Cheap Tactics

[lamford]

Therefore, he is practically obliged to ask if the bid was alertable.

If he asks, then that will tell his partner that he would not make the same call over all the possible meanings. The vast majority of hands, balanced garbage - after all the opponents are bidding at least game, are eliminated at one fell swoop. There is no difference if East asks when 4C is alerted. If he guesses that it is a splinter when it is not, he will get no redress, so he might need to ask. However, I would be amazed if a single TD in Britain would not adjust here if 4C had been alerted and East asked about it and then passed, and I would be just as amazed if the same TD ruled differently if East asked about an un-alerted 4C and then passed when told it was a splinter. Assuming that West bids 5C in both scenarios. If, however, East always asks about all alerted bids, then they should not adjust.

 

I am sure West got lucky; but one would still adjust if he used UI.

[toukie]

If he asks, then that will tell his partner that he would not make the same call over all the possible meanings. The vast majority of hands, balanced garbage - after all the opponents are bidding at least game, are eliminated at one fell swoop. There is no difference if East asks when 4C is alerted. If he guesses that it is a splinter when it is not, he will get no redress, so he might need to ask. However, I would be amazed if a single TD in Britain would not adjust here if 4C had been alerted and East asked about it and then passed, and I would be just as amazed if the same TD ruled differently if East asked about an un-alerted 4C and then passed when told it was a splinter. Assuming that West bids 5C in both scenarios. If, however, East always asks about all alerted bids, then they should not adjust.

 

I am sure West got lucky; but one would still adjust if he used UI.

If he asks about an alerted 4C and then passes, the UI is that he would have doubled a different meaning of 4C for the lead. I don't think there is UI about suit length, so i don't think a 5C bid is based on UI.

But, if they end up defending and west leads a club then I think that is use of UI. Without the question all he knows is that east had a negative-inference lead-directing pass, the question tell him that east had a lead directional double.

[campboy]

Interestingly, if 4C had been alerted and East had asked about it and then passed, I would adjust unless East could prove that he always asked about every alerted bid, and I think campboy would as well. Maybe this shows that one should ask about every alerted bid, even if one knows the meaning, but this will slow down the game somewhat.

No, I wouldn't require quite so much. I think it is sufficient if he always asks about alerted bids where his methods are likely to depend on the exact meaning, except where he already knows the meaning.

 

I wouldn't expect anyone to ask about calls that they do know the meaning of, partly because I am not sure it is legal to do so but mainly because it doesn't matter if they don't (so long as they are consistent) -- this might give the UI of "I do/don't already know what this call means", but that UI won't suggest any particular call or play.

[blackshoe]

Alright then, How do you answer the assertion "Well if I had been alerted to the fact that east had made a negative-inference lead-directing pass of course I would have played him for the club king, it's obvious...."

"Thank you for your opinion."

[Vampyr]

Q.E.D.

 

If an experienced TD gets caught in the maze of EBU alert regulations, something needs fixing (and it is not the mentioned experienced TD ;)).

 

Rik

 

I often think that people who say that EBU alert regulations are complicated are being deliberately difficult, because the regulations are very simple to apply and easy to understand.

 

Also the EBU recognise one principle that I think other RAs forget, which is that a call should have at most one meaning that is neither alertable nor announceable.

[mycroft]

I will note that since my 2NT over a weak 2 is "a definitely not conventional, passable, but not necessarily balanced" invitation, in the ACBL, we Alert it.

 

Wednesday, in a 7-board match, we had three auctions that started 2red (Alert) -p- 2NT (Alert). They suggested we should explain that our weak 2s are forcing to 2NT. (To add more amusement, all three invitations were accepted: two to 3NT, the third went 2♥!-2NT!; 3♠-4♠).

 

We also Alert our 2♣ over 1NT, because it doesn't ask for a major of any length. Frankly, it doesn't *ask* anything; it demands something, so that it can *show*.

 

But yes, at least the two most recent changes (Stayman of any sort and 2♦ any meaning after 2♣ SAF (*) becoming not Alertable) were clearly because they were of more value to the bidders than to the Alerted.

 

I do think the EBU Alerts on doubles are complicated and not as easy to understand as their supporters suggest. I also think they're a good compromise between "handwavey" and "alert everything" or "alert almost nothing" - and more useful than any of those. Whether "more useful" == "Useful": I reserve judgement.

