How do you rule?

[mink]

First of all, if partners play together the first or the second time, I would not expect that there is some understanding about the 4♣ bid, and consequently there should be no alert.

 

But if this is an established partnership, it is not necessary to have discussed this kind of bid in order to create a partnership understanding. Rather, you have an idea of your partners skills and bidding habits, and therefore you expect your partner to understand that 4♣ is simply lead-directing and does not necessarily show a second suit. If you thought he might think this shows a second suit, you would have to worry that he competes too high in case he has Clubs, too, and thinks both sides have a double fit.

 

Therefore, I would have alerted and explained "lead-directing".

 

And as a director, if I believed that the partnership is not a very new one, I would assume a misinformation - no matter if this results in an adjusted score or not.

 

The arguments that 4♣ is just bride do not hold. Nearly everybody knows and plays that a 2♠ overcall over a 1♦ opening is weak, but still this has to be alerted as it is non-natural.

 

Karl

[Rebound]

So at least some of the people in this thread automatically assume that overcallers second call is purely lead directional, and it would be crazy to raise it.

 

I don't think this is playable, but even if it is, is this group also saying that this is a normal, standard, not unexpected meaning of overcallers second suit after his first suit has been raised in a competitive auction?

 

So that playing against this group, overcallers second call in competition can be a void, and partner will never, ever, raise ?  And for this group, this is normal, standard, routine, because they never ever need to find a second suit fit ?

 

Maybe it makes some sort of sense to do this. I have a really hard time believing that any TD in ACBL land would let this second call slide by without an alert. I strongly suspect it would be treated as an alertable partnership agreement.

Good point. However, I have been approaching this from the view that, regardless of the failure to alert, West's call of 4♥ takes away the need for North to make a call in any event.

 

My post about what constitutes a convention was directed solely at the satatement no clear definition of a convention exists. I simply pointed out this is not the case.

 

If, as has been pointed out, no agreement of the 4♣ call existed, I agree it was incumbent on North to say so, rather than that it was lead directing, although as I understand it, the question of the meaning of South's call did not arise until the opening lead was faced. So, to nutshell it, a judgement is called for:

 

1. If no agreement existed, the whole argument is essentially moot.

2. If an such an agreement existed, then I grant it ought to have been alerted but then the question becomes,

3. Was there damage caused by the failure to alert? West's argument seems to be that he wouldn't bid over 4♣ if it was lead directing rather than showing a 2-suiter. So, who do you believe? It looks to me like West was prepared to make another bid in any event, so I would have ruled against E/W, but that's just my opinion. Without being able to ascertain all the facts, (mind probes - when are we getting one? lol) I would just make a decision and stick to it.

 

Finally, one last point. I firmly believe that, the stronger the player, the more incumbent it is upon him to protect himself. It has not been mentioned anywhere that E/W asked about the 4♣ bid before the end of the auction. Since W could have asked S what his bid was before calling 4♥ (this being BBO and not F2F) I have less sympathy for him, although this opinion is contingent on the overall ability of the player.

[luis]

I'm not making any claims about the ACBL as I don't know the laws well enough. In EBU land, 4♣ would have to have been alerted. It could be explained as "no agreement", but since North didn't raise clubs, I would bet that wouldn't have flown very far. If it has been alerted and explained as "lead-directing" that would have been fine. If unalerted, then an implicit partnership agreement would be ruled (IMO).

 

However, the EBU alert procedures are very different. If it's not natural, then it's alertable (even above game level).

You are completely wrong.

How can yo alert and say "no agreement" ? That's in first instance absurd.

Even worst without an agreement how can pd alert and say "no agreement, but I guess it's not natural so I alert" it's so ridiculous that I'm quite mad that you can post as if you were 100% sure about the EBU rules, with my respect if you don't know please don't invent because the damage is greater. You can say "In my opinion" but don't say what the EBU would do since it's quite evident that you have no clue about the rules.

[luis]

First of all, if partners play together the first or the second time, I would not expect that there is some understanding about the 4♣ bid, and consequently there should be no alert.

