ACBL Alert

[masse24]

Quick question for you ACBL Directors.

 

A friend plays Precision. When she opens 1♦ she alerts "May be short".

 

However, in the version they play, it can never be shorter than a 3 card ♦ suit.

 

Should there still be an alert?

 

Thanks

[Phil]

No. Minor suit bids with an expected length of 3+ are not alert able.

[aguahombre]

Many Prec. players alert 1D because it is limited to 15 HCP regardless of the 3-cd minor thing. I don't know if the Law experts agree that it should be, but it seems like a good idea.

[Vampyr]

Many Prec. players alert 1D because it is limited to 15 HCP regardless of the 3-cd minor thing. I don't know if the Law experts agree that it should be, but it seems like a good idea.

 

Do they also alert their 1-Major openings?

[aguahombre]

Do they also alert their 1-Major openings?

The ones who alert their 1-bids because they are limited alert them all.

[Mbodell]

If the 1♦ is 3+ then it should not be alerted, unless by agreement it could be extremely light (in which case it should be pre-alerted) or unless it is forcing.

[blackshoe]

IMO those folks, in trying to be "super ethical" are doing more than the regulations require.

 

There is a statement in the alert regulations that "players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems that they may encounter at the bridge table", including Precision. A player who is prepared for Precision will be aware that a feature of the system is the 1 level (except clubs) suit and 2 level minor suit openings are limited to about 15 points. There should be no need (and is no requirement) to alert or pre alert these bids. Well, the two level bids do require an alert, but not because of the point count limit.

[bluejak]

People, who alert too much, even with the best of intentions, do the game a disservice. Too much alerting means alerts have less value. It is best generally to assume the authorities have it right and follow their statements as to what is alertable. Limited openings are not alertable in the EBU and ACBL.

[barmar]

People, who alert too much, even with the best of intentions, do the game a disservice. Too much alerting means alerts have less value.

That's true if you don't provide an explanation, since the opponents are likely to assume it's the common alert and not ask for an explanation. But on BBO you can (and I think should) provide an explanation when you alert, so the opponents don't have to ask. Unlike f2f bridge, there's no UI because partner never sees your explanations. So this is more like playing behind screens, and there's little downside to extra alerting.

[mrdct]

Assuming this question relates to a self-alerting environment of ACBL games played on BBO, under the BBO Rules (found via 'help' in the web client) all one-level openings in precision are absolutely 100% totally alertable as the prevailing guideline is "If you have any doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert". The fact that you have queried the alertability of this 3+ precision 1♦ opening establishes the existence of doubt and it should therefore be alerted. In face-to-face bridge the approach would be slightly different as if you have pre-alerted your system and it's reasonable to assume that your opponents are competent enough to understadn that 1♦ is limited, you could get away with not alerting but I would still recommend alerting to protect yourself.

[blackshoe]

In an ACBL game, the ACBL is the Regulating Authority, and ACBL rules apply. Aside from that, the BBO rules cannot have the force of regulation, since BBO has repeatedly disavowed any interest in being a Regulating Authority or Tournament Organizer.

[mrdct]

In an ACBL game, the ACBL is the Regulating Authority, and ACBL rules apply. Aside from that, the BBO rules cannot have the force of regulation, since BBO has repeatedly disavowed any interest in being a Regulating Authority or Tournament Organizer.

How would that work in a practical sense for ACBL games played on BBO in a self-alerting environment?

[blackshoe]

Ask Jacki. :)

[barmar]

How would that work in a practical sense for ACBL games played on BBO in a self-alerting environment?

You obey all the alert regulations except the part where it says that partner alerts your bid. It's similar to alerting behind screens.

[Cascade]

I treat an announcement as if the player must self alert and explain.

 

If an alert is required I wouldn't require the explanation unless there is a question. Although in practice most explain when they alert.

[barmar]

I wish we would just get rid of the "Alert" button. There's no good reason not to put the explanation in when alerting. The only time I find the alert button to be justified is when operating Vugraph, as I often can't see the explanations the players write to each other. Some operators write "alerted" in the explanation field for these.

[aguahombre]

On OKB, the alert symbol shows up in the bid diagram, and the explanation appears in the chat area. That makes the alert button valuable to the opponents, letting them know they should look at the chat screen for red stuff.

[barmar]

It's been years since I used OKB, but I thought it was similar to BBO in this regard: filling in the explanation automatically added the alert symbol.

 

But since we're talking about BBO here, what OKB does is irrelevant.

[aguahombre]

But since we're talking about BBO here, what OKB does is irrelevant.

Yes, I know that. Perhaps knowing what they do (and whether users like what they do) might be relevant to decisions about removing the alert button on BBO or merely changing what happens when it is used.

[Mbodell]

I wish we would just get rid of the "Alert" button. There's no good reason not to put the explanation in when alerting. The only time I find the alert button to be justified is when operating Vugraph, as I often can't see the explanations the players write to each other. Some operators write "alerted" in the explanation field for these.

 

Speed is one good reason. When playing on BBO and playing a system with a lot of alerts, particularly past the first round, I may make my bid and just hit alert. And then after I've made my bid while opponents are passing and partner is considering his bid I'll type in the explanation of my bid. Obviously the opponents can ask and/or wait for the explanation before making their bid, but often times they don't need it. But if I'm in the middle of a relay that will have 6 or 7 bids from each partner, waiting to type a complete explanation before making each bid makes the auction take a lot longer than just alerting and filling in the explanations post-bid.

[peachy]

Quick question for you ACBL Directors.

 

A friend plays Precision. When she opens 1♦ she alerts "May be short".

 

However, in the version they play, it can never be shorter than a 3 card ♦ suit.

 

Should there still be an alert?

 

Thanks

 

What other changes has this pair made in their Precision system? If a lot, probably best not call it Precision as the requirement to have at least three diamonds for a 1D opening might have repercussions to their other openings, and the opponents are in no position to figure out any inferences themselves if all they know that the pair plays "Precision".

[bluejak]

Precision is a very general title. Basically it means a strong club, five-card majors, natural responses to 1♣. You cannot really read more than that into it. Original basic Precision included a natural 1♦.

 

There might be a case for alerting the 1♦ on the grounds of it being unusual enough. But I doubt it, and "could be short" is completely inappropriate.

[awm]

If the 1♦ opening can include 1435 types (i.e. 3♦ and 5♣) it seems sufficiently unexpected that it might be an alert.

[blackshoe]

If the 1♦ opening can include 1435 types (i.e. 3♦ and 5♣) it seems sufficiently unexpected that it might be an alert.

I don't think this is correct under ACBL rules, which specify that players are expected to be familiar with common systems, including specifically Precision.

[aguahombre]

I don't think this is correct under ACBL rules, which specify that players are expected to be familiar with common systems, including specifically Precision.

I truly hope that those rules were intended to cover the fact that an opening 1-bid might be limited and that they should prepare whatever gadgets they choose vs a strong club --- not as an excuse for failure to disclose a 1D opening which might contact two or three more clubs than diamonds.

 

I don't see a caveat in "unexpected" which gives strong clubbers carte blanche, although some directors seem to go out of their way to protect failures to alert with "he should have asked."