Does anyone agree?

[mycroft]

I frequently "play anonymously" on BBO on my tablet.

 

Whenever E-W open 1NT and I have an interfering hand, I expect to be +5 IMPs. Why? Because at least two people will not bother to check the system and bid naturally, and find themselves in 4♠x with a diamond hand, or 3-or-more♣ with a single-suited heart hand, or...

 

I can't imagine it being any better in Individuals.

 

One thing I do know, "on BBO, without discussion, most players who find a partnership *not* playing a similar version of 2/1 get very annoyed and leave after a hand or two."

[Vampyr]

One thing I do know, "on BBO, without discussion, most players who find a partnership *not* playing a similar version of 2/1 get very annoyed and leave after a hand or two."

 

Wow, this kind of intolerance could happen in real life if there were a global system. I'm not assuming that BBO is a microcosm of the bridge world, but it is anyway a culture in which a de facto standard system has arisen, and it should serve as an object lesson to those who would like to impose this sort of thing in real life.

[paulg]

On BBO, without discussion, most players employ a similar version of 2/1, saving time and encouraging an enjoyable game. Hence, Hanoi5's idea has obvious merit.

 

On BBO, without discussion, no two players employ a similar version of 2/1. To ensure an enjoyable game they will often chat to each other to cover bids that come up, like checkback, defence to one no-trump, Blackwood variant, differentiate between takeout and penalty doubles, Drury, Stayman or Puppet over 2NT, etc.

 

I'm not saying that this behaviour is necessarily inappropriate, particularly in a friendly game. But to claim that play on BBO provides supporting evidence for a common system is ludicrous.

[phoenix214]

There is one thing im still confused about the alerting policies. From what I understand alerting should work as an announcement, that we are playing something that you are not expecting. If a NBO has a national system of strong club, short diamond, 15-17 NT and precision 2 clubs, is it possible for these bids to be made alterable.

This actually arise a problem(Playing a short club, alerting the 1C bid, opponents think they are facing a strong club, so are always forced to ask)

[Vampyr]

There is one thing im still confused about the alerting policies. From what I understand alerting should work as an announcement, that we are playing something that you are not expecting. If a NBO has a national system of strong club, short diamond, 15-17 NT and precision 2 clubs, is it possible for these bids to be made alterable.

This actually arise a problem(Playing a short club, alerting the 1C bid, opponents think they are facing a strong club, so are always forced to ask)

 

We used to have this exact problem. Now short clubs are announced instead.

 

Write to whoever is responsible for creating the alert regulations in your NBO and point out this problem to them. And you might want to get on the committee if you can.

[Trinidad]

There is one thing im still confused about the alerting policies. From what I understand alerting should work as an announcement, that we are playing something that you are not expecting. If a NBO has a national system of strong club, short diamond, 15-17 NT and precision 2 clubs, is it possible for these bids to be made alterable.

This actually arise a problem(Playing a short club, alerting the 1C bid, opponents think they are facing a strong club, so are always forced to ask)

I suppose anything is possible, but a sensible NBO would not make bids that are standard (i.e. standard within that NBO) alertable, for exactly the reason that you are giving: If standard bids are alertable, an alert doesn't give valuable information anymore.

 

This is a good reason why alert regulations should be flexible with respect to the local culture, rather than be universal. This flexibility can be achieved by putting it specifically in the alert regulation: "Alert what might be unexpected to your opponents" (who in China might expect 1♣ to be strong and artificial and in the USA might expect it to show 3+ clubs).

 

Alternatively, the NBO can try to define what meanings are not alertable, which is effectively defining a "system of expected meanings" for that NBO. This means in practice that bridge players are forced to know two systems: their own system and the NBO's "alert free system", otherwise they don't know what to alert and they don't know what the alerts by the opponents mean. Since most players have enough problems remembering one system (and they will obviously be more interested in their own) this approach only works if there is a simple, well defined standard system in the NBO (e.g. from a standard bridge course).

