Alerting Doubles

[jallerton]

Remember the bad old days when Stayman was alerted? All 2♣ responses to 1NT were alerted, so no-one bothered asking and would occasionally get caught out when opponents were playing Keri or something.

 

Yes, during the bad good old days before 1st August 2006, we also alerted a 4♥ response to 1NT showing spades, a 4♣ overcall of a 3♠ opening showing 5/5 in hearts and clubs, and a 4♣ overcall of a 3♠ opening showing 5/5 in hearts and diamonds. Currently, players are not permitted to alert any of these and "almost no-one" thinks to ask about natural sounding unalerted calls.

[Vampyr]

Thank you Vampyr. Do you have a link to anything relevant? (Again AFAIR) They wrongly believed that their hand-written efforts would comply with the rules. Thanks again :)

 

It was discussed in this thread.

[Vampyr]

Yes, during the bad good old days before 1st August 2006, we also alerted a 4♥ response to 1NT showing spades, a 4♣ overcall of a 3♠ opening showing 5/5 in hearts and clubs, and a 4♣ overcall of a 3♠ opening showing 5/5 in hearts and diamonds. Currently, players are not permitted to alert any of these and "almost no-one" thinks to ask about natural sounding unalerted calls.

 

Yes, it is too bad first-round actions above 3NT were not made alertable.

[gnasher]

Thank you Vampyr. Do you have a link to anything relevant? (Again AFAIR) They wrongly believed that their hand-written efforts would comply with the rules. Thanks again :)

The incident involving the Singaporean juniors was in an ACBL event.

[jallerton]

Thank you Vampyr. Do you have a link to anything relevant? (Again AFAIR) They wrongly believed that their hand-written efforts would comply with the rules. Thanks again :)

 

Try this one

 

Edit: I now see that Vampyr has just posted the same link.

[gnasher]

Yes, it is too bad first-round actions above 3NT were not made alertable.

I don't think the problem is confined to first-round actions. Sometime last year I heard my opponents bid:

1

♦

-1

♠

3

♦

-4

♠

so I started thinking about what to lead. Then it continued

5

♦

-6

♦

and partner was on lead. It turned out that 4S was a Keycard ask for diamonds. Had I known that, I would have doubled 4♠ for the lead.

I think the whole idea of not alerting above 3NT is ill-conceived. When you make a conventional bid, the opponents are entitled to be told that it's conventional, at the time that it occurs, without having to give away information about their hands.

[Vampyr]

I think the whole idea of not alerting above 3NT is ill-conceived.

 

I think that one of the reasons was to eliminate the two-way 4NT convention...

 

When you make a conventional bid, the opponents are entitled to be told that it's conventional, at the time that it occurs, without having to give away information about their hands.

 

...but it looks like solving that problem has created others.

[pran]

Yes, it is too bad first-round actions above 3NT were not made alertable.

In Norway first round conventional calls (i.e. a conventional call by a player who has not already called on that board) shall be alerted regardless of level. (With screens "alerts" apply "way out".)

[aguahombre]

In Norway first round conventional calls (i.e. a conventional call by a player who has not already called on that board) shall be alerted regardless of level. (With screens "alerts" apply "way out".)

Interesting wording. It seems to be the same as the ACBL, but it isn't.

 

P P 1H P

4C! Is alertable in the ACBL; but since PASS is a call, it would not be in Norway.

[pran]

Interesting wording. It seems to be the same as the ACBL, but it isn't.

 

P P 1H P

4C! Is alertable in the ACBL; but since PASS is a call, it would not be in Norway.

Sorry, my error:

 

The precise rule is:

 

Calls not to be alerted:

 

...

Calls above 3NT, except conventional calls up to (but not including) opener's second call.

 

So in your example the 4C bid shall be alerted if it is conventional.

[nige1]

It was discussed in this thread.

Try this one Edit: I now see that Vampyr has just posted the same link.

And thick and fast they came at last,

And more, and more, and more –

All hopping through the frothy waves,

And scrambling to the shore.

Thank you both

The incident involving the Singaporean juniors was in an ACBL event.

:( So gnasher was right all along :(

[bluejak]

To me, and most other players, accepting a Jacoby transfer to spades does not show willingness to play in spades, and it certainly doesn't when the context of the auction comes into play

Many many discussions here, on RGB, on BLML, and in emails I have dealt with over the years have proved this to be quite untrue. Accepting a Jacoby transfer is considered a willingness to play in that suit by a large number of very voluble people, and is considered not as a willingness to play but as accepting an instruction by a similarly large number of very voluble people.

