Alert or not?

[gnasher]

No, there are no detailed regulations in the form of "Alert X, don't alert Y", and in fact the rules (below) explicitly say that BBO isn't interested in making such rules.

 

BBO's position is apparently to rely on people using their common sense. That works fine until you come across someone who lacks any.

 

All members should understand that, due to the fact that we have members from all over the world as well as members of all levels of ability and experience, not all players will agree on which bids should be alerted and which bids should be considered "standard". The management of BBO is not going to get involved with trying to make rules in this area. It is up to our members to try their best to provide their opponents with information that may be helpful to them. Always remember that it is against the laws and spirit of the game of bridge to conceal information about your partnership agreements from your opponents.

 

The BBO software is designed so that players alert their own bids. This is called "self-alerting" and it is opposite to the approach that is used in live bridge clubs and tournaments. If you have any doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert.

[mrdct]

No, there are no detailed regulations in the form of "Alert X, don't alert Y", and in fact the rules (below) explicitly say that BBO isn't interested in making such rules.

 

BBO's position is apparently to rely on people using their common sense. That works fine until you come across someone who lacks any.

"Alert X, don't alert Y" type regulations are a recipe for disaster as the SBs out there will argue, "bid Z isn't listed in the regulations as alertable so I'm not going to alert it". The BBO rule is very clear, simple to apply and well backed-up by the general disclosure requirements in the laws.

[bluejak]

Vague rules like the BBO ones are a recipe for disaster because different people have completely different ideas as to what constitutes doubt and commonsense. All alert rules started out that way: the reason why authorities like the ACBL and EBU started making more complex regulations is because the simpler ones do not work.

 

Incidentally, I suggested BBO regs were not detailed and you disagreed. You made me waste a lot of time. There is no doubt they are not detailed. You seem to think clear means the same as detailed: it does not. BBO regs are perfectly clear, not at all detailed, very difficult to work with, and no doubt lead to lots of MI.

[helene_t]

Vague rules like the BBO ones are a recipe for disaster because different people have completely different ideas as to what constitutes doubt and commonsense. All alert rules started out that way: the reason why authorities like the ACBL and EBU started making more complex regulations is because the simpler ones do not work.

Maybe the BBO rules would be a recipe for disaster if applied to serious, f2f2, non-screen tournaments. But the situation is different on BBO and I think for BBO's purpose there is no alternative.

 

2/1 GF is explicitly alertable in EBU and explicitly not in NBB. Both organizations made reasonable decisions in this respect based on the local culture. But we can't have such detailed rules at bbo:

1) very few people will read and recall such detailed rules so they will only work if most people would follow them intuitively without knowing them.

2) the cultural differences here are too big for assumptions about which rules people would intuitively follow

3) it is not necessary to have detailed rules since the simple rule "alert everything unless it is obvious that it will serve no purpose to alert it" is adequate online (and behind screens).

[mrdct]

Vague rules like the BBO ones are a recipe for disaster because different people have completely different ideas as to what constitutes doubt and commonsense. All alert rules started out that way: the reason why authorities like the ACBL and EBU started making more complex regulations is because the simpler ones do not work.

 

Incidentally, I suggested BBO regs were not detailed and you disagreed. You made me waste a lot of time. There is no doubt they are not detailed. You seem to think clear means the same as detailed: it does not. BBO regs are perfectly clear, not at all detailed, very difficult to work with, and no doubt lead to lots of MI.

I can't begin to express how remorseful I am that I caused you to waste so much of your valuable time trying to locate the "help" button in the flash version. I fully understand why that would be the last place one would look.

 

Complicated alert regulations with pre-alerts, self-alerts, delayed-alerts and announcements may well have merit for bridge played without screens as alerting does create a lot of UI issues, but when playing online or with screens you just alert anything remotely alertable and you can't go wrong - particularly if you type your explanations in as you alert. But in my experience, most players don't have the time or inclination to wade through a 10 page document (that's how long the ABF Alerting Regulations are inclusive of a one and a half page executive summary) and we would all get a far better outcome if they just used the "if in doubt - alert' approach. The BBO regulations contain precisely the right amount of detail to describe that regime.

[Free]

When playing online you generally need to alert everything that might surprise opponents. Obviously this is very vague, because for some people something artificial is completely normal (for example a Polish 1♣ opening is standard in Poland, while it's not even played in some other countries), while something natural may be very strange (for example not playing transfers over a strong 1NT).

 

Here however, I don't think it's a difficult case. I expect most people to interprete 1♦-1♠ as forcing for one round, so when it's limited and NF it requires an alert.

[bluejak]

Of course I used the Help button. It did not help.

