Online Standards

[hrothgar]

The only way out is to alert artifical bids and not alert natural bids.

 

I will NEVER alert my natural responses to 1NT, EVER!

(At least until WBF says that Transfers get the same treatment as Stayman, which is, as far as I know, the only widely accepted non-alerted conventional bid.)

Alerting all "artifical" bids is assine. It puts the cart before the horse.

 

I agree that such alert rules are simple to following, but they don't provide any useful information. Alert systems are not designed because we like to hear people say the word alert, they are put in place because want to provide the opponents with useful information.

 

Sadly, alerting "artifical" bids does not provide any useful information.

 

Such a system might have made sense 50 years ago when the "antural" meaning of a bid was also the "expected" meaning of a bid. Today, such systems are a waste of time...

[ochinko]

I claim that this flag should be used to indicate whether a bid has an unusual or unexpected meaning.

I am with hrothgar here. The need for alerting is to draw attention of opps that something is happening that they should know about, not that it's artificial. Everyone expects 2C after 1NT to be Stayman, so logically here you'd alert only the natural 2C if you happen to play it like that.

 

At the local club the bidding from our side went 1H - 3H. We play Bergen raises. Opps complained afterwards that we didn't explain that 3H was a weak hand. I found that very strange at the time, since 3H is completely natural. So I went to the TD, who was also an expert player, and it was explained to me that we should have alerted it, because it's too modern for some people. He said he expected that in 10 years the opposite would be true, and 3H should be alerted only if strong.

 

Since then I had to review what is alertable, and what isn't, and more importantly, why.

 

Petko

[McBruce]

My take on this:

 

Alerts are a response to the problem that players in f2f bridge, when asking questions about calls, pass unauthorized information to their partners by asking. Alert rules are an attempt to minimize (total elimination is impossible) this UI, not to force pairs playing unusual conventions to disclose: disclosure is expected anyhow, through explanations, pre-alerts, convention cards, etc.

 

Complicated rules on when to alert and when not to don't help sell bridge. Players who waste time arguing about what is and is not alertable when they do not have a problem keep people away from bridge who might otherwise come back: the opponents.

 

Online bridge has no need for alerts since either opponent can ask about the bid without passing any UI to partner. You can even ask both opponents separately and find out if they both agree. There is never any trouble with viewing the opponent's convention card-if they have one-online, no coffee cups or bid-boxes in the way. An alert system online would be an unnecessary complication.

 

What might work, especially now that BBO is multilingual, is a dialog box that could pop up whenever someone wants a bid explained:

 

The 2♠ call in this auction is:

 

[__] forcing (partner cannot pass unless his RHO calls)

[__] invitational (partner needs extra values to bid on)

[__] non-forcing (partner can pass this call)

[__] other (explain below)

 

[__] natural (shows willingness to play in the denomination)

[__] artificial (says nothing about the denomination)

[__] other (explain below)

 

Description of this call: [_____________]

(select from a list of common descriptions: transfer, game try, slam try, asking bid, relay, etc.)

 

More information: _____________________________ (user enters text)

 

The bidder would not be able to bid again until the call was explained with a minimum of one box in each of the first two groups checked, and at least some text entered if 'other' was chosen. Such a dialog box could be translated into other languages easily.

[ochinko]

Online bridge has no need for alerts since either opponent can ask about the bid without passing any UI to partner.

This, unfortunately, is not true. I've seen occasions when an opp clicks on a bid of yours, and you have to explain it. Sometimes it serves exactly as an unauthorized information, because the other opp gets the message that his partner is interested in that suit. Intentionally, or not, it happens. It could cost you the hand because opps find the only defense.

 

In those cases it is even worse than a f2f tourney, because you don't know who was the interested party :)

 

Petko

[McBruce]

You are saying that when you are waiting for your partner to make a call and an explanation of LHO's call comes up, you know that partner is interested in that suit because obviously if you didn't ask for the explanation, he did.

 

What's to say that the bidder himself didn't simply add an explanation?

[Echognome]

It seems to me that alert procedures should clearly lie under the regulation of the sponsoring organization. Perhaps it makes sense to discuss a standard alerting procedure available to TDs that run tournaments on BBO. It would make sense that TDs can either accept the standard procedure or require one of their own. (For example, I might run a tourney and say that EBU alert procedures are in effect.)