 

Let's keep in mind that the Orange Book is supposed to be a communication to the players in the EBU on how the game of bridge is supposed to be played there. Communications to the players should be clear and easy to understand for all players, who are people of all skills and trades. It's clear that the OB doesn't meet that standard.

The OB is a work of reference, like the telephone directory. The suggestion that its main purpose should be to make it easy to read seems very strange to me. It's main purpose should be to provide a framework for the game in this country, which it does pretty well, especially when compared with similar documents elsewhere.

 

:ph34r:

 

I have skimmed through a lot of stuff written here on alerting. I wonder whether some of the posters really play bridge at all. Is the alerting of doubles in England perfect? No. Is it adequate? Yes. Does it suffer from major defects? No. Is it better than the alerting of doubles in, for example, Scotland? Yes, considerably. Do we need to change it because some people find some odd problems? No.

 

Should we adopt Nigel's ideas for world-wide alerting? No. Why not? Because people would hate them, especially being forced to use bad regulations designed for different environments. The main effect of adopting Nigel's ideas would be to reduce the numbers of people who bother with regulations and the number of people who play bridge.

[nige1]

Do you always ask in England, where in practice almost all cuebids are alerted? (equivalent, in information terms, of course, to no cuebids being alerted)

???

[nige1]

Should we adopt Nigel's ideas for world-wide alerting? No. Why not? Because people would hate them, especially being forced to use bad regulations designed for different environments. The main effect of adopting Nigel's ideas would be to reduce the numbers of people who bother with regulations and the number of people who play bridge.

There may well be better suggestions than mine, but players would probably like simpler, clearer, global rules. They might even help to reverse Bridge's current decline.

[mycroft]

Situations where all meanings of a call are Alertable are prime fodder for Announcements, if the idea of not Alerting a conventional call is not acceptable.

 

Situations where all meanings of a call are Alertable mean that the Alert is zero-information; equivalent to having no meanings Alertable (especially if there is a "overwhelmingly likely" Alertable meaning). It is certainly *acceptable* to have zero-information Alerts, if it means that the overall Alerting structure is simpler and more useful information is processed by Alerts *in general*; but other solutions that will get the same overall outcome while minimizing zero- or minimal-information situations are worth looking into.

 

The problem with introducing Announcements, of course, is that people - even people who should know better - extend them to situations where they *aren't* "the expected Alert"; and frequently into situations where the Announcement assists the caller "oh, partner did get it" better than the opponents. I cite the ACBL example (especially the universal 1NT-2♠ "Transfer") as proof. The other thing that happens (vice the ACBL, again) is that people who have to Announce "but everybody plays it" calls don't, and gripe about having to - which boils down to the argument that players want exceptions to "conventional calls are Alertable" in the "but everybody plays it" situations. Some RAs answer this by saying "yeah, that makes sense" (and then players extend what's "played by everybody" way too far); some answer it by saying "yes, it's an Auto-Alert/Auto-Announcement, but really, the day you hit someone who *doesn't* play it, you'll thank us." and accept the "why should we" grumbles as "can't please anybody". Both approaches are sensible, and unfortunately for Nigel, once trained in one, it's "stupid" to go the other way. Either way.

[Vampyr]

There may well be better suggestions than mine, but players would probably like simpler, clearer, global rules.

 

Simpler, clearer, compared to what? You regard the Orange Book as unnecessarily complex, but we have not heard from a single other EBU member who does not like it in general and consider it far better than similar regulations in other countries. These people are "players". And they don't want what you say they would probably like.

 

Global? For what possible reason? It had better be a good one, considering all the people that would be made very unhappy by this. (To wit, pretty much everyone outside the ACBL, since their regulations would be the ones adopted.)

[Trinidad]

Situations where all meanings of a call are Alertable mean that the Alert is zero-information; equivalent to having no meanings Alertable (especially if there is a "overwhelmingly likely" Alertable meaning).

Such thinking in zeros and ones ("alertable" vs "non-alertable") is completely neglecting what an alert actually means.

 

An alert does NOT mean: "Since I alerted, the call will not have the non-alertable meaning."

 

An alert means: "The call has a meaning that you may not expect."

 

For some calls there simply is no expected meaning. Then it is entirely natural to alert and tell the opponents: "Please ask".

 

There is a big difference between asking the meaning of alerted calls and asking the meaning of calls that were not alerted. For many players, it is absolutely normal to ask about alerted calls, and hence such a question doesnot carry significant UI. Asking about calls that were not alerted is rare and hence does carry significant UI.

 

So, the secondary meaning of an alert is: "If you ask about this call, it is expected that the transmitted UI is insignificant."

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

Such thinking in zeros and ones ("alertable" vs "non-alertable") is completely neglecting what an alert actually means.