 

I really do not see why everything I post something I am assumed to have posted something completely different.

 

When did I suggest BBO have complicated alerting rules? Never.

 

When did I suggest this particular case has any problem? Never.

[barmar]

Maybe the BBO rules would be a recipe for disaster if applied to serious, f2f2, non-screen tournaments. But the situation is different on BBO and I think for BBO's purpose there is no alternative.

 

2/1 GF is explicitly alertable in EBU and explicitly not in NBB. Both organizations made reasonable decisions in this respect based on the local culture. But we can't have such detailed rules at bbo:

1) very few people will read and recall such detailed rules so they will only work if most people would follow them intuitively without knowing them.

2) the cultural differences here are too big for assumptions about which rules people would intuitively follow

3) it is not necessary to have detailed rules since the simple rule "alert everything unless it is obvious that it will serve no purpose to alert it" is adequate online (and behind screens).

OK, so I'm playing 2/1 GF. Am I expected to alert it?

 

I come from ACBL territory, where it's not alertable. I've never played in England, or any other area where 2/1 GF is alertable. So I have no reason to be "in doubt", and I don't alert it. Then my English opponent calls the TD, complaining about the lack of alert.

 

How should the TD rule? I followed the rule to the letter, yet my opponent's feeling of damage seems reasonable.

[ArtK78]

OK, so I'm playing 2/1 GF. Am I expected to alert it?

 

I come from ACBL territory, where it's not alertable. I've never played in England, or any other area where 2/1 GF is alertable. So I have no reason to be "in doubt", and I don't alert it. Then my English opponent calls the TD, complaining about the lack of alert.

 

How should the TD rule? I followed the rule to the letter, yet my opponent's feeling of damage seems reasonable.

 

No, your opponent's feeling of damage is not reasonable. If the rules of the venue in which you are playing state that 2/1 GF is not alertable, then it is not alertable. Your English opponent must adapt to the venue in which he is playing, just as you would have to adapt if you were playing in England.

[hrothgar]

 

Vague rules like the BBO ones are a recipe for disaster because different people have completely different ideas as to what constitutes doubt and commonsense. All alert rules started out that way: the reason why authorities like the ACBL and EBU started making more complex regulations is because the simpler ones do not work.

 

 

I'd like to focus on your use of the phrase "authorities like the ACBL and EBU".

 

I would suggest that BBO is nothing like either of these organization.

BBO has neither the interest nor the core competencies to serve as a regulatory body.

 

The analogy that I have seen most often is that BBO is a landlord who rents space to a large number of bridge clubs.

We don't expect our landloard to render rulings at a physical club.

Why would you ever expect Fred and Co to do the same on BBO?

 

It's true that there are some (very broad) guidelines, however, I'd argue that its a mistake to confuse these with a formal regulatory structure.

 

I also think that its a mistake to get overly concerned with rules (or lack there of) on the site as a whole. In my experience, top down regulatory structures don't work too well on the internet. If/when a working regulatory structure does emerge I think that it will record/describe a set of norms that have evolved over time rather than trying to impose something new. Moreover, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a fractured regulatory system with multiple competing standards.

 

I don't want to knock the work that Bluejak and Blackshoe are doing on this forum. I think that they provide a valuable service. At the same time, I often feel that these discussions might be a distractor.

 

Have either of you considered running one or more online games?

 

If you really want to influence the evolution of the game you need to leave the ivory tower and get your hands dirty. The best way to exert influence is to lead by example and demonstrate that you can walk the walk... (I also think that you would both benefit from some practical experience in the realities of directing online games)

 

I would welcome having a serious online club with qualified directors and would pay a premium sum for the opportunity to play in such a club.

[mjj29]

No, your opponent's feeling of damage is not reasonable. If the rules of the venue in which you are playing state that 2/1 GF is not alertable, then it is not alertable. Your English opponent must adapt to the venue in which he is playing, just as you would have to adapt if you were playing in England.

The venue is BBO. The rules of the venue are:

 

All members should understand that, due to the fact that we have members from all over the world as well as members of all levels of ability and experience, not all players will agree on which bids should be alerted and which bids should be considered "standard". The management of BBO is not going to get involved with trying to make rules in this area. It is up to our members to try their best to provide their opponents with information that may be helpful to them. Always remember that it is against the laws and spirit of the game of bridge to conceal information about your partnership agreements from your opponents.

 

The BBO software is designed so that players alert their own bids. This is called "self-alerting" and it is opposite to the approach that is used in live bridge clubs and tournaments. If you have any doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert.

 

So, should one alert 2/1 GF under those rules? That's the question.

[hrothgar]

So, should one alert 2/1 GF under those rules? That's the question.

 

One should ALWAYS alert EACH AND EVERY one of your bids...

This is the only way that one can be sure that no one is damaged by a failure to alert

 

On a more serious note...

 

Trying to use a binary flag - in this case an alert - to convey any kind of useful information on a site like BBO is nonsensical.

 

Consider the case that I just described in which individuals alert all of their bids.

From a practical perspective, there is no difference between this and a regime in which there are zero alerts.

 

We don't have an alert system because it gives folks a chance to say alert alot.

Nor is it a cudgel that we can wield to try to win events at appeals committees that we can't wun at the table.

 

The point of an alert system is to provide the opponent's with useful, actionable information.

I'd argue that this is an near impossible goal.

 

I suspect that all the problems that we have with alerts on BBO (primarily) reflect the inherent difficulty with turning screws when all you have available is a hammer...

[blackshoe]

There is a section of the Help area in the web client titled "Alert guidelines". It has this to say:

All members should understand that, due to the fact that we have members from all over the world as well as members of all levels of ability and experience, not all players will agree on which bids should be alerted and which bids should be considered "standard".

 

The management of BBO is not going to get involved with trying to make rules in this area. It is up to our members to try their best to provide their opponents with information that may be helpful to them. Always remember that it is against the laws and spirit of the game of bridge to conceal information about your partnership agreements from your opponents.

 

The BBO software is designed so that players alert their own bids. This is called "self-alerting" and it is opposite to the approach that is used in live bridge clubs and tournaments. 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, you are expected to answer them politely, even if you think the answer is obvious. An 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. It is innapropriate to use chat to explain your bids to your partner unless you get permission from the opponents first.

Note the second paragraph. BTW, it took me a while to find this.

[mrdct]

OK, so I'm playing 2/1 GF. Am I expected to alert it?

 

I come from ACBL territory, where it's not alertable. I've never played in England, or any other area where 2/1 GF is alertable. So I have no reason to be "in doubt", and I don't alert it. Then my English opponent calls the TD, complaining about the lack of alert.

 

How should the TD rule? I followed the rule to the letter, yet my opponent's feeling of damage seems reasonable.

Unless you were playing against people who you were absolutely certain knew you were playing 2/1 and understood the system, it would be clearly alertable under BBO rules as some doubt would surely exist about whether or not your opponents would understand what your 2/1 response or 1NT response meant. Simple rule: if in doubt you alert.

[Vampyr]

No, your opponent's feeling of damage is not reasonable. If the rules of the venue in which you are playing state that 2/1 GF is not alertable, then it is not alertable.

 

Right, so the BBO rules say nothing about it; is this comment relevant?

[helene_t]

OK, so I'm playing 2/1 GF. Am I expected to alert it?

 

I come from ACBL territory, where it's not alertable. I've never played in England, or any other area where 2/1 GF is alertable. So I have no reason to be "in doubt", and I don't alert it. Then my English opponent calls the TD, complaining about the lack of alert.

 

How should the TD rule? I followed the rule to the letter, yet my opponent's feeling of damage seems reasonable.

Whether 2/1 is alertable when playing face to face without screens in ACBL is irrelevant because alertability is different online than F2F. This is one very basic thing that online players really have to understand. In particular, even if you are used to not alerting at the 4-level and higher you must still alert through 7NT when playing online.

 

The question you should ask yourself is: is it plausible that failure to alert might damage opponents? Note that the answer probably isn't "no, because opps can protect themselves" because opps are entitled to expect that you alert much more online than F2F.

 

As for your specific question: pre-alert it. This is what most TDs say in the welcome message also: pre-alert your carding and general approach.

 

There could be issues with things like jump overcalls which are usually not pre-alerted, if you play a style which is universal in your part of the World while opps expect the style that is universal in their part of the world. Here I would personally say that people who play intermediate jump overcalls probably know that they are unusual on BBO so they should alert them. But if someone new to BBO who has never plaid outside his local club where everyone plays IJO fails to alert an IJO, tough luck.

 

At the end of the day, we have to rely on people's sense of sportsmanship:

- give full disclosure, sometimes beyond what you think the rules require. For example, even if you think (wrongly, as it happens) that you are entitled to not alerting Michaels', alert it anyway. Just in case that you are wrong, or that opps think that you are wrong.

- cater to opps not knowing the alert rules or having limited computer skills. So protect yourself.

- this is not serious competition and TDs are often overloaded. So if you are damaged by an infraction you will not always be compensated. Get used to that.

[helene_t]

Trying to use a binary flag - in this case an alert - to convey any kind of useful information on a site like BBO is nonsensical.