 

But if this is an established partnership, it is not necessary to have discussed this kind of bid in order to create a partnership understanding. Rather, you have an idea of your partners skills and bidding habits, and therefore you expect your partner to understand that 4♣ is simply lead-directing and does not necessarily show a second suit. If you thought he might think this shows a second suit, you would have to worry that he competes too high in case he has Clubs, too, and thinks both sides have a double fit.

 

Therefore, I would have alerted and explained "lead-directing".

 

And as a director, if I believed that the partnership is not a very new one, I would assume a misinformation - no matter if this results in an adjusted score or not.

 

The arguments that 4♣ is just bride do not hold. Nearly everybody knows and plays that a 2♠ overcall over a 1♦ opening is weak, but still this has to be alerted as it is non-natural.

 

Karl

This is an amazing reasoning, every time a player makes a good bid in a new partnership and the opponents yell are you going to rule missinformation ? I [disagree completely with - edited] you rulings.

 

-This is a new partnership.

-4♣ in "bridge" may obviously be for the lead.

-There was no damage

 

Don't you see that what EW want is to force good pairs to tell them what their bids are so they won't have to reason or learn to play bridge?

If they are better they are better you can't pretend to make the game more even by asking them to alert their bridge decisions.

 

For example if I bid 7♥ missing once ace gambling on a trump lead should I alert my 7♥ bid as "missing one ace but I'm probably getting a trump lead"

It's exactly the same case here.

 

I'm really astonished and quite disgusted by the view that many posters have about this issue.

[cherdano]

If this partnership has no agreement for 4♣, then of course they should not alert it. However, if they have an agreement or partnership understanding that it is purely lead directional, I still maintain they should alert it.

(I see nothing backing up Luis' claim that this was a new partnership.)

 

For example, if both partners knew the other has read and likes Robson-Segal (where it is discussed at length in which situations (in competition after a shown fit) bids should be lead directing, and when suggesting a sacrifice in case of a double fit, and where this 4♣ bid would be classified as lead directing), there is IMHO a good case for self-alerting 4♣.

 

Still, West should have protected himself by asking about 4♣ (in case his 4♥ bid was based on 4♣ showing a suit).

 

Arend

[DrTodd13]

Link to this topic on David Stevenson's forum.

[Echognome]

You are completely wrong.

How can yo alert and say "no agreement" ? That's in first instance absurd.

Even worst without an agreement how can pd alert and say "no agreement, but I guess it's not natural so I alert" it's so ridiculous that I'm quite mad that you can post as if you were 100% sure about the EBU rules, with my respect if you don't know please don't invent because the damage is greater. You can say "In my opinion" but don't say what the EBU would do since it's quite evident that you have no clue about the rules.

Hmm. I did give my opinion of the rules I thought. I don't mind if you disagree, but to use ad hominem arguments doesn't get us very far now does it? I will defer to more knowledgeable people on this case, but to say that I don't have a clue about the rules. I find that to be very rude. If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine I won't take offense. But I don't think you know me well enough to say more.

 

If you know a bid is conventional, but do not know what it means, you ARE supposed to alert even if you do not know what it means. I agree that "no agreement" is different than "I forgot the agreement."

 

(edited for typos)

[uday]

From that referenced forum

 

Whether it is "just bridge" is not the standard for alerting in most jurisdictions, though it may be in some online games. If the fact that the 4 club2.gif bid maybe short is known to both partners, and they know their partners know it, then it is an agreement, and certainly alertable. Whether it is "just bridge" as well is irrelevant. On the other hand, if they have no agreement, and the one who made the bid was merely guessing that his partner would consider it "just bridge" then it is not an agreement and not alertable.

 

 

So, it boils down to whether the could-be-short-4c-bid was made with an agreement.

 

If so, it was "certainly alertable."

If not, it was not alertable.

[pigpenz]

I agree Uday...and certainly west could have asked or passed and let them see where they were going.

[david_c]

I'm not making any claims about the ACBL as I don't know the laws well enough.  In EBU land, 4♣ would have to have been alerted.  It could be explained as "no agreement", but since North didn't raise clubs, I would bet that wouldn't have flown very far.  If it has been alerted and explained as "lead-directing" that would have been fine.  If unalerted, then an implicit partnership agreement would be ruled (IMO).

 

However, the EBU alert procedures are very different.  If it's not natural, then it's alertable (even above game level).

You are completely wrong.