 

(*) Oh, look, another one sequence we Alert...because it's natural and non-forcing (of course our 2♣ isn't SAF, either)!

[Trinidad]

I often think that people who say that EBU alert regulations are complicated are being deliberately difficult, because the regulations are very simple to apply and easy to understand.

Eh?!?

 

If you look at the questions about alerts on BBF, you will notice that the vast majority come from the EBU. Why would it be that the EBU generates so many questions about alerts? Hardly because they are so simple to apply and easy to understand.

 

Take this example: Any player should have known whether the pass of 4♣ required an alert. It is right there in the EBU Blue Book! But clearly:

• Hardly anybody knew the rules about alerts of passes above 3Nt in the first round of the bidding without looking in the Blue Book (and as a player you don't have the Blue Book at the table)
  
• Those who read the Blue Book don't agree on how to interpret it: Is a lead implication enough of lead direction to make it alertable?
  

How can there be any discussion about whether the pass of 4♣ is alertable when the alert rules are "simple to apply and easy to understand"?

 

In many other NBOs, this is a simple question: "Is an opponent going to understand the meaning of pass?" Answer: NO. That makes the bid alertable, in principle.

Next question: Is this is an exception to the rule (e.g. above 3NT)? Most NBOs have a simple exception: Only alert calls above 3NT in the first round of the bidding (starting with the opening bid). This is a call above 3NT but in the first round of the bidding, therefore alert.

 

Now that is "simple to apply and easy to understand".

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

Next question: Is this is an exception to the rule (e.g. above 3NT)? Most NBOs have a simple exception: Only alert calls above 3NT in the first round of the bidding (starting with the opening bid). This is a call above 3NT but in the first round of the bidding, therefore alert.

A side note: Conventional passes, doubles, and redoubles are immediate alerts in ACBL, regardless of whether they occur on the first round or subsequently.

[barmar]

Eh?!?

 

If you look at the questions about alerts on BBF, you will notice that the vast majority come from the EBU. Why would it be that the EBU generates so many questions about alerts? Hardly because they are so simple to apply and easy to understand.

I wonder if this is partly because they changed a few years ago from a regulation that was incredibly simple: alert all artificial bids, no matter how common (e.g. Stayman). By comparison, any other regulation will seem confusing.

[campboy]

If you look at the questions about alerts on BBF, you will notice that the vast majority come from the EBU. Why would it be that the EBU generates so many questions about alerts? Hardly because they are so simple to apply and easy to understand.

They are simple and easy to understand, if you read them. In the EBU, if you want to know whether something is alertable, you can look it up, and there will typically be a clear, precise answer in the regulations.

 

What they are not, in some situations, is intuitive. And since most people don't bother to read them, but try to get along by guessing, there will be a lot of situations where they have no confidence in their guess and have to ask.

 

In some other jurisdictions, where the regulation is more along the lines of "alert if you think you should alert", a guess is more likely to be "right" (insofar as there is a right answer at all), but the regulations themselves are much harder to interpret. As a side-effect, it is often harder to say whether MI has been given.

[Trinidad]

They are simple and easy to understand, if you read them. In the EBU, if you want to know whether something is alertable, you can look it up

If "being able to look it up" would be the criterion, you would be correct. But then the Dutch Tax code would also be "simple and easy to understand": You can look everything up in the tax law books, on the internet and in several nice computer programs designed for that purpose.

 

So, "being able to look it up" is not the criterion. The criterion is: "All bridge players should be able to apply it at the bridge table without looking it up".

 

One could argue that a little bit of looking up would be okay to determine which of your own bids requires an alert, since you could prepare for that in advance and one could look it up. But there is no way that one can look up at the table what the non-alertable meaning of the opponents' last call was.

 

So, the criterion has to be what you call "intuitive".

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

Campboy has indeed hit on the key word... "intuitive".

 

When I have to memorize a bunch of rules for different specific cases, It doesn't matter how clearly each one is written; I have no crutches to help me memorize them.

 

If they pretty much fall within some guiding principle, then my alleged brain doesn't have to resort to rote memorization or some clever saying or song in order to retain it.

 

"I" before "E", except after "C"...or when pronounced as "A" in "neighbor" or "weigh". Hey, Hey, Yogi Bear.

[blackshoe]

If "being able to look it up" would be the criterion, you would be correct. But then the Dutch Tax code would also be "simple and easy to understand": You can look everything up in the tax law books, on the internet and in several nice computer programs designed for that purpose.

 

So, "being able to look it up" is not the criterion. The criterion is: "All bridge players should be able to apply it at the bridge table without looking it up".

 

One could argue that a little bit of looking up would be okay to determine which of your own bids requires an alert, since you could prepare for that in advance and one could look it up. But there is no way that one can look up at the table what the non-alertable meaning of the opponents' last call was.

 

So, the criterion has to be what you call "intuitive".

 

Rik

Hm. So, let's see. Joe Bridge Player knows that some things require and alert and some don't. He's supposed to be able to sit down at the bridge table, and just know which of his partner's call require an alert and which don't?

 

Challenge: write for us a simple, intuitive alert regulation that Joe Bridge Player can successfully apply, and which ensures that Joe's opponents are given full disclosure of his partnership's methods. Good luck.

[GreenMan]

Hm. So, let's see. Joe Bridge Player knows that some things require and alert and some don't. He's supposed to be able to sit down at the bridge table, and just know which of his partner's call require an alert and which don't?

 

Challenge: write for us a simple, intuitive alert regulation that Joe Bridge Player can successfully apply, and which ensures that Joe's opponents are given full disclosure of his partnership's methods. Good luck.

 

That's a good way of explaining the problem with using "intuitive" as a standard or metric: It basically means "natural-seeming for someone with the speaker's knowledge, experience and mindset." The ACBL alert regs seem mostly intuitive to me because I've been following them for *coughcough* years. Newer players have to start from scratch with no basis for "intuition."

 

Any regime more complex than "alert anything conventional" will only seem intuitive for some players, never for all.

[blackshoe]

Precisely. :P

[Trinidad]

Hm. So, let's see. Joe Bridge Player knows that some things require and alert and some don't. He's supposed to be able to sit down at the bridge table, and just know which of his partner's call require an alert and which don't?

 

Challenge: write for us a simple, intuitive alert regulation that Joe Bridge Player can successfully apply, and which ensures that Joe's opponents are given full disclosure of his partnership's methods. Good luck.

"Alert any call where you think that one or both of your opponents might not understand its meaning or that has implications that might be unexpected to one or both of your opponents."

 

An intuitive rule like this has several advantages:

• 
   
  
• It is easy to understand
  
• It is simple to learn by heart because it is short
  
• It can be applied at the table without the need to look anything up
  
• It focuses on the purpose of the alert regulation, which is to disclose your agreements, rather than to follow a network of rules.
  
• It emphasizes the principle of Full Disclosure. You alert when you have something to disclose. You don't alert when there is nothing to disclose. It can't hurt if players encounter this principle a couple of times per board.
  
• It is designed from the perspective of the opponent whom the alert is for.
  
• It varies with the opponent: It means that you alert Stayman for an opponent who is still on the bridge course, but not for Jeff Meckstroth.
  
• It gives the "right of way" to the weaker player and puts the responsibility to alert on the stronger player.
  

That is a long list of advantages for such a short regulation.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

The reason why a short and simple regulation works better is that it communicates.

 

What do we want to achieve with an alert regulation? That people disclose their agreements and warn their opponents if there is something they might not know.

 

If that is your goal for an alert regulation, then just say so. Communicate exactly that, loud and clearly, and nothing more. Anything more is merely fogging up the message.

 

Rik

[Lanor Fow]

This regulation woudl mean that to alert properly I would need to know Oppos skill level, what they assume to be standard (or not unusual) and their local standard meanings.

 

I also need to know what Oppos think is my skill level, what I think is standard (or not unusual) and my local standard meanings.

 

Practically this means that I cannot really assume anything from oppos alert or lack of, and they can't assume anything from mine. To me this makes the alert process pretty much useless.

 

Most NBOs have this as a catch-all, and from the threads I've read on alerts, on this forum, bridgewinners and the forum that predates this, most of the disagreements seem to be about things in this catch all rather than more explicit alerting rules.

 

It may be that there are issues with the intuitivite nature of the EBUs alerting strategy (the explicit rules they had on doubles used to be more complicated to make them fit more what poeple usually did, now they are simpler as most people used to get them wrong, but this makes them slightly less intuitive), but it has the advantage of in the vast majority of cases being simple, explicit and written down somewhere that pretty much everyone who plays tournament bridge (and most of those who play club bridge) know where it is. It is also not hugely long.

 

Yes, there are some edge cases an grey areas, but these are much less than in a less explicit approach.

 

Personally I prefer this.

[Zelandakh]

Challenge: write for us a simple, intuitive alert regulation that Joe Bridge Player can successfully apply, and which ensures that Joe's opponents are given full disclosure of his partnership's methods. Good luck.

Here is one although it involves a change of mindset and some outlay. Place under the table before each player a mobile device. This device consists of a touchscreen and a link to the other machines. The touchscreen consists of buttons describing common calls - "natural", "conventional", "transfer", "takeout", etc. After partner makes a call you touch the approrpiate sections and these are displayed on the opponents' displays. Very simple, easy and intuitive. Nige has also suggested something along these lines, albeit without the tech. Of course, even if everyone thought this would be a good idea it would be a very long time before anyone would even consider introducing it - and no doubt many would object to such an approach. But an answer using technology is not so difficult. It says something of the mindset of the bridge authorities that such ideas seem to be a million miles from the table; whereas in most other major activities the idea of innovation and/or technology is discussed much more actively. That seems to me to be a mistake....but then at under 50 I practically count as a junior player!

[blackshoe]

I agree with Lanor. You're going to get a lot of director calls because you have misread your opponents' skill or knowledge level, for starters. Sorry, Rik, but no.

[lamford]

Here is one although it involves a change of mindset and some outlay. Place under the table before each player a mobile device. Thia device consists of a touchscreen and a link to the other machines. The touchscreen consists of buttons describing common calls - "natural", "conventional", "transfer", "takeout", etc. After partner makes a call you touch the approrpiate sections and these are displayed on the opponents' displays. Very simple, easy and intuitive. Nige has also suggested something along these lines, albeit without the tech. Of course, even if everyone thought this would be a good idea it would be a very long time before anyone would even consider introducing it - and no doubt many would object to such an approach. But an answer using technology is not so difficult. It says something of the mindset of the bridge authorities that such ideas seem to be a million miles from the table; whereas in most other major activities the idea of innovation and/or technology is discussed much more actively. That seems to me to be a mistake....but then at under 50 I practically count as a junior player!

Like video and other technology in football, this will be booted into touch on the grounds of cost, and of slowing down the game.

[Trinidad]

Like video and other technology in football, this will be booted into touch on the grounds of cost, and of slowing down the game.

Because browing through the Blue Book is much faster... ;)

 

Rik

[Lanor Fow]

You don't have to look through it each time you make a call :)

[barmar]

The reason why a short and simple regulation works better is that it communicates.

 

What do we want to achieve with an alert regulation? That people disclose their agreements and warn their opponents if there is something they might not know.

 

If that is your goal for an alert regulation, then just say so. Communicate exactly that, loud and clearly, and nothing more. Anything more is merely fogging up the message.

That's not ALL we want. We also want to minimize the amount of UI transmitted between partners when they're alerting and explaining. So the alert procedure is a compromise.

 

This was the reason for the change last year in ACBL's alerting of Puppet Stayman. Alerting the asking bid was felt to be more useful to the bidder (it reminds him that they're playing Puppet, or if there's a failure to alert he knows that his partner forgot that they're playing Puppet) than the opponents (what are they going to do differently based on knowing whether responder is asking for a 4-card or 5-card major?). So now we don't alert until opener answers the question, because the meaning describes his hand and that's important information for the opponents to know. And by that time, if opener has forgotten their agreement, it's too late to be reminded.

[aguahombre]

That's not ALL we want. We also want to minimize the amount of UI transmitted between partners when they're alerting and explaining. So the alert procedure is a compromise.

 

This was the reason for the change last year in ACBL's alerting of Puppet Stayman. Alerting the asking bid was felt to be more useful to the bidder (it reminds him that they're playing Puppet, or if there's a failure to alert he knows that his partner forgot that they're playing Puppet) than the opponents (what are they going to do differently based on knowing whether responder is asking for a 4-card or 5-card major?). So now we don't alert until opener answers the question, because the meaning describes his hand and that's important information for the opponents to know. And by that time, if opener has forgotten their agreement, it's too late to be reminded.

Glad you said that. You don't have to cite your sources for stating the obvious intent, like I was challenged to do when I said that.