 

On a personal note, I have to say that when I first came to England after learning alerting in the ACBL I thought they alerted all too often and it was a bit ridiculous. However, now I am a firm believer that the EBU actually makes a lot of sense. At the very least, the alert procedures are quite clear and transparent, although there are of course gray areas like there are everywhere. Note I can state them here as they are that short:

 

You must alert a call if

(a) it is not 'natural' (see 5.3).

(b ) it is natural, but you have an agreement by which it is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect.

(c ) it is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect.

 

Note also that a bid is only natural if it does not say anything about another suit, and hence why canape bids are not considered natural.

[ochinko]

You are saying that when you are waiting for your partner to make a call and an explanation of LHO's call comes up, you know that partner is interested in that suit because obviously if you didn't ask for the explanation, he did.

 

What's to say that the bidder himself didn't simply add an explanation?

It is the delay of the explanation that tells the tale. If it came a few bids later, it is almost obvious that the declarer didn't add the explanation on his own accord.

 

Let's say that I have a strong hand with ♦KQTxx. LHO opens 1NT, partner passes, RHO bids 2D, unalerted. Even though it's important for me to know whether this is a transfer, or not, I believe I should not click at the bid. Why? Because most probably it is, and I'd be passing UI to my partner if I do it. The click over a bid plays the role of a cheap Leitner double.

 

The declarer can play that game himself if he decides to be unethical. He could explain a bid that noone asked for an explanation in order to receive a lead there. You can make an experiment at a friendly table where you know all the players well enough. Do it, and ask them later what was their feeling about the unnecessarily explained bid.

 

Petko

[McBruce]

Perhaps you have a point. OKBridge, when I was there, did not have this ability to click on bids: we relied on private chat to the opponents only. This was made easy on OKB by directing messages to LHO with <, RHO with > and both opponents with =. It's a convention BBO should adopt.

 

Maybe the solution is simpler than we realize:

 

--when a bid is clicked on, the explanation only goes to the person who clicked on the bid and kibitzers

--if the other opponent later clicks on the bid, he gets the same explanation automatically after a random time interval between 3 and 5 seconds

[Echognome]

Note that I brought up thise problem of UI before. Fred had mentioned he'd look into it. Not sure if it's still being considered:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=7254&hl=

[hrothgar]

Note also that a bid is only natural if it does not say anything about another suit, and hence why canape bids are not considered natural.

All things are relative including Canape...

 

Some "canape" bids absolutely promise a longer suit. As Echognomes notes, these bids are conventional because they provide information about a denomination other than the one named.

 

Some canape bid are considered natural. For example, a Blue Cub style 1♥ opening could conceal longer clubs or diamonds. Opener could even hold a canape reverse with 4+ Hearts and 5+ Spades. However, this opening is considered a natural treatment.

[bearmum]

I think that JUST clicking "alert" should be INSUFFICIENT without a clear explanation of the bid means --- this would remove "UI" because opps could not ask for explanation and declarer could not give explaination as though one of opps had asked for it --- etc etc

 

THEN we get to "what is alertable" which is really problematical in a global site -- as for example - STAYMAN is not alertable in USA but is here in Australia :D :) :) so maybe alerts should be made AND explained as above (at least at above the 1 level) as 'a call that does not indicate a desire to play in that contract' - or SOMETHING like that?? :)

 

ALSO if your call means that it has a second meaning -- for example Cappeletti over 1NT showing the suit called PLUS another HAS to be alerted

[Limey_p]

Much agreement here with bearmum, and I'll repeat myself a bit.

 

IMO its never enough to click "alert" on bbo - provide an explanation immediately. IMO the software should support a context-sensitive drop-box of explanations.

 

IMO "what should be aleratable" should be set by community norms, and this applies to f2f as well as bbo. At time of writing this, I couldn't find the poster who used the terms "rat's ass" and "alerting stayman". Regardless, I think I care a bit more about rats than he does.

[Winstonm]

How about making all this even more simple? Instead of applying rule upon rule, how about a player having to take at least some degree of self protection upon himself and asking when it is his turn if the bid just made was natural if he thought it was something else?

 

This ought to take every bit of 1 1/2 seconds:

 

1N-P-2S

 

"Nat?"

"Y"

 

WTP?