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

Alternatively, the NBO can try to define what meanings are not alertable, which is effectively defining a "system of expected meanings" for that NBO. This means in practice that bridge players are forced to know two systems: their own system and the NBO's "alert free system", otherwise they don't know what to alert and they don't know what the alerts by the opponents mean. Since most players have enough problems remembering one system (and they will obviously be more interested in their own) this approach only works if there is a simple, well defined standard system in the NBO (e.g. from a standard bridge course).

 

No, this is not true. Players need only to know what is alertable in their own system. And they have no need to know what their opponents' alerts mean. Personally, I would find it very difficult to determine what each set of opponents would expect.

 

Trinidad, do you need to explain in yet another thread that the Netherlands regulations are great and the EBU's are horrible? Do you think that there is anyone here who is not aware of your beliefs on the matter?

 

Are most Dutch events inexplicably held under EBU regulations? If not, why do you care? Can you not accept the fact that you are happy with what you have and we are happy with what we have? And thank whatever you believe to be holy that we have regulations that suit the players who actually have to play under them?

[Vampyr]

I wonder if a mod could move post #54 onwards to a new thread?

 

So Trinidad, suppose under your splendid Dutch regulations the auction goes (1NT)-X-(2♥)-X. What is your double? Around here the meanings takeout and penalty are equally divided. So, do you alert? Well, what will the opponents expect? What will they think you think they will expect? It doesn't matter whether you alert or not; they will have to ask.

 

Or...partner opens and you make a jump shift. Let's assume that if it is any kind of raise or fit bid it is alertable. But if it is natural - do you alert if it is strong? If it is weak? What will the opponents expect? What will they think you think they will expect? Either way they will have to ask if it matters to them.

 

Or...the auction goes 1NT-(X)-2♦. Obviously various 2-suited meanings will be alerted. But we are playing it as natural. Or maybe we are playing it as a transfer. I know what the majority play and expect, but I know that the minority who play the opposite may well expect the opposite. So do I alert? Do I quiz them first on what they expect 2♦ to be?

 

Edit: will inexperienced players or foreigners have the faintest idea what their opponents will expect?

 

And always, will they know what I expect their bidding to mean? Shall I trust them to guess correctly? Am I entitled to an adjustment if they have guessed incorrectly?

 

It is in this situation that all players need to learn a national non-alertable (ie expected) system. Having a specified non-alertable meaning puts everyone on an equal footing.

 

No, the EBU alert regs are not perfect, nor are they worded perfectly. Perhaps they droop a little at the margins. But it is a set of regulations under which an alert, or the lack of an alert, means something.

[Trinidad]

No, this is not true. Players need only to know what is alertable in their own system. And they have no need to know what their opponents' alerts mean.

But they need to know what their opponents' non-alerts mean, which is defined by the alert regulation.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

So Trinidad, suppose under your splendid Dutch regulations the auction goes (1NT)-X-(2♥)-X. What is your double? Around here the meanings takeout and penalty are equally divided. So, do you alert? Well, what will the opponents expect? What will they think you think they will expect? It doesn't matter whether you alert or not; they will have to ask.

 

This auction is an excellent example. Your last sentence answers your question: They will have to ask. That means you will have to alert.

 

You have your mind set to "a specific alert rule machinery". This divides all possible meanings of a call between alertable ones and non-alertable ones. It doesn't think about why one alerts. The mechanism has become more important than the goal.

 

Why does one alert? to tell the opponents that a call might have a meaning that they don't expect. (Or do you disagree with that?)

 

So, if you keep the goal of alerts in mind, rather than the mechanism, it is clear that you will alert the double, simply because you think that the opponents should ask.

 

Rik

 

P.S. Did you notice that the actual meaning of the double is irrelevant?

[helene_t]

It is not my experience that dutch and english club players are happy with their alert regs. The dutch complain that an alert means "look how sofisticated our methods are compared to your neanderthal system hahaha". The English complain that the regulations change several times per decade so nobody is up to date.

 

Tournament players are generally happy but then I think they will be happy with almost anything except maybe for totally ridiculous regs like the German alertability of weak twos.

[campboy]

So, if you keep the goal of alerts in mind, rather than the mechanism, it is clear that you will alert the double, simply because you think that the opponents should ask.

 

Rik

 

P.S. Did you notice that the actual meaning of the double is irrelevant?

