An opp clicks my bid for info.

[btour]

Clicking the bid is the standard way to ask for an explanation on BBO. He shouldn't have to send a private message, it's not as convenient. And the manner of asking shouldn't affect whether you think the opponent should have the information. Either you think they're entitled to the information or you don't.

 

Clicking the bid more than twice if an explanation has been made, and tried again with different words, is abusive and wastes time. If more information is needed the software should direct the questions to the partner of the bidder just like in real life. For example take 1nt 2c alerted as asking partner for 4 card major, the box is clicked and so, "I have one or two four card majors and am asking partner if he has one to bid it. wow in fact that wont fit, which is one of the problems. You see Barry? But that info will fit in a private message. The original alert is all that was needed. But some have learned to game the system by repeatedly clicking the alert box and harassing the bidder. Most so called TD's do nothing and trying to explain the situation to them takes a long time and accomplishes little, in fact you often get penalized for slow play after that.

[btour]

Here is another situation for example, in which TD does nothing and blames the person that calls. [this] director [...] has already banned a very good player for questioning them over a dispute concerning alerts. And that player, probably the best player in the club was correct. The alerts had not been made. Here is my example hand: http://tinyurl.com/h2n8dyl

 

South knows full well that the name of an alert in not a proper alert. But the important thing here is that the alert was not made until after opps pass and her partners response had been made, and when the alert was made it was the name of the convention which was used. I called the director, which was unneeded since s/he had been sitting there witnessing the entire thing. What happened? Nothing. Director asked me if I asked. Asked what? 3!D should be enquired upon before I pass, when 3!D had not been alerted yet? Of course I asked when it was subsequently alerted and before my next turn. I asked by saying the name is not an alert. Director did nothing. South was not even admonished for slow alert AND using the name of the convention.

Edited February 8, 2016 by diana_eva
removed names

[Vampyr]

Clicking the bid more than twice if an explanation has been and tried again, in other words explained twice. If more information is needed the software should direct the questions to the partner of the bidder just like in real life. For example take 1nt 2c alerted as asking partner for 4 card major, the box is clicked and so, "I have one or two four card majors and am asking partner if he has one to bid it. wow in fact that wont fit, which is one of the problems. You see Barry? But that info will fit in a private message. The original alert is all that was needed. But some have learned to game the system by repeatedly clicking the alert box and harassing the bidder. Most so called TD's do nothing and trying to explain the situation to them takes a long time and accomplishes little, in fact you often get penalized for slow play after that.

 

How about "asking partner to bid a 4-card major". Will that fit?

[1eyedjack]

How about "asking partner to bid a 4-card major". Will that fit?

Nearly. The world is roughly divided down the middle between those who promise a 4cM when asking, and those who do not. Personally as a defender I want to know which.

[btour]

How about "asking partner to bid a 4-card major". Will that fit?

 

Is there a great deal of difference between the 1st explanation and your version? OK say yours is the second one used. The alert box is once again thrown in your face. How do you word it then? And the 3rd time? 4th?

 

Get the point?

[Vampyr]

Is there a great deal of difference between the 1st explanation and your version? OK say yours is the second one used. The alert box is once again thrown in your face. How do you word it then? And the 3rd time? 4th?

 

Get the point?

 

Yes. It sounds like they wish to know whether you are yourself promising a 4-cars major. So tell them.

[barmar]

Nearly. The world is roughly divided down the middle between those who promise a 4cM when asking, and those who do not. Personally as a defender I want to know which.

In an individual, the partners don't know which camp they're in.

 

In my experience, non-promisory Stayman is mostly used with 4-way transfers, because 2NT is a transfer rather than an invitation. I would be surprised to see anyone play that in an indy; without discussion, most assume SAYC as the basic system.

[barmar]

South knows full well that the name of an alert in not a proper alert.

Although this is not generally considered an acceptable answer to a request for information, it's very common to use it in the alert box, at least when making the bid initially. The opponent can always request more information if they don't understand.

 

If you need more details than will fit in that little box, that's the time to switch to a private message, rather than repeatedly clicking the bid. For instance, the player who bids Stayman may not even be aware that there are different styles, so they won't know that you're trying to find out whether they promise at least one 4-card major. If you need to know, ask.

 

BTW, in the ACBL we don't alert the 2♣ bid based on whether it promises a 4-card major. Instead, we alert when they make a bid that indicates that it's possible they don't. So if it goes 1NT-2♣-2♦-2NT, the 2NT bid gets alerted, with the explanation "He might not have a 4-card major". But if it goes 1NT-2♣-2♦-3NT there's no alert (the way most play it).