How can yo alert and say "no agreement" ? That's in first instance absurd.

Even worst without an agreement how can pd alert and say "no agreement, but I guess it's not natural so I alert"

Say for example if your LHO opens 2♠ and partner bids 3♠. Then even if you've not discussed the 3♠ bid and have no idea what partner indends, you know it must be alertable, so playing face-to-face bridge in the EBU you have to alert. Our regs say, "Alert any call of your partner which you believe to be alertable even if you cannot explain its meaning." And what else can you say but "no agreement"? Nothing absurd about it.

 

Still, I'd be surprised if North was ruled against for not alerting on a hand like this, even in the EBU. I don't think that his failure to bid 5♣ is enough to show they have an understanding (yes he has six clubs, but he might decide he can wait for a round when his RHO bids 4♥). And the TD will probably think it's unlikely they have discussed this situation. But if they admit that they have an understanding, then they might be in trouble.

[Rebound]

Put me in the "that's absurd" column. So you make an unexpected bid, one not covered by your system and you're supposed to advertise this to the opponents with an alert even though you can't explain its significance to them? I'm not arguing whether this is true, just that it doesn't make sense to me.

[mink]

When designing an alerting policy, about bids that are clearly not natural but the meanig has not been discussed or forgotten, there are two possible ways to handle this:

 

1. Must not be alerted. But this is a problem for opps, e.g. if bidding goes 1♣ (maybe 2 cards in seldom cases) - 2♣ overcall not alerted, you cannot know if the 2♣ is natural or opps just do not remember what they discussed, but are sure that it does not show clubs.

 

2. Must be alerted and explained "not discussed" or "do not remember" or "There are 2 possible meanings, but I do not recall on which one we agreed". Now, if there is no alert, opps can be sure that it shows clubs and are not forced to ask and thereby give UI to partner.

 

I clearly think that the second solution is superior.

 

However, this is a problem in face-to-face-bridge only. Online, with self-alerts, I would expect that if I do not know what we agreed on for some clearly artificial bid, I simply do not use it.

 

Karl

[luis]

So the EBU enforces cheating... Interesting to know I'm surprised.

When pd makes a bid that you "think" is not natural you must alert and say "no agreement" pretty interesting you say absolutely nothing to the opponents and you enlighten your pd that you are taken a view about his bid.

I wonder how good can it be to know that your opponent thinks his pd is doing a non-natural bid if you don't know what it means... you should be in the same ground without the alert....

I'm 99% sure that you are missunderstanding the EBU regulations because in other parts of the world a pair behaving like you say would inmediately be facing all sorts of comitees, the ethics commitee, the systems comitee, the dead-row-appeals comitee, the save-the-cheaters comitee, etc etc.

 

In a local tournament there was actually exactly one case as described, a player alerted a bid and when asked said "I don't know". The TD not only ruled an automatic procedural penalty, he then sent the pair to the ethics comitee, and he retained the non-offending side rights in the board.

You are supossed to alert only bids that where you have an agreement and when asked explain what that agreement is. When there's no agreement there's no alert and I still don't believe this is different in the EBU, maybe the rules are different but you guys must be making a wrong read of them.

[hrothgar]

If anyone is seriously interested in this topic, I recommend looking over the discussions on the Bridge Laws mailing list surrounding the "De Wael School"...

 

Herman has providing a web page describing his line of reasoning

http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/bridge/dwschool.html

[inquiry]

There is two schools of thought being expressed in this thread. One is that this is just bridge, no alet, one that since it can be short (ie not natural) then it must be alerted. Let's handle the dispute between Luis and Karl first.

 

The world bridge federation rules on alerting (which presumably includes Europe) is fairly simple. The policy states,

 

The following classes of calls should be alerted:

1. Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not.

 

2. Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners. (A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization). See Law 40(:rolleyes:.

 

3. Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or overcalls, and non-forcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to opening bids of one of a suit.

 

The following called should not be alerted (except when screens are in use):

 

1. All doubles.

 

2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract.

 

3. 3. Any call at the four level or higher, with the exception of conventional calls on the first round of the auction.

 

That is it.

 

However, the "orange book" of the "English Bridge Union" (EBU), goes further than the WBL rules, and includes (among others) the follwoing statement (note rule 5.1.4)

 

5.1.1 The purpose of alerting is to draw your opponents' attention to any call by your partner that may have a special meaning.