The goal of the alert mechanism is not simply to transfer the responsibility to your opponents. An alert, or lack of alert, should tell the opponents something useful. An alert which merely tells them "we've just had the auction (1NT)-X-(2♥)-X" is completely worthless.

 

In the EBU, opponents don't always have to ask. If the double is takeout, there is no alert and no question. Otherwise there is an alert, and normally a question.

[helene_t]

Fwiw I think the ebu rules are better for tournament players because as Stephanie says a lack of alert means something. The dutch have some silly rules like alertability of walsh and transfers. But the ebu rules are too complicated for mortals. Then again it doesn't matter. In both countries stuff like raptor and multilandy is alertable which is what matters. If you read opps cc and don't make the crazy assumption that opps know the alert regs in details then you will survive in both countries.

[Zelandakh]

Tournament players are generally happy but then I think they will be happy with almost anything except maybe for totally ridiculous regs like the German alertability of weak twos.

The German alerting rules are in essence simple and not a million miles away from the Dutch if I am reading correctly. You alert:

 

1. artificial bids

2. calls with unexpected meanings

3. non-forcing jump responses in a new suit and non-forcing new suit responses to 1 of a suit opening

 

...and do not alert

 

1. any pass, double or redouble

2. any natural NT call (a singleton top honour is defined as natural)

3. any call above 3NT from the second round of bidding

 

 

They do however go on a little with some further cases to clarify the above:

 

Don't alert:

 

1. 1m openings showing 3+ cards in the suit and without any specific holding in another suit

2. 2♣ promisory Stayman and 2♦ as normal Stayman answer over 1NT; 3♣ as ordinary Stayman over 2NT

3. 2♣ as strongest opening providing it promises 11+ hcp

4. natural 2NT openings of 19+ hcp

5. Acol 2 openings in ♦, ♥ or ♠

6. any defensive carding

 

Do alert:

1. 1m openings that can have 2 or fewer cards in the suit

2. 3 of a suit openings that can hold 11+ hcp

3. all 2 level openings not covered in the "Don't alert" section above

4. non-natural 1NT openings - non-natural is defined as any from:

a. not balanced or semi-balanced (see above)

b. can systematically contain a 5 card major or a small singleton

c. exclude certain balanced distributions (such as a 4 card major)

d. can have fewer than 12 or more than 19 hcp

e. have a point range of more than 4 hcp

5. natural 2♣ response to 1NT opening

6. forcing 1NT response to a 1 of suit opening

7. inverted minors

8. all jump responses that can have less than 11 hcp (for a new suit) or less than invitational strength (for a raise)

9. all jump overcalls that can have less than 11 hcp

10. any 3♣ response to 2NT other than normal Stayman

 

So yes, weak 2 openings are "unexpected". At least you can legally agree to open one on AKQTx and out now, which seems like a major step forward. Opening 1NT with 5M(332) shape is also unexpected and one of the top national TDs also told me that a possible 6 card minor should also be alerted (despite the regs specifically excluding 6322).

 

And this is essentially the problem with "alert anything unexpected" regulations. They either result in auctions where every meaning is alerted or, as per the pass/X/XX regulation, you say every meaning is automatically unexpected and nothing is alerted. Or, as Helene points out, the expected meaning changes over time resulting in the normal meaning becoming alertable.

 

Taking everything together, I quite like the idea of having a single non-alertable meaning for a given call providing that can be defined with simple rules that do not depend on knowledge of a specific system. Defining such rules is not at all easy though. In time I suspect technology will give us a better answer, such as the touchscreen solution I mentioned earlier. That is, if enough people are still playing live bridge by the time regulating authorities are willing to embrace such ideas.

[Trinidad]

So Trinidad, suppose under your splendid Dutch regulations ...

Just to clarify: the Dutch regulations are a hybrid between the simple WBF regulation and the EBU regulation (more towards WBF though).

 

After a short introduction on why we alert, who alerts and how we alert, the Dutch regulation tells what to alert:

 

Welke biedingen moet u alerteren?