 

An alert does NOT mean: "Since I alerted, the call will not have the non-alertable meaning."

 

An alert means: "The call has a meaning that you may not expect."

 

Kind of. The problem is that, absent a Vulcan mind meld, it is impossible to predict which meanings the opponents may not expect. But it is true that in England (and most other countries, I expect), the unalerted meaning is usually the most expected meaning.

[nige1]

Simpler, clearer, compared to what? You regard the Orange Book as unnecessarily complex, but we have not heard from a single other EBU member who does not like it in general and consider it far better than similar regulations in other countries. These people are "players". And they don't want what you say they would probably like.

Many EBU members who contribute to this forum are administrators and directors. You wouldn't expect them to rock the boat. Obviously, on balance, Bridge players are happy with the rules of their game. Otherwise they wouldn't play. Players of my acquaintance, however, express dissatisfaction with some rules, especially with aspects of local regulation. I've received correspondence from players with similar views to mine. I've asked them to post their views to public fora like this but most decline to poke their heads above the parapet.

Global? For what possible reason? It had better be a good one, considering all the people that would be made very unhappy by this. (To wit, pretty much everyone outside the ACBL, since their regulations would be the ones adopted.)

I've tried to explain why I prefer global regulation in previous posts. I know I'm not a spokesman for all players. And I doubt that Bluejak or Vampyr or Gnasher would claim to be. Player-polls would reach a more objective conclusion.

[paulg]

Many EBU members who contribute to this forum are administrators and directors. You wouldn't expect them to rock the boat.

I think this is an unwelcome slur on a group of people who contribute greatly to these forums. I may not always agree with them, but I find that they are open about the decisions made and, as an EBU member, I am always very happy that they are working for the benefit of EBU members rather than a desire to further a bureaucracy. Indeed, their openness both in these forums and in the information disseminated on the EBU web site is a model that I wish other organisations, including the SBU, would adopt.

 

I believe you owe them an apology.

[nige1]

I have skimmed through a lot of stuff written here on alerting. I wonder whether some of the posters really play bridge at all.

Many EBU members who contribute to this forum are administrators and directors. You wouldn't expect them to rock the boat.

I think this is an unwelcome slur on a group of people who contribute greatly to these forums. I may not always agree with them, but I find that they are open about the decisions made and, as an EBU member, I am always very happy that they are working for the benefit of EBU members rather than a desire to further a bureaucracy. Indeed, their openness both in these forums and in the information disseminated on the EBU web site is a model that I wish other organisations, including the SBU, would adopt. I believe you owe them an apology.

I object to slurs on Individual contributors to this forum. But I think representative organisations (even the EBU) are fair game for criticism. In any case, I don't expect officials to criticise their own organisation publicly. If officials object to the policies or rules of their organisation, then they can raise the matter internally. Also, I doubt that the SBU has any desire to be secretive.

[Vampyr]

Many EBU members who contribute to this forum are administrators and directors.

 

And many of us are just ordinary players.

[Vampyr]

It is interesting that whoever started this thread with a post of mine decided to call it "alerting doubles" even though the regulation mentioned in the "OP" is about alerting in general, not just doubles.

[Vampyr]

Such thinking in zeros and ones ("alertable" vs "non-alertable") is completely neglecting what an alert actually means.

 

An alert does NOT mean: "Since I alerted, the call will not have the non-alertable meaning."

 

An alert means: "The call has a meaning that you may not expect."

 

I have been thinking about this and wish to comment on an aspect of alertable and non-alertable meanings that you seem oblivious to.

 

Let's say the auction goes (1NT)-X-(2♥)X. The meaning of this second double is often penalty and often takeout. Neither of these meanings are unexpected. So which should be alerted? Both? Pointless. Neither? Well, this doesn't make any sense either as the meanings are very different. Assigning non-alertability to one meaning reduces by about 1/2 (assuming that the two possibilities are about 50% each and other meanings extremely rare). So it speeds up the game and ensures that the necessary disclosure is made to opponents in the most convenient way.

[Vampyr]

Player-polls would reach a more objective conclusion.

 

Player-polls are conducted quite frequently. NBO members elect administrators and committees who implement policies that, in general, are desired by their electorate. This is the way representative democracy works.

 

Tell me, Nigel, if the world's bridge players were given the opportunity to vote on all existing sets of regulations, with the winner becoming the world regulations, which set of regulations would you vote for? Which one so you think would win? Which one do you think would be the most appropriate for everyone to play under?

 

Do you think that the best fit for eg Australian bridge players will also be the best fit for eg Americans? Do you think that a common set of regulations will make both populations happy?