the decision to disallow alerts in some cases is, at least in some of these cases, to prevent UI, not MI.

Specifically in Israel, where doubles are not alertable, the chief TD has informed me that their decision was made because there are so many different types of doubles that they are afraid that an alert to some but not to others will be too strong a wakeup call for partner that the double has been misinterpreted.

[pran]

The reasoning behind the decision to disallow alerts in some cases is, at least in some of these cases, to prevent UI, not MI.

Specifically in Israel, where doubles are not alertable, the chief TD has informed me that their decision was made because there are so many different types of doubles that they are afraid that an alert to some but not to others will be too strong a wakeup call for partner that the double has been misinterpreted.

Allow me to post a reminder that creating UI is not an infringement of laws, but creating MI is (as of course is also using UI)

 

regards Sven

[awm]

Allow me to post a reminder that creating UI is not an infringement of laws.

This blanket statement is not actually true. For example, suppose that every time I open a preempt and am at the top of my range, I point up in the air when I bid. I'm "creating UI." If every time opponents open 1♣ and I have clubs, I ask "does it show clubs" but otherwise I never do, again I'm creating UI. In both cases this is a violation of law.

 

More accurate might be to say that creating UI is not necessarily an infringement of laws, especially if it is unintentional or there is a "bridge reason" for creating UI (such as a break in tempo). On the other hand, intentionally creating UI is often a violation.

 

Similarly, alerting a call that you know is not alertable could be viewed as an attempt to remind partner of your agreement, or let him know what your responses will mean. This is potentially an infringement of law.

[aguahombre]

interesting thread. In the early stages of the trials for ACBL reps to Brazil, no screens were in use, true or false? If true, were they using WBF rules on no alerts of doubles or ACBL policy? On vugraph many special doubles were alerted, which is the reason for the question.