How to ensure ops are aware of alert

[SimonFa]

EBU jurisdiction.

 

A little bit of bad blood over an incident last night.

 

I dealt:

 

1NT - (2♦) - X* - (P)

2♥ - (P) - 4♥ - All pass

 

I alerted partners bid by tapping the alert card on the boards in the middle of the table and muttering I'm alerting that (because its common in this club). At the end of the bidding LHO asked about the double which was explained as Stolen Bid ie partner would have bid 2♦given the chance and that it was a transfer.

 

After I had made a the close contract RHO said, rather accusingly, that I should have alerted partner's double, LHO said that it was to which RHO muttered that she hadn't been aware. Whilst that was the end of the incident the next 2 boards were a bit icy.

 

Anyway, I am aware that I am responsible for making ops aware that I have alerted a bid, but how far should I go?

 

This was the first board of the night and RHO was faffing about organising convention cards and bidding boxes, even though we had been sat there for about 15 minutes waiting to start.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Simon

[aguahombre]

Regardless of jursdiction, there would be a question about what you meant by "muttering". If you had said "uttering", it would seem you had done your job. This is an opinion/impression, not an attempt to make up a regulation.

 

Some players really go out of their way to assure themselves that the opps noticed the alert; some just go through the routine. I am always impressed by opponents who make eye contact with us while alerting as if we are real people rather than objects they must endure. (Boyd/Robinson are a good example.)

[ahydra]

The "eye contact" thing is a good mantra to go by. Look up at the opps when saying "I'm alerting that" or waving the alert card around and make sure both are paying attention. If not, get their attention - maybe even whack them on the head with the alert card if necessary :) !

 

In this case though, if I was a TD, I would not be awarding anything for damage based on "failure to alert" - one of the opps did see/hear the alert, after all.

 

ahydra

[mrdct]

Definately "eye contact" is the way to go - it's pretty much the only way you can be sure that your alert has been seen.

[blackshoe]

Whether a rectification should be made in such a case may depend on the alert regulations in force. OB 5B7 says in part "It is the responsibility of the alerting player to ensure that BOTH of his opponents are aware of the alert." So not "failure to alert" but "failure to ensure both opponents were aware of the alert".

[nige1]

In the UK, a player usually ostentatiously faces his alert card as if it were his next call (or places it in the centre of the table). He leaves it face-up until just before he makes his next call.

[mrdct]

In Australia we have an even better system called "written bidding" where the alerted bid gets a circle drawn around it so there is never any doubt or dispute as to whether or not a bid had been alerted; although bidding boxes are making some inroads now and are used in a small minority of clubs and some of our major national events.

 

I know a lot of leading TDs in Australia strongly favour written bidding as it eliminates all disputes about what the auction was and which bids were alerted and gives the TD a written record of the auction that he can take away from the table to consider his ruling without having to transcribe it.

[Mbodell]

In Australia we have an even better system called "written bidding" where the alerted bid gets a circle drawn around it so there is never any doubt or dispute as to whether or not a bid had been alerted; although bidding boxes are making some inroads now and are used in a small minority of clubs and some of our major national events.

 

I know a lot of leading TDs in Australia strongly favour written bidding as it eliminates all disputes about what the auction was and which bids were alerted and gives the TD a written record of the auction that he can take away from the table to consider his ruling without having to transcribe it.

 

I'm curious about the written bidding. Is there ever issues with either handwriting that is very difficult to read/understand or concerns about different writing styles (if my 1 is just a line I'm weaker but if it has a hood and base, I'm stronger, etc.)? It seems like there would be similar concerns to tone of voice with spoken bidding when you have written bidding.

[Cascade]

I'm curious about the written bidding. Is there ever issues with either handwriting that is very difficult to read/understand or concerns about different writing styles (if my 1 is just a line I'm weaker but if it has a hood and base, I'm stronger, etc.)? It seems like there would be similar concerns to tone of voice with spoken bidding when you have written bidding.

 

In my experience relatively rare.

 

I have heard of one high profile case where there was a suspicion that a pair were using some code based on written bidding. I do not know anything official or whether there was ever any finding or even proper investigation.

 

These sort of issues could easily occur with bidding boxes. I have seen a player who I believe deliberately conveyed UI with his use of the bidding boxes.

 

Occasionally there is someone whose writing is hard to read. I have seen only a couple (or at most a handful) of examples in 20 years where there was a problem that was not immediately resolved with a question about what was actually bid. The ones i remember were once as a player I mistook my opponents 3D for 5D when the straight line at the top of the three was written over the printed square on the bidding pad. And once as a director I had to rule when a player had written "d" when the correct form by regulation is "D". Again the upright of the "d" was written on the line on the square on the printed pad and was mistaken for a "c".

 

Against this it is hard to have a mispull. Of which i have had several although fortunately usually behind screens. Most of the mispulls have been when a card stuck to the card that i was pulling. I am not sure if there is some fault in the design of some of these cards so that they frequently stick together but it has certainly happened to me a large number of times which I have usually corrected before the bid hits the table.

 

Personally I prefer the visual experience of bidding cards but I think that there are significant advantages to written bidding.

[nige1]

In Australia we have an even better system called "written bidding" where the alerted bid gets a circle drawn around it so there is never any doubt or dispute as to whether or not a bid had been alerted; although bidding boxes are making some inroads now and are used in a small minority of clubs and some of our major national events. I know a lot of leading TDs in Australia strongly favour written bidding as it eliminates all disputes about what the auction was and which bids were alerted and gives the TD a written record of the auction that he can take away from the table to consider his ruling without having to transcribe it.

I'm curious about the written bidding. Is there ever issues with either handwriting that is very difficult to read/understand or concerns about different writing styles (if my 1 is just a line I'm weaker but if it has a hood and base, I'm stronger, etc.)? It seems like there would be similar concerns to tone of voice with spoken bidding when you have written bidding.

In my experience relatively rare. I have heard of one high profile case where there was a suspicion that a pair were using some code based on written bidding. I do not know anything official or whether there was ever any finding or even proper investigation. These sort of issues could easily occur with bidding boxes. I have seen a player who I believe deliberately conveyed UI with his use of the bidding boxes. Occasionally there is someone whose writing is hard to read. I have seen only a couple (or at most a handful) of examples in 20 years where there was a problem that was not immediately resolved with a question about what was actually bid. The ones i remember were once as a player I mistook my opponents 3D for 5D when the straight line at the top of the three was written over the printed square on the bidding pad. And once as a director I had to rule when a player had written "d" when the correct form by regulation is "D". Again the upright of the "d" was written on the line on the square on the printed pad and was mistaken for a "c". Against this it is hard to have a mispull. Of which i have had several although fortunately usually behind screens. Most of the mispulls have been when a card stuck to the card that i was pulling. I am not sure if there is some fault in the design of some of these cards so that they frequently stick together but it has certainly happened to me a large number of times which I have usually corrected before the bid hits the table. Personally I prefer the visual experience of bidding cards but I think that there are significant advantages to written bidding.

Written bidding seems a superior system for the reasons mentioned by mrdct and cascade. Even in the cases where pair are suspected of conveying information by varying their handwriting, it provides physical evidence that can be independently examined. It would trivially eliminate the common problem, high-lighted by SimonFA.

[Cyberyeti]

I suspect it would be better if the alert card were left in front of the alerter until removed by LHO before they bid. At that point it's not the alerter's fault if RHO doesn't see it.

[AlexJonson]

I suspect it would be better if the alert card were left in front of the alerter until removed by LHO before they bid. At that point it's not the alerter's fault if RHO doesn't see it.

 

I think there is an ingrained resistance to allowing a player to handle an opponents cards (playing or bidding related).

[barmar]

There was a thread about a month ago containing extensive discussion of the written bidding issues, we probably don't need to rehash it here.

 

Back to the question in this thread, if you can see that one of the opponents is still busy organizing themselves and not paying attention, you should either get their attention ("Mary, did you see my alert?") or wait until they're settled and then alert again.

 

But that said, you're hardly expected to be a perfect mind reader. If you have no reason to believe that she missed the alert, you've done your duty. However, that doesn't mean the TD will rule in your favor. Sometimes you do the best you can and still get ruled against.

[AlexJonson]

... Sometimes you do the best you can and still get ruled against.

 

 

I believe what you say is true of alerting in the EBU even though it defies reason.

[barmar]

When the TD has to make rulings based on he-said-she-said testimony, he often has to just guess which one sounds more likely.

[Vampyr]

"I'm alerting that" is improper and strange. The correct terminology is "alert".

[bluejak]

It is?

[barmar]

If I'm slow to alert (e.g. after RHO has called), I'm likely to say something like "Oh, I should have alerted that." But If I'm just alerting routinely, I can't imagine saying anything other than "Alert". However, I think I've occasionally (but rarely) encountered players who extend it to a brief sentence like "I'm alerting that."

 

As long as they're consistent about it, I wouldn't make a fuss. If not, there's a small possibility they're using the form of alert as an illegal signalling system.

[aguahombre]

For ACBL, the correct terminology is, in fact, "alert". Addition verbage, for those who enjoy hearing themselves, is not addressed in the procedures; so, at least in this jurisdiction, it is not illegal.

[blackshoe]

I think that's viewing the laws and regulations rather backwards, Agua. I think it's "That which is not specifically allowed is prohibited", rather than "That which is not specifically prohibited is allowed". It is certainly true that when the regulation specifies that the correct procedure is to say "alert", saying anything else, either instead of or in addition to "alert" is not correct procedure and is extraneous.

[aguahombre]

O.K., but the procedure merely explains what the alerting person does. He/she "says alert". I thought that was not a command to only say alert; even though I would like it to be one.

 

Seems if they wanted it to be the only thing said, they would have used "should", "must", "shall" some other way of insisting. Would much prefer that Blackshoe is right about that.

 

Bluejack doesn't seem so sure for EBU.

[bluejak]

The term "alert" is only accepted by regulation for someone unable to alert in any other way, and even then it is only recommended. I know some people say "alert", but as in the other thread this is merely an accepted misdemeanour, not correct practice, so if it goes wrong a player who says "alert" unnecessarily must expect to be ruled against.

[blackshoe]

Are speaking of the EBU specifically, David?

[barmar]

If they didn't mean "say 'Alert'" to be exclusive, I think they would have written "say 'Alert' or words to that effect". Without such limitation, by agua's logic, you can say anything; after all, the alert regulations don't say you can't say "Foo".

 

I still think that if someone says something that is obviously equivalent to "Alert", and they're consistent about it, I wouldn't complain. However, if I were directing and someone called me to the table over this, I would instruct the player on the proper procedure, but I wouldn't penalize them unless they ignored my instructions.

[bluejak]

Are speaking of the EBU specifically, David?

Sure, but the thread was an EBU problem.

 

I think the difference comes from the fact that without bidding boxes, the alerting method in the ACBL is to say "Alert" but in England it is to tap the table.