 

Winston

[1eyedjack]

How about making all this even more simple? Instead of applying rule upon rule, how about a player having to take at least some degree of self protection upon himself and asking when it is his turn if the bid just made was natural if he thought it was something else?

 

This ought to take every bit of 1 1/2 seconds:

 

1N-P-2S

 

"Nat?"

"Y"

 

WTP?

 

Winston

I guess there are two problems.

 

The first is simple number-crunching:

 

We would prefer an environment in which play progresses as fast as possible without compromising the transmission of agreements to opposing sides. I think it takes more than 1.5 seconds per exchange that you mention, and it would certainly take less if the explanation were volunteered with the bid.

 

That would suggest no problem, if an explanation were to be provided with every bid, but of course that is not the case. In some cases the opponents decide that they know enough about your methods that an explanation is not required. A common sequence that may have already arisen earlier in the session and explained at that time is an example. If opponents are playing precision I only require an alert the first time 1C is opened (provided the definition does not change with position and vul). Same with range of 1N opener and whether 2C is Stayman or 2-red is transfer. In that individual case the fastest method of progression is to omit providing the explanation and to omit requesting one.

 

The overall fastest solution in the long term is to predict those occasions when an explanation is likely to be required and on those events provide the explanation with the bid. That is not an easy prediction to express as a "rule", and therein lies problem 1.

 

Problem 2 is one of courtesy and education. It is slightly more courteous and furthers ethical standards to provide an explanation in advance of an enquiry, rather than expect opponents to extract the information like blood from a stone. Sadly there are too many players in the latter category. I do not think that setting rules will educate this class of players, which rules may just irritate the ethical players.

 

Perhaps, after all, the best solution is to leave the software as flexible as possible, ie as it is now, and let the community sort out among themselves how to treat the transgressors.

[bearmum]

Much agreement here with bearmum, and I'll repeat myself a bit.

 

IMO its never enough to click "alert" on bbo - provide an explanation immediately. IMO the software should support a context-sensitive drop-box of explanations.

 

IMO "what should be aleratable" should be set by community norms, and this applies to f2f as well as bbo. At time of writing this, I couldn't find the poster who used the terms "rat's ass" and "alerting stayman". Regardless, I think I care a bit more about rats than he does.

Actually what I should have said was that on BBO your bid should not be registered if you press "alert" and do not give explaination == however I do realise that would mean Fred and his team would have extra programming to do (sorry Fred ;) )

[coyot]

Actually what I should have said was that on BBO your bid should not be registered if you press "alert" and do not give explaination == however I do realise that would mean Fred and his team would have extra programming to do (sorry Fred :) )

I would not agree with that.

 

Do not enforce information on those who do not seek it. If my profile says sa2/1 and partner's profile says sa2/1, I alert 1♣ or transfers just for the good manners. Of course, I could agree with partner to play some strange system and then "lure" opponents into thinking that we play better minor and sayc - but this could happen in a f2f game as well :).

 

I think the solution should lie in enforcing players to "agree" on a system when sitting at the table. I'm not sure how this should be implemented exactly. Suppose something like:

 

In your profile, you would have an extra page with checkboxes, describing major bidding systems (SAYC, SA2/1, ACOL, Precision, WJ, MOSCITO, VIKING, you name it), possibly ordered by preference.

 

When you sit at a table, the system looks for matches and makes a choice, either the first match or the match with the total highest preference (for both partners summed).

 

Both partners are notified about that and may manually change the preferred system or specify "other".

 

This will allow the opponents to "know" the system of this partnership - and it will also enforce some grounds for TD rulings. If you didn't want to play SAYC, you should have chosen "other" and informed your opponents about it.

[barmar]

You don't seem to see the danger if you must alert a natural as well as an artificial 2♠. Say you alert 2♠ because it's natural. What do you think LHO will assume? That it's a transfer to clubs or MSS and that he will get one more chance.

 

Much to his surprise the auction is over after pass, pass, pass. Who do you think has been damaged now? Did the alert of the natural 2♠ help him? No, on the contrary!

This is indeed a problem in f2f bridge. But in online bridge you can supply an explanation along with your alert, so there's no confusion.

[mycroft]

to WaldDK (and other "it's natural, why should I alert?" people): do you think any of the following should need an alert:

 

1) 2H opening showing GF hand with long hearts

2) 2H opening showing 8-8.5 tricks, long hearts, maybe another suit

3) 2H opening showing 13-16 points, 5+hearts

4) 2H opening showing a standard weak 2

5) 2H opening showing an EHAA weak 2 (could be 87532, could be AKQ9xxxx with an outside Qxx, could be anything in between. Could be 5332, could be 6610, could be 8311, could be anything in between).

6) 1H-3H raise showing a)GF, b ) Limit, c ) garbage strength

7) 2C opening intermediate with clubs

8) 2C opening natural weak 2

9) 1H opening promising either 4 or 6+ hearts (never 5)

10) natural, weak 2C response to 1NT opening

11) natural 2H overcall of 1H opening

 

I'm sure you can think of others. If the answer to all of those is "no", are you prepared to ask - every time, of every opponent - or take your lumps when you guess wrong?

 

The ACBL Alert Procedure, I will be the first to say is a mess. Nobody can remember it all, and in the process of "simplifying" it they have made it subject to judgement and still requiring our just-out-of-lessons players to know expert-level systems so that they can Alert that part of it that they don't play. But even the old EBU scheme still has three parts:

 

1) Alert conventional bids

2) Alert natural bids that are forcing or non-forcing in a way the opponents will not expect

3) Alert natural bids that are so uncommon as to be totally unexpected.

 

And even that has problems (1NT-2C is always alertable, no matter what is means being the canonical example). So they're "complicating it" slightly soon.

 

As for 1NT-2S to play, colour me ACBL-ish, but that's one of the ones I think where the lack of Alert should be a warning. But I still bid it 2 "to play" ♠ on BBO. May not need an Alert, but the opponents will be better off if they know up top.

 

Michael.

[Walddk]

As far as I'm concerned they can dump all alerts. If I'm interested, I will ask, and if I'm not I will wait until the auction is over and when I'm on lead. Even then I may not be interested.

 

In f2f bridge I often ask non experienced partnerships to skip the alerts altogether. The alerts help them more than they help us.

 

Having said all this, however, I obviously respect local alert procedure no matter where in the world I am. There is no standard procedure, so it's a good idea to become familiar with the one in force where you play at any given time.

 

Roland

[helene_t]

to WaldDK (and other "it's natural, why should I alert?" people): do you think any of the following should need an alert:

 

1) 2H opening showing GF hand with long hearts

2) 2H opening showing 8-8.5 tricks, long hearts, maybe another suit

3) 2H opening showing 13-16 points, 5+hearts

4) 2H opening showing a standard weak 2

[.....]

If the answer to all of those is "no", are you prepared to ask - every time, of every opponent - or take your lumps when you guess wrong?

Yes. It makes no sense to require an alert of a 2♥ opening which does not show "standard" strength, since nobody knows what "standard" strength is. This is the way it works in the Netherlands: you are not supposed to alert jump raises, jump overcalls, two openings etc. whether weak, strong or intermediate.

 

Of course, it's possible that opps find it obvious that a non-alerted call in a certain stuation promises between X and Y HCPs, so I would have to alert a call that might be based on less than X or more than Y points. Since I have no idea what X and Y is in opps culture, all calls must be alerted.

 

Then I prefer to pre-alert the general approach. If your general approach is unfamiliar to the opps, they will know that an unalerted 2♥ openig shows 0-37 points, 4+ hearts. In many cases that is sufficient. What they need to know is that it's natural so 3♥ by them will be a cuebid and double tends to show support for ♠♦♣.

 

It's possible that many of us could live with either a strict scheme (alert everything that is different in some standard systems, say 4-card major openings) or a soft scheme (alert everything that is different in all standard systems, say 6-9 notrump openings) but do you expect a beginner from, say, Acol-land or WJ-land who has no experience with SEF, SA etc. to know which of their natural calls might be non-standard in other countries? Using the ACBL scheme (as I understand it, which I don't really, but anyway), a beginner from Poland is supposed to alert his natural 2♣ opening, but not (I think) his less natural 1♦ opening. Also, he is expected to make the inference that opps un-alerted 1NT opening is appr. 15-17 points, but not to make the inference that opp's un-alerted 1♦-response to 1♣ denies 7+ HCPs with 4-4 reds. So the alert scheme becomes meaningsless and I can understand if many players from a particular country don't bother to alert.