No Alert Required

[barmar]

Also, most (all?) WBF tournaments are played with screens. This allows for much more liberal alerting than would be appropriate in typical tournament or club settings.

[blackshoe]

Many players would find the WBF alerting regulations particularly onerous, since the first rule is "Conventional bids should be alerted" That means that you have to alert Stayman, for example.

And takeout doubles, but I'm willing to bet no-one does that, even under WBF regs.

[Statto]

They could, but why should they? The purpose of an alert is to tell the opponents that the bid has an unexpected meaning. What is expected varies around the world, so it's sensible for the alerting rules to vary too.

What is unexpected varies also from county to county, club to club, person to person, and system to system. Why not go for logical and simple rules? Who am I to say what might be expected or unexpected in your club?

[Vampyr]

What is unexpected varies also from county to county, club to club, person to person, and system to system. Why not go for logical and simple rules? Who am I to say what might be expected or unexpected in your club?

 

Who indeed? This is why alerting regulations are best left in (reasonably) local hands.

[gnasher]

What is unexpected varies also from county to county, club to club, person to person, and system to system. Why not go for logical and simple rules? Who am I to say what might be expected or unexpected in your club?

By advocating that my club use the WBF alert rules, you are saying what is expected or unexpected here.

 

In many clubs in England a 15-17 notrump is unexpected; in most clubs in North America 12-14 is unexpected. Which range do you think should be alerted?

Edited May 4, 2012 by gnasher

[gnasher]

And takeout doubles, but I'm willing to bet no-one does that, even under WBF regs.

 

If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following:

All doubles.

Takeout doubles are in theory alertable when using screens, but I'm sure you're right that nobody does. That isn't the only daft regulation that is routinely ignored.

[blackshoe]

That isn't the only daft regulation that is routinely ignored.

Sam Adams: When the law is an ass, the best thing to do is ignore it.

Problem is, Sam was a radical revolutionary, and he wasn't playing a game. "Daft" or not, in bridge you ignore the rules at your peril. I grant you ignoring this one is unlikely to get you in much trouble. Perhaps it should.

[barmar]

What is unexpected varies also from county to county, club to club, person to person, and system to system. Why not go for logical and simple rules? Who am I to say what might be expected or unexpected in your club?

You seem to have it backwards. If you don't know what's unexpected, you should NOT try to set the alerting rules.

 

I don't know about other jurisdictions, but in ACBL clubs are permitted to set their own allowed conventions and alerting rules. Most don't bother, and simply adopt the ACBL rules for simplicity. But WBF rules, which require alerting almost everything, would be inappropriate, since they were designed with a different constituency and playing environment in mind.

 

Your idea trades off usefulness for simplicity.

[gnasher]

"Daft" or not, in bridge you ignore the rules at your peril. I grant you ignoring this one is unlikely to get you in much trouble. Perhaps it should.

I tend to agree about obeying the rules, and I'm usually law-abiding, but I think it's reasonable to ignore a rule that not only serves no purpose but also imposes inconvenience on the players. Alerting takeout doubles of one-level openings is ridiculous.

 

This would be especially true if players also followed the WBF alerting procedure, which is: "The alert must be made by placing the Alert Card over the last call of the screen-mate, in his segment of the bidding tray; the alerted player must acknowledge by returning the Alert Card to his opponent." Luckily, nobody does that either.

[blackshoe]

Following that procedure would certainly avoid any claims of "I didn't see any alert". :P

[Cthulhu D]

By advocating that my club use the WBF alert rules, you are saying what is expected or unexpected here.

 

In many clubs in England a 15-17 notrump is unexpected; in most clubs in North America 12-14 is unexpected. Which range do you think should be alerted?

 

Wouldn't it be much simpler to exchange convention cards and not alert any NT bid that doesn't contain unbalanced hands, discontiguous ranges or is otherwise conventional?

[Vampyr]

Wouldn't it be much simpler to exchange convention cards and not alert any NT bid that doesn't contain unbalanced hands, discontiguous ranges or is otherwise conventional?

 

This has the potential to bring back some of the UI problems the announcement was intended to prevent. If you look at the card to find out the range, then you cared what it was.

[nige1]

If partner almost always replies to your one opener, no matter how weak his hand, IMO, you should alert his reply. Perhaps a professional playing in a professional circle, may plead "General Bridge Knowledge and Experience" but in other contexts, it is normal to pass on very weak hands.

 

If the rules stipulated that you announce all partner's calls, unless opponents explicitly forbid, then most problems would disappear.

[gnasher]

Wouldn't it be much simpler to exchange convention cards and not alert any NT bid that doesn't contain unbalanced hands, discontiguous ranges or is otherwise conventional?

That's another example of a regulation that would work well in some countries but not in others. Have you ever played in an ACBL event?

[nige1]

That's another example of a regulation that would work well in some countries but not in others. Have you ever played in an ACBL event?

I've never been to America but I'm told that the ACBL have their own strange ideas e.g. about stop-cards and enforcement of disclosure-rules. That might be OK if the WBF just let them get on with their "Fairy Bridge" variant. Unfortunately, the WBF is adopting retrograde ACBL practices such as allowing defenders to ask "having none?"

[gnasher]

Unfortunately, the WBF is adopting retrograde ACBL practices such as allowing defenders to ask "having none?"

I'm not sure why you single out the WBF for criticism over this. The English Bridge Union and the Scottish Bridge Union have also both chosen to adopt this practice.

[nige1]

I'm not sure why you single out the WBF for criticism over this. The English Bridge Union and the Scottish Bridge Union have also both chosen to adopt this practice.

I'm told that the ACBL insisted on being allowed to ask. Other legislatures would probably like to go back to the old-fashioned principle of restricting partnership-communication to calls made and cards played, They may be worried, however, about what sanction they may legally impose on a player who obstinately asks "having none?". Under the old law, I believe the question was deemed to establish the revoke (if any),

[gnasher]

I'm told that the ACBL insisted on being allowed to ask. Other legislatures would probably like to go back to the old-fashioned principle of restricting partnership-communication to calls made and cards played, They may be worried, however, about what sanction they may legally impose on a player who obstinately asks "having none?". Under the old law, I believe the question was deemed to establish the revoke (if any),

Why do you keep implying that non-ACBL legislatures were forced to adopt this rule? This is simply untrue.

 

Under the 1997 laws, the regulating authority (RA) could decide whether to allow a defender to ask his partner if he has revoked. Under the 2007 laws, the RA can still decide whether to allow a defender to ask his partner if he has revoked.

 

The 2007 Laws didn't in any way restrict an RA's right to allow or disallow this. In fact, the 2007 laws increased the RA's powers in this area, because the 1997 Laws stipulated the penalty for an improper question, whereas the RA can now make its own decision about that.

 

Nobody forced Scotland, England or any other country to allow this type of question: they chose to. If you're unhappy with what the SBU did, blame the SBU, not the ACBL.

 

The only non-ACBL rules that might have been influenced by the opinions of ACBL representatives are the regulations for USBF and WBF events. As you are ineligible for the former and never play in the latter, I don't see why that should give you cause for complaint.

[nige1]

Why do you keep implying that non-ACBL legislatures were forced to adopt this rule? This is simply untrue.

I detailed my understanding of the truth of the matter, without spurious implication. IMO: it's a retrograde step to allow a player to ask. gnasher is welcome to his opinion.

[gnasher]

I detailed my understanding of the truth of the matter, without spurious implication. IMO: it's a retrograde step to allow a player to ask. gnasher is welcome to his opinion.

OK, can you give me an example of one of the "Other legislatures" that "would probably like to go back to the old-fashioned principle of restricting partnership-communication to calls made and cards played"? And then tell me why, according to your understanding, they haven't done so?

[Vampyr]

OK, can you give me an example of one of the "Other legislatures" that "would probably like to go back to the old-fashioned principle of restricting partnership-communication to calls made and cards played"? And then tell me why, according to your understanding, they haven't done so?

 

I have been told that the EBU would rather have kept the 1997 law, but that since the new laws stipulate no penalty, the option of disallowing the question has no teeth.

 

I always thought that the EBU could stipulate an automatic PP, but perhaps that is not legal.

[nige1]

OK, can you give me an example of one of the "Other legislatures" that "would probably like to go back to the old-fashioned principle of restricting partnership-communication to calls made and cards played"? And then tell me why, according to your understanding, they haven't done so?

I have been told that the EBU would rather have kept the 1997 law, but that since the new laws stipulate no penalty, the option of disallowing the question has no teeth. I always thought that the EBU could stipulate an automatic PP, but perhaps that is not legal.

I'm not privy to the deliberations of laws-committees; but my impression from directors is the same as vampyr's. Frances Hinden may be able to clarify.

[gnasher]

I have been told that the EBU would rather have kept the 1997 law, but that since the new laws stipulate no penalty, the option of disallowing the question has no teeth.

 

I always thought that the EBU could stipulate an automatic PP, but perhaps that is not legal.

The offence would be a breach of procedure, and therefore subject to procedural penalty, just like any other breach of procedure.

 

If the offence caused damage, it would be subject to adjustment, just like any other offence that causes damage. The effect of asking the question would be to save the offending side from a revoke penalty. To restore equity, the adjustment should simply reinstate this revoke penalty. (Or, strictly speaking, play would continue without penalty, then at the end of the hand the score would be adjusted to the one that would have been obtained if the revoke penalty had been applied.)

 

It's possible that some regulatory authorities were too lazy or too stupid to work this out, but I don't see why the ACBL should be blamed for that.

 

If they were in doubt, they could also have tried reading Ton Kooijman's commentary on the 2007 Laws:

the regulating authority may prohibit this question. If it does so, it would also need to decide what should happen if a player asks about a possible revoke. Contrary to the previous edition of the laws, this is not regulated anymore. It seems reasonable to describe a procedural penalty and not to convert such an infraction into an established revoke.

It's clear from this that he believes it to be legal to convert the infraction into an established revoke, though he prefers a different approach.

 

Edit: Note that I'm not saying that anyone actually was lazy or stupid - the EBU, SBU, and other organisations may well have had good reasons, different from the one suggested by Vampyr, for the decision they made about this law.

[Cthulhu D]

That's another example of a regulation that would work well in some countries but not in others. Have you ever played in an ACBL event?

 

Ha, no. That said, it makes logical sense to alert or announce both or neither. I forgot about announce before because I play in a jurisdiction with no announcements. Despite my ignorance, I'm confident that the ACBL's problem with convention cards is linked to having the private score on the convention card (why is this the case anyway? That is total madness)

[kenberg]

I'm confident that the ACBL's problem with convention cards is linked to having the private score on the convention card (why is this the case anyway? That is total madness)

 

 

At times I have dealt with this by recording the result for board x on line y. Other times I write small and cryptically. Lately I play less and have become careless about such things. Or maybe I am just recovering from a bout with paranoia.