 

5.1.2 Alerting is compulsory at all levels of bidding.

 

5.1.3 Alert only your partner's calls, never your own.

 

5.1.4 Alert any call of your partner which you believe to be alertable even if you cannot explain its meaning.

 

5.1.5 When there is no alert, your opponents can assume that the call does not fall within an alertable category.

 

I think 5.1.4 might be what Karl was referring too. But I think 5.1.1 still applies. That is, you are suppose to alert your opponents to any call that MAY HAVE special meaning. If your partner makes such a call, and you know it is "conventional" (ie has a special meaning), but you have forgotten what that meaning is, you must still alert. The fact that you explain it as "you can't explain it" does, in fact, put you at risk of an adjustment if your partner bid gives the appearance that he took advantage of your lack of understanding in subsequent bidding. That is, he must still carry on the acution as if your response was the correct one with you fully understanding the meaning of his bid.

 

Of course, on line is quite another matter all together. Here we self-alert. So we know what we "think" our agreement is. To alert your own bid and then say, we have no agreement is weird. But the online rule is when in doubt alert, so alerting cue-bids, alerting lead directing bids, would never hurt.

 

I still agree with my earlier comments, and those of luis and others that this is not alertable. In addition, I VERY SERIOUSLY doubt if it was alerted as "lead directional" was "properly alerted" it would have made one iota of difference to the player on the left. It he was going to bid over 4♦ to 4♠, he was bidding it rather his RHO had Club AK, or club singleton, or club void for that matter.

[luis]

Ben,

It's clear now that the posters were missunderstanding the EBU regulations, what the law says is that if you have an agreement and forgot it you should alert anyway if you remember you had agreed something but don't know what.

When you don't have an agreement you shouldn't alert and even worst if you think your pd's bid is not natural but you didn't talk about it it would be a serious fault to alert to draw your pd's atention.

 

One thing is to say "This is conventional, we agreed something but I can't remember what is is" (then the TDs may ask you to leave the table and let pd explain the bid to the opps)

A very different story is to alert and say "We have no agreement"

[Finch]

You are completely wrong.

How can yo alert and say "no agreement" ? That's in first instance absurd.

Even worst without an agreement how can pd alert and say "no agreement, but I guess it's not natural so I alert" it's so ridiculous that I'm quite mad that you can post as if you were 100% sure about the EBU rules, with my respect if you don't know please don't invent because the damage is greater. You can say "In my opinion" but don't say what the EBU would do since it's quite evident that you have no clue about the rules.

With more respect than you gave poor echognome, you are wrong. It is very clear from the EBU rules that if you are certain that a call is alertable but you don't know what it means, you must still alert it.

 

Playing with a new partner, the auction starts:

 

1C (nat or bal, alerted) P 1S (nat) 2NT

 

I don't know what the 2NT bid means, because we haven't discussed it. It could be hearts and a minor (if 2S was natural), it could be both minors, it could be the two "unbid" suits. What I am certain of is that it isn't strong and balanced, which is the only meaning which is not alertable. Therefore I alert it, and explain to my opponents if they ask that we have not discussed it, we have no agreement, but general partnership experience is that it is not natural.

 

Similarly, I play for the first time with an elderly player who has only played social bridge for the last 30 years. LHO opens 1D and he cue bids 2D. I have no idea if this shows both majors, or is the original any-game-forcing cue bid, but I alert it because I'm certain it's not diamonds and therefore it is alertable. If asked, I say "no agreement".

 

If I don't alert either of these, it is clear from the regs that my opponents are entitled to think that we have discussed the auction and it is natural.

 

Now, even if I didn't alert either of these I struggle to think of a circumstance in which the opponents can genuinely claim damage from MI, but that isn't the point.

 

Whether or not something is "just bridge" has no relation to the alerting rules. Solely on the evidence given here, I would certainly rule that 4C should have been alerted. This is completely different from ruling that EW have been damaged and adjusting the score, which I might well not do.

[Guest Jlall]

wow...just read this whole thread...