• 
   
  
• U moet biedingen alerteren waarvan u kunt vermoeden dat de tegenpartij er zonder waarschuwing een andere betekenis aan toekent. Dit is de hoofdregel.
  
• Biedingen die een kunstmatige (conventionele) betekenis hebben.
  
• Openingen van 1♣ en 1♦ indien deze niet ten minste een driekaart beloven.
  
• De 1SA-opening, als die minder dan 14 of meer dan 18 punten kan bevatten.
  
• Redoubletten, voorzover die niet duiden op kracht.
   
  

Biedafspraken en gewoonten die niet worden gealerteerd

• 
   
  
• Een bod op vierniveau of hoger en alle daarop volgende biedingen, tenzij het kunstmatige biedingen betreft gedaan in de eerste biedronde, gerekend vanaf het openingsbod.
  
• Doubletten, behalve wanneer de hiervoor genoemde hoofdregel van toepassing is.
  

 

I have translated that for you:

Which calls should you alert?

• 
   
  
• You should alert calls of which you suspect that the opponents might minsinterpret them if you don't warn them. This is the main rule.
  
• Calls with an artificial (conventional) meaning.
  
• 1♣ or 1♦ openings that don't promise 3 cards in the suit.
  
• A 1NT opening that can contain less than 14 or more than 18 HCPs.
  
• Redoubles that don't show strength.
   
  

Agreements and treatments that are not alerted

• 
   
  
• A bid at the four level or higher and all subsequent calls, unless it is an artificial call in the first round of the auction, counted from the opening bid.
  
• Doubles, except when the forementioned main rule applies.
  

 

This part is followed by a paragraph about the players' responsibilities, a paragraph pointing out that failing to alert is an infraction, and a paragraph that says that players have the right to ask their opponents to refrain from alerting. At the end there is a very short list of concrete examples, meant to clarify, not meant to be exhaustive:

• 
   
  
• Takeout doubles are not alertable, DONT doubles are.
  
• Stayman and transfers are conventional and, therefore, alertable.
  
• In general, the strength of a bid doesn't make it alertable: inverted minors or weak jump overcalls are not alertable. Promising a five card major when responding to 1♣ is unexpected and alertable.
  
• The fact that a 1NT opening can contain a five card major or a six card minor doesn't make it alertable.
  

 

Apart from a clause that says that things are different when screens are in use, that is the entire alert regulation. It takes up about 2/3 of an A4. Though I think this is quite all right, you understand that I think it is still half an A4 too long...

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

But the ebu rules are too complicated for mortals.

 

But altering or announcing artificial bids and doing nothing for natural bids gets you most of the way there. People who are playing "advanced" methods like inverted minors, fit jumps, etc will be clued-up enough to know that these bids are alertable. In fact, for bids you would do pretty well with the actual Dutch regulations, with the substitution of announcements for some of the alerts and the addition of alerting natural bids with unexpected strength.

[Vampyr]

Why does one alert? to tell the opponents that a call might have a meaning that they don't expect. (Or do you disagree with that?)

 

Yes and no. The alert or lack thereof can inform the opponents' expectations. A non-alertable meaning reduces (often by a lot) the frequency of needing to ask.

 

P.S. Did you notice that the actual meaning of the double is irrelevant?

 

Yes, I pointed this out myself. And as others have mentioned, alerting every meaning of a call is silly.

[mgoetze]

The German alerting rules are in essence simple and not a million miles away from the Dutch if I am reading correctly. You alert: [...] 2. calls with unexpected meanings

And this is literally the extent of the regulation, and noone has a clue what an unexpected meaning is. In practice, this means "alert almost everything", e.g. pretty much everyone in Germany will alert both the transfer and the completion in the auction 1NT-2♦-2♥, even though neither has a meaning which is at all unexpected. Effectively, this does not produce a good alert environment, and I prefer regulations such as the EBU's which explicitly set forth which meanings are alertable and which aren't.

[Vampyr]

And this is literally the extent of the regulation, and noone has a clue what an unexpected meaning is. In practice, this means "alert almost everything", e.g. pretty much everyone in Germany will alert both the transfer and the completion in the auction 1NT-2♦-2♥, even though neither has a meaning which is at all unexpected. Effectively, this does not produce a good alert environment, and I prefer regulations such as the EBU's which explicitly set forth which meanings are alertable and which aren't.

 

You mentioned earlier that the German federation can't be bothered to try to produce sensible alert regulations. The Dutch Federation seems similar.

 

In the EBU we have a committee responsible for, among other things, the regulations, and they meet several times per year. I suppose this is why we can afford to have more detailed regulations than others; the committee can make improvements when necessary.

[paulg]

In the EBU we have a committee responsible for, among other things, the regulations, and they meet several times per year. I suppose this is why we can afford to have more detailed regulations than others; the committee can make improvements when necessary.

This may be necessary for good regulations but it is not sufficient.

[barmar]

Alternatively, the NBO can try to define what meanings are not alertable, which is effectively defining a "system of expected meanings" for that NBO. This means in practice that bridge players are forced to know two systems: their own system and the NBO's "alert free system", otherwise they don't know what to alert and they don't know what the alerts by the opponents mean. Since most players have enough problems remembering one system (and they will obviously be more interested in their own) this approach only works if there is a simple, well defined standard system in the NBO (e.g. from a standard bridge course).

I think players who play an unusual system will have to know both systems regardless of the alert regs. Avoiding it would be like living in a foreign country without learning the local language, but instead pulling out a translation dictionary every time you try to have a conversation. You simply can't play effectively if you're constantly having to ask for explanations.

 

Not to mention that you'll have a hard time finding partners to play with if you can't play the local system. I know plenty of people who prefer to play Precision with their regular partners, but almost all of them also know 2/1 so they can play with others when their regular partner isn't available.

[steve2005]

The EBU goes to a lot of effort to create a great set of regulations. (I did, however, consider it a bit onerous to really thoroughly complete two convention cards for just a weekend tournament, accepting WBF convention cards would be an improvement.) The DBV (German Federation), by contrast, has horrible, crufty regulations that are pretty much never updated. If every federation invested resources in creating a set of regulations like the EBU, then sure, let everyone have their own regulations. Here in Germany, the situation could only be improved by adopting almost any other set of regulations (the ACBL ones would of course be an exception).

ACBL also requires 2 complete convention cards. I cant imagine any jurisdiction that wouldn't require this. At clubs often opps don't even have 1 never mind 2.

[Trinidad]

In fact, for bids you would do pretty well with the actual Dutch regulations

Exactly. So, in your opinion, those 5-10 lines of alert regulation do the job pretty nicely. That is about the amount of information that the average club player can handle. Why would one then write pretty much the same thing using 5-10 pages of text instead of 5-10 lines?

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

Can a mod please move these posts?

[Trinidad]

You mentioned earlier that the German federation can't be bothered to try to produce sensible alert regulations. The Dutch Federation seems similar.

You are confusing "detailed" and "extensive" with sensible.

 

A regulation is a piece of communication. It needs to get a message across. In communication, less is more.

 

The first thing you need to wonder is: "Who is supposed to get the message?". The answer is: Every club player. That includes uncle Bob and aunt Millie.

 

Now, you get a very limited amount of aunt Millie's time to explain and teach her the alert regulation, so that she will be able to remember it. What are you going to tell her?

 

Are you going to give her 5-10 pages of detailed rules or would a few one-liners be more sensible?

 

I think that the Dutch Bridge Federation has spent more time on writing the 2/3 A4 regulation and put much more thought in it than the EBU has spent on writing their alert regulation of several pages. (That is not surprising since the NBB is larger and has more resources than the EBU. In addition, the fact that bridge is recognized as a sport in the Netherlands helps a lot financially.) The result is a regulation that a club TD can explain to "tante Miep" (the Dutch equivalent of aunt Millie). And he can do that in about a minute which is all the time tante Miep is willing to spend on this nonsense since she came to play bridge.

 

If you want extensive and detailed, then the Dutch are able to do that too. Just look at their Conditions of Contest for the national top level competitions or the screen regulation. These regulations are much stricter, more formal and more accurately defined. But these regulations are meant for players far above average (or for their team captains) and not for tante Miep, uncle Bob or aunt Millie.

 

Rik