Maybe so but in that case you just explain what your call means. Unlike IRL bridge, when playing on BBO there is no excuse for just alerting when you know that what opps need is full disclosure.

 

That said, I think binary flags have their uses. If I have pre-alerted that we play some kind of SA or Acol or similar and I open 2♣ then I just alert it, meaning that it is artificial and that I expect that to be sufficient disclosure. Same with very common conventions like blackwood, FSF, Jacoby transfers.

[barmar]

Unless you were playing against people who you were absolutely certain knew you were playing 2/1 and understood the system, it would be clearly alertable under BBO rules as some doubt would surely exist about whether or not your opponents would understand what your 2/1 response or 1NT response meant. Simple rule: if in doubt you alert.

But I also have some doubt that they'd understand my natural 1♣ opening -- they might be from Poland, where I assume most players play some form of Polish Club. So should I also alert my 1♣?

 

In ACBL tourneys I enter my 15-17 NT range when bidding 1NT, because ACBL requires it. Do I have to do this in non-ACBL tourneys as well, in case the opponents are from places where weak NT is the norm?

[mrdct]

But I also have some doubt that they'd understand my natural 1♣ opening -- they might be from Poland, where I assume most players play some form of Polish Club. So should I also alert my 1♣?

If you are in genuine doubt you need to alert, but I'd suggest it's highly unlikely that anyone would misunderstand a natural 1♣ opening so I wouldn't hold such doubt. As a common courtesy, however, I would tell my opponents what my general system is at the start of the match or round.

 

In ACBL tourneys I enter my 15-17 NT range when bidding 1NT, because ACBL requires it. Do I have to do this in non-ACBL tourneys as well, in case the opponents are from places where weak NT is the norm?

It wouldn't hurt.

[helene_t]

But I also have some doubt that they'd understand my natural 1♣ opening -- they might be from Poland, where I assume most players play some form of Polish Club. So should I also alert my 1♣?

 

In ACBL tourneys I enter my 15-17 NT range when bidding 1NT, because ACBL requires it. Do I have to do this in non-ACBL tourneys as well, in case the opponents are from places where weak NT is the norm?

You state your general approach when you come to the table. If you are confident that the opponents then understand what your NT range is and that your minor suit opening are non-forcing 3+, then you don't need to alert them.

 

If you are not confident in that then you alert and give spontaneous explanation. Alerting a 1♣ opening without giving spontaneous explanation would do more harm than good since an alert suggests that it is artificial.

[mrdct]

You state your general approach when you come to the table. If you are confident that the opponents then understand what your NT range is and that your minor suit opening are non-forcing 3+, then you don't need to alert them.

 

If you are not confident in that then you alert and give spontaneous explanation. Alerting a 1♣ opening without giving spontaneous explanation would do more harm than good since an alert suggests that it is artificial.

Totally agree with all of that, although I would suggest that whilst it's not stated in the BBO rules, best practice is to type in your explanations as you alert which is what I always do.

[helene_t]

Totally agree with all of that, although I would suggest that whilst it's not stated in the BBO rules, best practice is to type in your explanations as you alert which is what I always do.

That is what I mean by "spontaneous explanation"

[Zelandakh]

I would be willing to state that I never heard of ANYONE who played a nonforcing 1 of a suit response to a one-level opening bid.

 

I play 1D - 1S as natural and non-forcing (with 1H as an invitational or better relay). It most certainly does require an alert.

[bluejak]

No, your opponent's feeling of damage is not reasonable. If the rules of the venue in which you are playing state that 2/1 GF is not alertable, then it is not alertable. Your English opponent must adapt to the venue in which he is playing, just as you would have to adapt if you were playing in England.

Exactly: and the very simple BBO alerting rules do not tell you whether 2/1 is alertable or not. So, how on earth do you "adapt to the venue in which you are playing" on BBO?

 

:ph34r:

 

I don't want to knock the work that Bluejak and Blackshoe are doing on this forum. I think that they provide a valuable service. At the same time, I often feel that these discussions might be a distractor.

 

Have either of you considered running one or more online games?

No, why should we? We are providing a service which does not include doing something totally different. I don't suppose either of us have considered running a golf club either.

[ggwhiz]

I had a different off-beat alerting problem in an ACBL speedball.

 

Partner opened 1♥ white in 3rd chair, I then mis-clicked on pass instead of 1nt having alerted said pass as semi-forcing!

 

Luckily, pard had a much better hand than they might have had in our style but this could easily job them out of a balancing bid and I might have felt the need to request an adjustment against myself.

 

I don't see any practical answer beyond treating these games as largely self policing where Director calls are rare and appeals don't exist as a Condition of Contest. State that upfront and you can always vote with your feet.