 

Let me just say Uday is 10000 % correct imo. I would not consider 4C "just bridge." I would consider it anti-bridge. I guess I don't know how to play, but I would bid 4C along the way in a competitive auction to suggest a save/game. There are many hands you aren't sure whether or not to bid 5D, you need partners cooperation. If he has club values/length you want to, otherwise you'll defend. Bidding long suits is standard bridge, bidding voids is not. Whether or not you think bidding a void should be "just bridge" it is not in 2005. If it can be a void it most certainly needs to be alerted.

 

Now you say they have no agreements and south was making a "good bid." Well how did north know not to bid 5C? Whether they had directly discussed it or not, north obviously knew south could have void since he has the easiest 5C bid ever. BTW for those of you who disagree, how would south bid with KQ sixth of diamonds and AJ fourth of clubs? 5m is great but if pard has major suit values instead of clubs, you dont want to save. hmmm. It is clear to me that they both knew that 4C might be a void, thus misinformation.

 

Misinformation does not mean damage however. EW were not damaged at all. They made a bad bid, got a bad result, and tried for a double shot. People like this should be barred from playing in tournaments and they make me sick.

[mike777]

To the people who have answered: “4♣ is just bridge” :

 

When tournament rules state “Alert all conventional bids”, is this interpreted as “only alert conventional bids that experienced players won’t recognize”?

 

Surely 4♣ here is conventional or North would have raised?

 

 

As I saw it there was a clear failure to alert but I could not determine damage, I let result stand. I was interested to see if others thought there was damage.

 

 

jillybean2

Coming to this very funny post late.

 

First off to "ALERT ALL CONVENTIONAL BIDS" is ludicrous!

Second I get the impression most of posters do not know the definition of the word convention or conventional bids.

 

CONVENTION: A CALL OR PLAY WITH A DEFINED MEANING, WHICH MAY BE ARTIFICIAL. THE OLDEST CONVENTION IS THE FOURTH-BEST LEAD, WHICH DATES BACK TO HOYLE ABOUT 1740. THE OLDEST BIDDING CONVENTION IS THE TAKEOUT DOUBLE, WHICH WAS NOT AS OBVIOUS WHEN IT ORIGINATED ABOUT 1912 AS IT IS TODAY.

 

Are the expert players alerting their convention of "takeout doubles" or making a bridge call with a defined meaning or do expert players get to alert some conventions and not others despite the explicit posted rules in this tourney?

[jillybean]

First off to "ALERT ALL CONVENTIONAL BIDS" is ludicrous!

Is it, why?

 

Are the expert players alerting their convention of "takeout doubles" or making a bridge call with a defined meaning or do expert players get to alert some conventions and not others despite the explicit posted rules in this tourney?

 

No and yes. So what are you suggesting?

[cherdano]

Misinformation does not mean damage however. EW were not damaged at all. They made a bad bid, got a bad result, and tried for a double shot. People like this should be barred from playing in tournaments and they make me sick.

Heh. This seems a little harsh on EW now. Given this was a BBO tourney, it's much more likely is that they didn't know the laws and think opponents should get punished whenever they don't alert an alertable bid. Or maybe they know the laws just enough that they know they should call the TD whenever "attention is drawn to an irregularity".

 

Arend

[Guest Jlall]

true they are probably just ignorant. So many times in live bridge though people try to pull the ole double shot, it really gets me going lol.

[epeeist]

Tournament players on BBO are not all experts (notwithstanding what their profiles say... :lol: ) -- why so hard on EW and why expect them to make all sorts of inferences as to what south's bid must mean? If it's alertable it's alertable, and if not it's not. Whether or not W SHOULD have been able to figure out what it meant.

 

Putting myself in W place, after 4♣ by south, what do I do? If S alerts it as lead-directing, I would be much more likely to pass (leaving it up to partner or see whether opponents end up in something one of us would rather double for penalties).

 

If unalerted, I'm much more likely to bid 4♠. Because I assume south's bid either shows great ♣ to bid at the 4-level, and/or tolerance for ♦.

 

4♠ may or may not be a bad bid; but to automatically assume that west, being (arguably) a bad bidder, would still have bid 4♠ after an alert and explanation of south's 4♣ bid as lead-directing is silly.

