Switching off alerts/announcements

[nige1]

On a personal note, it is just as annoying and distracting for the would-be alerting side to have to change its procedure --automatic and ingrained -- for the whims of one pair who requests/demands no alerts or announcements.

I wish the rules would revert to giving players the opportunity to switch off opponents' alerts/announcements (face to face, without screens).

[bluejak]

Whether one approves of the idea or not, in practice it would be very difficult because players get into habits of alerting and announcing.

[jdonn]

I don't think it would be so difficult. If I can alert 2♦ with one partner and not alert it with another partner, that means some thought process enters my head before alerting, so it's not an instantaneous reaction.

[TylerE]

Strongly disagree that this should be allowed. If a side makes this request, and *then asks about a bid*, the amount of UI created is huge. I'm sure players would rapidly figure out that:

 

X = Takeout

Ask - natural! - X = Penalty

Ask - artificial! - X = Lead directing

[paulg]

My experience, unsurprisingly similar to David's, is that most people struggle to change.

 

When the English, who announce, play in the Scottish congresses, where we do not, it seems to take a session for them to get used to it. Similarly it is just as difficult the other way around.

 

It is similar with alerts above 3NT, which have only become 'delayed' in the recent past. The normal reaction is still to reach towards the Alert card and then pull away.

 

Of course there are many who can cope and Forum members are probably better than most. But we do not represent the majority.

 

Paul

[nige1]

My experience, unsurprisingly similar to David's, is that most people struggle to change.

When the English, who announce, play in the Scottish congresses, where we do not, it seems to take a session for them to get used to it. Similarly it is just as difficult the other way around.

It is similar with alerts above 3NT, which have only become 'delayed' in the recent past. The normal reaction is still to reach towards the Alert card and then pull away.

Of course there are many who can cope and Forum members are probably better than most. But we do not represent the majority.

Paul

I would prefer simple global laws to chaotic local regulation; so I applaud the Scottish initiative; but that is another issue.

[nige1]

Strongly disagree that this should be allowed. If a side makes this request, and *then asks about a bid*, the amount of UI created is huge. I'm sure players would rapidly figure out that:

 

X = Takeout

Ask - natural! - X = Penalty

Ask - artificial! - X = Lead directing

I prefer an all or none rule. Only two options. You may ask opponents

• Not to alert/announce. Wait until the end of an auction for explanations. If you do ask before that, you are deemed to be giving partner unauthorised information.
  
• Ask all the time. Then, in fact, there is no necessity to alert or ask at all. Opponents just announce the meaning of each call by their partners. This would save lots of time and unauthorised information.
  

[jeremy69]

I agree with others who have said this will be hard to get used to. To be asked, perhaps, three times in 12 or 13 rounds not to alert is not so hard at the beginning of the round but if one has a long auction giving a portion of the mind as to whether the opponents are a pair we alert to or not makes for complication for, IMO, little advantage.

[Mbodell]

I agree with others who have said this will be hard to get used to. To be asked, perhaps, three times in 12 or 13 rounds not to alert is not so hard at the beginning of the round but if one has a long auction giving a portion of the mind as to whether the opponents are a pair we alert to or not makes for complication for, IMO, little advantage.

Little advantage and some disadvantage. It is basically the opponents saying they think you are unethical and will take advantage of UI of partner alerting or not.

[RMB1]

Little advantage and some disadvantage. It is basically the opponents saying they think you are unethical and will take advantage of UI of partner alerting or not.

David Burn made this point (and others) forcibly in a reply to another discussion of this topic. See "alerting mania" on rec.games.bridge.

 

Robin

[barmar]

It is basically the opponents saying they think you are unethical and will take advantage of UI of partner alerting or not.

I don't think that's what they're saying. I think this is most often requested of pairs that are playing systems where almost every bid is alerted (e.g. Precision, relays). If the opponents know a priori that most bids are artificial, the alerts don't really help them, and it just gets bothersome hearing "alert-alert-alert".

[paulg]

It is basically the opponents saying they think you are unethical and will take advantage of UI of partner alerting or not.

I don't think that's what they're saying. I think this is most often requested of pairs that are playing systems where almost every bid is alerted (e.g. Precision, relays). If the opponents know a priori that most bids are artificial, the alerts don't really help them, and it just gets bothersome hearing "alert-alert-alert".

Upon seeing our list of five or six pre-alerts, we had one pair in Washington ask us not to alert.

 

We explained that we did alert a lot, but we thought that they would be significantly disadvantaged in competitive auctions (where we use a lot of transfers) and some game-forcing auctions that sound weak. Convention cards are just not designed for this level of detail.

 

So they demurred and we had a pleasant match.

 

But this is the real problem with asking for no alerts. It is bothersome when you know what is happening, but how do you know you are right?

[nige1]

Little advantage and some disadvantage.  It is basically the opponents saying they think you are unethical and will take advantage of UI of partner alerting or not.

David Burn made this point (and others) forcibly in a reply to another discussion of this topic.  See "alerting mania" on rec.games.bridge.

Thank you Robin. An excellent defence of the EBU L&E position. David Burn is always a pleasure to read.

 

Nevertheless, Gordon Rainsford and David Desjardins seem to have had the better of the argument:

 

They argued that lots of Bridge regulations are designed to reduce unauthorised information. For example bidding boxes and screens. It's weird that regulators ignore players' requests not to have to endure unauthorised information from alerts, questions, and explanations.

 

Using unauthorised information has little to do with cheating or opponents' ethics. Some players are ignorant of relevant rules. Others are incapable of the mental gymnastics required to avoid taking advantage. Most aren't even conscious that they are using unauthorised information. For example...

 

When alerting was first introduced, partnerships who displayed a Please Don't Alert seemed to do well. When we swapped notes, we found that, typically, we would get a top or two per session due to misunderstandings. Even expert opponents' auctions often spiralled out of control.

[RMB1]

My experience of the old "please don't alert" regulation. as a relatively young/inexperienced player was:

• It was intimidating for opponents
  
• It was awkward for opponents to comply
  
• It was used to intimidate
  

Robin

[bluejak]

It's weird that regulators ignore players' requests not to have to endure unauthorised information from alerts, questions, and explanations.

Despite using buzz words to get people annoyed, which always works with me :( I shall answer anyway.

 

Regulators do not ignore things, as you know well. What they did at the time was reach a different conclusion from yourself as to what was best for the game.

 

You want to gain a specific small advantage at the cost of other problems, which you ignore. Fair enough: but do not suggest that people who decided otherwise from your views ignored anything. Personally, I think they were right.

 

It is not weird that some people do not follow your ideas: it means they do not agree with them, and having read many of your ideas I would not describe such an approach as "weird".

[nige1]

Despite using buzz words to get people annoyed, which always works with me  :angry: I shall answer anyway.

 

Regulators do not ignore things, as you know well.  What they did at the time was reach a different conclusion from yourself as to what was best for the game.

 

You want to gain a specific small advantage at the cost of other problems, which you ignore.  Fair enough: but do not suggest that people who decided otherwise from your views ignored anything.  Personally, I think they were right.

 

It is not weird that some people do not follow your ideas: it means they do not agree with them, and having read many of your ideas I would not describe such an approach as "weird".

IMO ...

• Bluejak's rule-change forum is a great idea. We're grateful for the opportunity to advance suggestions to improve player's enjoyment of the game. Some of mine may be weird and clumsily expressed. I respect Bluejak's opinion and have no intention of exciting wrath.
  
• The EBU recently conducted a player poll. A welcome innovation. In general, however, the WBFLC and local legislatures make little systematic effort to poll rank-and-file opinion.
  
• Rule-makers seem to be more easily persuaded by administrators and directors than mere players.
  
• The current suggestion isn't new or peculiarly mine. The idea is shared by other players on RGB.
  
• When alerts were first introduced, many welcomed them. Only a few of the other half went to the trouble of displaying "Please don't alert" cards. Robin & Co may have regarded such cards as an attempt to intimidate (which, of course, they weren't). Nevertheless, some such compromise would reduce unauthorised information for those concerned about it while keeping both sides reasonably happy.
  

[pran]

Despite using buzz words to get people annoyed, which always works with me  :angry: I shall answer anyway.

 

Regulators do not ignore things, as you know well.  What they did at the time was reach a different conclusion from yourself as to what was best for the game.

 

You want to gain a specific small advantage at the cost of other problems, which you ignore.  Fair enough: but do not suggest that people who decided otherwise from your views ignored anything.  Personally, I think they were right.

 

It is not weird that some people do not follow your ideas: it means they do not agree with them, and having read many of your ideas I would not describe such an approach as "weird".

IMO ...

• 
   
  
• Bluejak's rule-change forum is a great idea. We're grateful for the opportunity to advance suggestions to improve player's enjoyment of the game. Some of mine may be weird and clumsily expressed. I respect Bluejak's opinion and have no intention of exciting wrath.
   
  
• The EBU recently conducted a player poll. A welcome innovation. In general, however, the WBFLC and local legislatures make little systematic effort to poll rank-and-file opinion.
   
  
• Rule-makers seem to be more easily persuaded by administrators and directors than mere players.
   
  
• The current suggestion isn't new or peculiarly mine. The idea is shared by other players on RGB.
   
  
• When alerts were first introduced, many welcomed them. Only a few of the other half went to the trouble of displaying "Please don't alert" cards. Robin & Co may have regarded such cards as an attempt to intimidate (which, of course, they weren't). Anyway some such compromise would reduce unauthorised information for those concerned about it while keeping both sides reasonably happy.
   
  

When ALERT was introduced in Norway we also had the option to deny alerts from opponents. Such denial should take effect immediately and should irrevokably last until the end of the round.

 

At that time Precision (with many variants) was a very popular system and it was generally considered wise to deny precision pairs alerting because it was believed that they, rather than their opponents, would favour from the alerts. (The normal practice became to let them finish their auction and then ask questions like "what are we entitled to know from your auction" before the opening lead.)

 

Experience since years ago has shown that nobody any longer denies alerts, and I frankly don't even know if the option to deny alerts still exists in our regulation! (I doubt it)

[bluejak]

You realise I was playing before alerts were introduced. I think playing without alerts is dreadful for both sides - except for unethical players.

 

The problem with player polls over rules and such is that they do not know the ramifications so they give the wrong advice.

[pran]

You realise I was playing before alerts were introduced.  I think playing without alerts is dreadful for both sides - except for unethical players.

So was I (in clubs since 1964, in the home some 15 years before that).

And while I wouldn't use the word "dreadful" I agree that playing with alerts is advantageous for both sides (and for bridge as such).