alerts in pick up partnerships

[onoway]

I am not sure I quite understand what I have read about alerts. If a partnerhip has no agreements beyond the general system and carding (2/1 standard) and one of them makes a conventional bid which his pard does not know or understand, how much explanation is required to avoid a penalty situation?

 

Example:(West/East partners have not played together before) Imps *North dealer N/S red vs white.

~~~~~~1♥~~ pass ~~ 1♠

1nt ~~ 2♥~~ pass~~ 2♠

pass~~ pass~~ pass

north asked east what the 1nt was, east replied, "I have no idea." Someone asked west what the bid was and the alert (showing in the movie, not sure when it was put there, was 5-5 in minors which he did indeed have). After the hand was played, east said to his p "2nt shows minors p" to which west replied "that's called sandwich nt and shows the minors." East said "oh,ok I don't play that." North said that they had assumed it showed normal nt values, not unnt values which could possibly be weak, and so had prevented them from bidding on.

 

It seems to me that since east had no idea what his pard was doing, to insist that the opps get a detailed alert explanation would be giving them an undue advantage over the players actual partner. They actually already DID know more than the partner in that they knew west was holding 5-5 in minors, which his partner did not. I regarded it (since the partner had absolutely no idea what the bid was) as basically the same as a psyche bid. Indeed, if in the conversation after the hand, west had identified it as a psyche, the opps would have had no recourse, as I understand it. So, by using the words "sandwich nt" after the hand was over, instead of "psyche" he should be penalized, although his partner was equally in the dark about either?

 

This just seems wrong. My understanding is the opps are entitled to AS MUCH info as the partner has, not more. And I really don't think it's reasonable to punish someone for identifying (after the hand was done) a convention previously unknown to the partner, when he could perfectly easilly have said "I tried to psyche" without penalty.

 

I would really like to hear how other people regard this and would have handled it. I was told today that I should have penalized the offending player/pair. It would be very helpful to have somebody explain this in a way that doesn't make that seem unfair and arbitrary.

 

I should perhaps mention that when I discussed this with someone who is knowlegeable, his contention was that requirements are slightly different for online play since players cannot alert their partner's bids, but must alert their own. Although that's true, I still don't see how that justifies a penalty when the partner has no idea whatsoever of the meaning of the bid. If the partnership had any sort of agreement, then it's clearly a totally different situation.

[helene_t]

We have had this discussion a couple of times before. FWIW I agree with you.

 

It is not entirely obvious, though. The arguments for making calls like this one alertable, even in a pick-up partnership, is:

- Who says they really have no agreement? The fact that W decided to use the convention suggests that he had some reason to think that his partner would understand it.

- The failure to alert a call may suggest that the partnership has the agreement to play it as natural. Full disclosure would then be to alert and say "no agreement", which is different from not alerting.

[paulg]

There are two distinct issues here: how do you handle a partnership system misunderstanding; and what do you alert in a pick-up partnership.

 

Penalising any pair for having a partnership system misunderstanding is incredibly rare. The idea of penalising a pick-up partnership for it is just too bizarre to contemplate. You may adjust for misinformation but that is rare on-line (as you alert your own calls and the opponents are aware of the alerts on both sides and that you may be having a misunderstanding). Even the most classic cases, such as forgetting you are playing Ghestem when you make a weak jump overcall of 3♣ does not attract a penalty because you have forgotten - it is the subsequent use of UI that is the issue and often causes adjustments.

 

More succinctly, it is not against the Laws to forget your system.

 

In the case of a pick-up partnership, there are a huge number of auctions where they will have no agreement. The sandwich 1NT is a classic case where even an expert pick-up partnership would not have an agreement even though there are only two options.

 

Alerting in pick-up partnerships has been discussed many times and there are two views, both acceptable. I believe that you should alert any conventional call that you expect partner to understand, so I would alert 1NT as showing both minors: the other view is that you only alert agreements and therefore there is no obligation to alert this 1NT call.

 

So I feel that you handled the problem appropriately. Whoever was demanding a penalty needs to read a law book.

[Guest caelin]

We have had this discussion a couple of times before. FWIW I agree with you.

 

It is not entirely obvious, though. The arguments for making calls like this one alertable, even in a pick-up partnership, is:

- Who says they really have no agreement? The fact that W decided to use the convention suggests that he had some reason to think that his partner would understand it.

- The failure to alert a call may suggest that the partnership has the agreement to play it as natural. Full disclosure would then be to alert and say "no agreement", which is different from not alerting.

 

I fully agree with you. He SHOULD alert. His bid is not natural and alertable. But he should explain as 'no agreement' because he doesn't have one. This is a problem that usually comes up with subs. That is why if we want serious tournaments, we should request a profile. And if the bidding is not according to profile, should be alerted and explained. But I have also seen many 'experts' claim an adjustment because opps didn't alert a bid, when the results are not favourable to them. If they are 'experts' I expect them to have some knowledge and if opp has his profile in order, I don't accept from an expert that his opp didn't alert, for example, a 2 weak opening or a 1 club short -2 cards- if their profile states it.

Now, when it comes to penalize, in this specific case I would not take any action. And when penalizing I always take in consideration the skill level the player gives himself. I don't expect the same from an intermediate that from an expert.

Veru - allspice

[blackshoe]

Some people think they're entitled to a score adjustment on just about any excuse. This is not the case. In MI cases, there must have been damage caused by the MI. The fact there was MI does not mean there was damage.

 

If a required alert is not made, it doesn't matter whether the call in question is described in the player's profile or not. Failure to alert is MI. If it leads to damage, then an adjustment is warranted.

[Bbradley62]

If a required alert is not made...

Here is the key term that folks are debating: when is an alert required? If you are making a conventional call that you have not discussed with your partner, hoping that he understands, is that alertable?

[blackshoe]

Online, you alert your own calls, so it's not really a matter of "agreement". Offline, you alert your partner's calls, and you can't know whether to alert unless you have an agreement (which may be implicit).

 

Technically, an alert is required when the published alert regulation in force says it's required. Since just about no one running games on BBO (except the ACBL games) publishes an alert regulation, one could argue that alerts are not required at all.

 

Practically speaking, ask the Tournament Organizer. You will, no doubt, get different answers from different TOs, or from the same TO at different times. You may get no answer at all. Life's like that. :blink:

 

Another point: you are allowed by the laws to deviate from your agreed system — to make calls the intended meaning of which does not match the agreed meaning, or for which there there is no agreed meaning. You are not required to inform opponents you have done so. One could argue this means that, online, you are not required to alert your opponents when you make an undiscussed conventional call. Unless perhaps you think "well, he should get it right, because after all he did it to me yesterday!" (because now you have an implicit agreement).

[hrothgar]

Question and a comment:

 

Question(s):

 

Is this a real world example where you were called to the table?

If so, why? There's no way for us to evaluate whether N/S was damaged.

 

Comments:

 

#1. Disclosure requirements are describe partnership agreements, not the hand that one holds

#2. Disclosure systems are intended to make sure that the opposing side has all the same information regarding systemic agreements that is available to our side

 

To the extent that E/W have any agreement, it rests on the assumption that East's interpretation of "2/1 Standard" is the same as "West's interpretion of "2/1 Standard"...

I would argue that the ability to accurately guess what is/is not part of 2/1 standard falls under the broad category of "skill/knowledge" rather than "systemic agreement".

 

North / South should be told that they need to prove damage rather than bitch and moan...

West needs to be told that most people don't view sandwich NT (probably)as standard.

East needs to be told to answer "2/1 standard" any time anyone asks a question about methods...

[Bbradley62]

Technically, an alert is required when the published alert regulation in force says it's required. Since just about no one running games on BBO (except the ACBL games) publishes an alert regulation, one could argue that alerts are not required at all.

If you have any doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert.

 

If an opponent asks you for the meaning of one of your bids... [a]n appropriate answer can be "I have never discussed this with my partner". You do not have to tell the opponents how you intend your bid - only what you have agreed with your partner.

One could also argue that "BBO Rules" are in force unless a tournament specifically publishes otherwise.

[onoway]

"Is this a real world example where you were called to the table?"

 

Yes a team match hand three days ago

 

"If so, why? There's no way for us to evaluate whether N/S was damaged."

 

North/south maintained that they should have been told that the bid didn't specify that it might be light (not 15-17 hcps) and because it didn't, they didn't bid on as they would have had they known that. These were intermediate players (except for the 1nt bidder who was advanced)and sandwich nt is definitely not a commonly used convention in this particular group. The p didnt have any idea what the bid meant (not even the 5-5 dist, which the opps did know) and just passed throughout.

[blackshoe]

One could also argue that "BBO Rules" are in force unless a tournament specifically publishes otherwise.

 

True. B-)

[onoway]

everyone here knows that BBO Rules :P

[barmar]

I fully agree with you. He SHOULD alert. His bid is not natural and alertable. But he should explain as 'no agreement' because he doesn't have one. This is a problem that usually comes up with subs. That is why if we want serious tournaments, we should request a profile.

Don't you mean a convention card? A profile wouldn't help with this type of situation. EW had agreed to play 2/1, I assume it was in one of their profiles. This system includes lots of conventions, there isn't room for all of them in the profile. The problem was that West thought that Sandwich NT was part of the system, East did not (to my knowledge, East is correct).

 

A completed convention card would have space to indicate whether Sandwich NT is being played. But online pick-up partnerships practically NEVER have one of these. In f2f bridge, you usually spend at least 5-15 minutes before the game filling out a card. Online partnerships are typically formed a minute or two before the game starts, and there's rarely time to discuss much more than the basic system (SAYC vs 2/1) and whether you're playing 3014 or 1430 Blackwood. One of the players MIGHT load a CC that they use with new partners, but it's unlikely that his partner will have had time to read it thoroughly and notice something unusual like Sandwich.

[sallyally]

"Is this a real world example where you were called to the table?"

 

Yes a team match hand three days ago

 

"If so, why? There's no way for us to evaluate whether N/S was damaged."

 

North/south maintained that they should have been told that the bid didn't specify that it might be light (not 15-17 hcps) and because it didn't, they didn't bid on as they would have had they known that. These were intermediate players (except for the 1nt bidder who was advanced)and sandwich nt is definitely not a commonly used convention in this particular group. The p didnt have any idea what the bid meant (not even the 5-5 dist, which the opps did know) and just passed throughout.

[awm]

To the extent that E/W have any agreement, it rests on the assumption that East's interpretation of "2/1 Standard" is the same as "West's interpretion of "2/1 Standard"...

I would argue that the ability to accurately guess what is/is not part of 2/1 standard falls under the broad category of "skill/knowledge" rather than "systemic agreement".

 

North / South should be told that they need to prove damage rather than bitch and moan...

West needs to be told that most people don't view sandwich NT (probably)as standard.

East needs to be told to answer "2/1 standard" any time anyone asks a question about methods...

 

Suppose you and I sit down and agree to play symmetric relay precision, without further discussion. You open 1♣, no alert. I make a positive response. We have a long relay auction, no alerts. If opponents happen to ask about any call, we respond "symmetric relay precision." I would argue that the ability to accurately guess what is/is not part of symmetric relay precision falls under the broad category of "skill/knowledge"......

 

I just don't think the rules should be different for 2/1. If I make a bid that I think is part of "2/1 standard" but which requires an alert under the conditions of contest, I better alert it and explain it... even if partner doesn't necessarily agree. For example, I know some people who think Bergen raises are part of "2/1 standard" and some who don't. This doesn't excuse anyone from the responsibility of alerting their Bergen raise.

 

Of course, whether there is damage from this MI is an entirely different issue which we can't resolve from the information given.

[hrothgar]

Suppose you and I sit down and agree to play symmetric relay precision, without further discussion. You open 1♣, no alert. I make a positive response. We have a long relay auction, no alerts. If opponents happen to ask about any call, we respond "symmetric relay precision." I would argue that the ability to accurately guess what is/is not part of symmetric relay precision falls under the broad category of "skill/knowledge"......

 

I just don't think the rules should be different for 2/1. If I make a bid that I think is part of "2/1 standard" but which requires an alert under the conditions of contest, I better alert it and explain it... even if partner doesn't necessarily agree. For example, I know some people who think Bergen raises are part of "2/1 standard" and some who don't. This doesn't excuse anyone from the responsibility of alerting their Bergen raise.

 

Of course, whether there is damage from this MI is an entirely different issue which we can't resolve from the information given.

 

Hi Adam

 

You're misinterpreting my point:

 

I claim that expressions like "standard", "SAYC", maybe even "2/1" have become so ill defined that they are, for all intents and purposes, meaningless.

 

If I sit down opposite some random individual whom I have never met and we agree that we are playing SAYC I have an expectation that we're playing 5 card majors and strong NT.

Beyond that, I really don't have a clue what's going to happen...

 

The expression "SAYC partner?" is a null operator.

I don't think that it can be construed to establish a partnership agreement.

[mycroft]

Unfortunately, there are four cases of "no agreement" or "2/1, pd? is our only agreement" (assume that there are only two cases, Natural and "some commonly played artificial bid"):

 

1. I guess natural, pard guesses natural. No problem.
   
2. I guess natural, pard guesses artificial. We lose, but that's what happens playing pickup. Find a partner, or go play in TGR or somewhere else where there's a defined system.
   
3. I guess artificial, pard guesses natural. Again, probably my loss (wasn't this time, but usually).
   
4. I guess artificial, pard guesses artificial. Problem, no?
   

 

the first and the last case are, in fact the same - the only difference is that in those "we're on the same page, so we got away with this 'non-agreement-agreement'" is that in the first case, you *have* disclosed your agreement according to regulations.

 

F-T-F, this works out a bit - "we have no agreement, but it's either X or Y in this club" The person giving the explanation is the one guessing. Online, with self-alerting, the person explaining is the one who knows which guess has been taken - and I think should say. Effectively, "you expect (not 100%, neh?) partner to get it, you should let the opponents in on the joke. you don't expect partner to get it, you shouldn't bid it."

 

General Bridge Knowledge: sure, in the club, there's a lot of GBK that isn't "how to play". At the ACBL Nationals, less so (I guarantee that Calgary style 2/1 and Ontario style 2/1 have lots of "that's just bridge" "no it's not" gaps; and that's just from personally playing in both environments). As a Canadian living in Poland (were I to), a lot less so (I have no idea what hands bid 1C-1D; 1H, for instance - I bet that's "GBK" to the rest of the room in Warsawa). Online, we're somewhere in the middle. A lot of what people claim is GBK is "well, everybody *here* plays this way". If you like, you can blame Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons for that, but I think it's the same (if less so) everywhere.

 

That same argument, going the other way, is why people playing non-standard systems are expected to be less vague about their knowledge - it's not that they're "having to do something the standard people aren't", it's that most of the time, the standard people's failure to do it doesn't cause a problem. When it does cause a problem - see Canadian in Poland above, for instance - they'll get nailed, too. I've given several "yes, everybody does it occasionally, and everybody's wrong when they do. Almost always it doesn't cause a problem, but this time it did, and we're penalizing you for it" rulings. Short version of that: "we all take shortcuts. You can't, not here. Other places, sure."

[bluejak]

Here is the key term that folks are debating: when is an alert required? If you are making a conventional call that you have not discussed with your partner, hoping that he understands, is that alertable?

Absolutely not.

 

"Is this a real world example where you were called to the table?"

 

Yes a team match hand three days ago

 

"If so, why? There's no way for us to evaluate whether N/S was damaged."

 

North/south maintained that they should have been told that the bid didn't specify that it might be light (not 15-17 hcps) and because it didn't, they didn't bid on as they would have had they known that. These were intermediate players (except for the 1nt bidder who was advanced)and sandwich nt is definitely not a commonly used convention in this particular group. The p didnt have any idea what the bid meant (not even the 5-5 dist, which the opps did know) and just passed throughout.

It was not alertable and the opponents should be told that is life.

[Cascade]

Here is the key term that folks are debating: when is an alert required? If you are making a conventional call that you have not discussed with your partner, hoping that he understands, is that alertable?

 

 

Absolutely not.

 

I don't think this is close to an absolute.

 

Discussion is not what makes something alertable. Agreement is what makes something alertable? Discussion is one way to come to an agreement. Agreements can be explicit (by discussion) or implicit (through similar experience etc). Whether implicit or explicit an alterable agreement requires an alert.

 

If there is no alert there is potential for misinformation. In such cases the law requires the director to assume misexplanation without contrary evidence. That is a much lower bar than 'discussion' before a conventional (and alertable) call requires an alert. So much so that I believe in most cases it is likely to be much safer to alert than not alert.

[blackshoe]

IME, there is almost always "evidence to the contrary" in potential MI situations.

 

Personally, I think that someone who makes an artificial or conventional call without prior discussion is foolish, to say the least, and not because of the possibility of MI, but because of what it may do to partnership trust. As far as the law is concerned, when there is "evidence to the contrary", whatever that evidence may be, and however credible it may be, the automatic "it was MI" ruling goes right out the window. The TD must now judge, on the preponderance of the evidence (which does not now include the presumption of MI) whether to rule MI or not MI.

 

When both members of a pair tell me that they have no expectation from partnership experience or discussion that the partner of a bidder who made a (foolish, see above) artificial or conventional bid would understand what it meant, and there is no evidence of a special understanding on their system cards, or in their system notes if those are available, and there is no evidence from prior TD calls of such an understanding, it seems to me that the preponderance of the evidence will often lie on the side of "not MI" rather than "MI". It would take some pretty convincing evidence of MI to overcome that.

[barmar]

We're talking about pick-up partnerships, right? How much "partnership experience" do they have? Since when do they have "system notes"? And "partnership trust" is not usually a concern, since the partnership is soon going to be history.

 

This is online bridge we're talking about, where people form partnerships a few minutes or seconds before the tournament starts, play 6-12 boards, and then the partnership dissolves forever. Once in a while they might have a good experience and agree to play together in the future -- then you can reasonably expect them to discuss agreements.

[blackshoe]

All true - and so what? None of it changes how the TD should go about deciding on a ruling. It may, of course, limit the evidence that the TD will be considering.

[Vampyr]

 

One of the players MIGHT load a CC that they use with new partners, but it's unlikely that his partner will have had time to read it thoroughly and notice something unusual like Sandwich.

 

This is one of the reasons that referring to one's own convention card should be explicitly permitted in online bridge. I hope that this will be included if OLB ever gets its own Lawbook.

[blackshoe]

One could make the same argument for f2f bridge, given how rarely anyone (around here anyway) looks at anyone's card.

[Vampyr]

One could make the same argument for f2f bridge, given how rarely anyone (around here anyway) looks at anyone's card.

 

I don't see the connection.