 

So it's not unreasonable IMO for EW to feel damaged (i.e. he/she would have bid differently if south's bid had been alerted) and call TD. Whether or not they are ultimately held to have been right, they were not wrong to call. And as a (near-novice) TD myself, if I were in that situation where north KNEW what south's bid meant and told me, and south ranted (i.e. was rude), you think I'm not going to adjust?! :lol:

[mike777]

The fun continues.

 

TREATMENT: A NATURAL BID THAT INDICATES A DESIRE TO PLAY IN THE DENOMINATION NAMED (OR PROMISES OR REQUESTS VALUES IN THAT DENOMINATION), BUT THAT ALSO, BY AGREEMENT, GIVES OR REQUESTS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON WHICH FURTHER ACTION COULD BE BASED. A TREATMENT THUS DIFFERS FROM A CONVENTION, WHICH IS A BID THAT GIVES OR REQUESTS INFORMATION UNRELATED TO THE DENOMINATION NAMED.

EXAMPLES OF TREATMENTS ARE LIMIT JUMP RAISE, INVERTED MINOR SUIT RAISES (YES NOT A CONVENTION), PREEMPTIVE RE-RAISES ( YES NOT CONVENTION).

 

 

LEAD-DIRECTING BID: A BID MADE PRIMARILY FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDICATING A DESIRED SUIT FOR PARTNER TO LEAD INITIALLY AGAINST AN IMPENDING ADVERSE CONTRACT. SOMETIMES IT IS CLEAR THE BID IS LEAD-DIRECTING.......SOMETIMES IT IS NOT CLEAR.

 

1S=2H=2S=3D

 

NORTH MAY HAVE LONG DIAMONDS, OR MAY HAVE A HEART FIT AND WANT A DIAMOND LEAD AGAINST A SPADE CONTRACT.

 

 

PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDING: AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN PARTNERS THAT ENABLES THEM TO DRAW INFORMATION OR INFERENCES FROM THE BIDDING AND PLAY. PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS ARE OF TWO TYPES: EXPLICIT, DESCRIBING AGREEMENTS REACHED THROUGH DISCUSSION; AND IMPLICIT, DESCRIBING THOSE NOT SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED BUT ARISING THROUGH EXPERIENCE. THE SUM OF A PARTNERSHIP'S UNDERSTANDING COMPRISES NOT ONLY CONVENTIONAL BIDS AND PLAYS, BUT STYLE: A PLAYER'S TENDICIES IN EXERCISING JUDGEMENT.

IN TOURNAMENT PLAY, PAIRS HAVE A DUTY TO SEE THAT UNDERSTANDINGS FOR WHICH THE OPPONENTS COULD NOT REASONABLY BE AWARE ARE CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY STATED ON THE CONVENTION CARD, ALERTED WHEN REQUIRED AND EXPLAINED IN RESPONSE TO A QUERY.

 

I agree with TD's final judgement.

Justin's makes best point of double dipping.

 

1) If we can agree all conventions are not alertable, even in this bbo tourney, are lead directing bids a convention and if so, an alertable one? Or is this a treatment?

2) If we can agree all partnership understandings are not alertable, are clear or unclear lead directing partnership understanding bids self alertable on bbo? Are we really required to self alert on bbo the above 3D bid example?

[hrothgar]

First off to "ALERT ALL CONVENTIONAL BIDS" is ludicrous!

Second I get the impression most of posters do not know the definition of the word convention or conventional bids.

 

CONVENTION: A CALL OR PLAY WITH A DEFINED MEANING, WHICH MAY BE ARTIFICIAL. THE OLDEST CONVENTION IS THE FOURTH-BEST LEAD, WHICH DATES BACK TO HOYLE ABOUT 1740. THE OLDEST BIDDING CONVENTION IS THE TAKEOUT DOUBLE, WHICH WAS NOT AS OBVIOUS WHEN IT ORIGINATED ABOUT 1912 AS IT IS TODAY.

 

Are the expert players alerting their convention of "takeout doubles" or making a bridge call with a defined meaning or do expert players get to alert some conventions and not others despite the explicit posted rules in this tourney?

If you are going to go and provide definitions, please do so accurately:

 

The Laws of Birdge provide the official definition of the word convention. It differs (subtly) from the one that you provide...

 

Convention

 

1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention.

 

2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference.