Alert regs arround the world...

[hrothgar]

The last couple weeks have seen a lot of give and take regarding different alert structures... In particular, there has been some very vocal disagreement regarding what information should be conveyed by an alert. If I could be so bold, I'd like to divide the world into two different camps

 

1. Alerts are used to flag "artificial" bids. The absence of an alert indicates that a bid is natural.

 

2. Alerts indicate "non-standard" bids. The absence of an alert indicates that the bid conform to some local standard.

 

The EBU is an example of a federation using system 1.

The ACBL uses system 2.

 

I was curious which system gets used in other countries. (I have no idea whats done in the Netherlands, let along Poland or Turkey). Equally significant, what type of standards get used in top level competitions like the bermuda Bowl and the Cavendish...

[the hog]

Case 1 in Oz Richard, which is what I like.

[mrdct]

Case 1 in Oz Richard, which is what I like.

Australia does not used "option 1". Australia has a mixture of pre-alerts, self-alerting calls and delayed alerts in various situations. The absence of an alert does not mean the call is natural, unless screens are in use.

 

http://www.abf.com.au/members/alertingregs.html

[EricK]

Case 1 in Oz Richard, which is what I like.

In an ideal world, I think case 2 is preferable, but I doubt any organisation would ever implement it fully.

 

I.e. publish a complete system which everyone needs to learn, and any bid which doesn't conform needs an alert.

 

No troubles playing with a pick-up partner. No confusion as to what does or doesn't require an alert. No worries about how to deal with unusual methods by the opps - It's all in the published system.

 

Eric

[Finch]

The Bermuda Bowl and other WBF events use Case 1, more or less.

 

In general long teams matches between experts with pre-declarerd systems played with screens lead to far fewer problems than short rounds between inexperienced players.

 

In my experience, the alerting regulations - whatever they are - only lead to problems when a pair either makes unwarranted assumptions, or are ignorant. The first is their own lookout. The second is what the regs try to avoid.

[Finch]

In an ideal world, I think case 2 is preferable, but I doubt any organisation would ever implement it fully.

 

I.e. publish a complete system which everyone needs to learn, and any bid which doesn't conform needs an alert.

 

No troubles playing with a pick-up partner. No confusion as to what does or doesn't require an alert.

Other than the hurdle of having to learn the published system, which you obviously realise is a problem, there's another problem with this case.

 

It would lead to a large number of alerts becoming virtually meaningless.

 

Suppose your complete system is based on BBO Advanced. I turn up and want to play a session of Acol. Our uncontested auction goes:

 

1C (ALERT: promises a 4-card suit)

1S (ALERT: can not have longer diamonds, we bid up the line)

1NT (ALERT: 15-17)

2D (ALERT: Natural, we don't play NMF, shows 5 spades and 4+ diamonds)

2S (ALERT: natural preference, not a response to NMF)

 

or even worse....

 

2H (ALERT: strong two)

2NT (ALERT: positive in spades)

3C (ALERT: natural second suit, not an Ogust response)

3H (ALERT: we are game forced, this is not a sign off)

 

etc, etc

 

As soon as your opening bid doesn't conform with the standard system, every other bid in your auction is going to be alertable. How has that progressed matters?

[Limey_p]

Frances, the way I understand bridge regulations your opponents are entitled to all that information. Do you want them to have it?

[scoob]

Frances, the way I understand bridge regulations your opponents are entitled to all that information. Do you want them to have it?

please. rhetoric like this does nothing to advance the discussion. frances was pointing out how system #2 (as defined in the OP) would be a logistical nightmare if it were applied globally. this is plainly obvious in the context of the entire thread.

[Free]

System 2 in Belgium.

 

Transfers for example, are so common they're seen as normal. If you play 2♦/♥ natural or whatever else, you have to alert, otherwise not.

 

Standard systems in Belgium are ACOL (strong NT) and 5 card Majors with 4 card ♦ (so 1♣ can be doubleton). This also means that according to the regulations you have to alert 1♦ when it can be a 3 card, however there are sooooo many people playing longest/best minor that they already canceled that rule...

 

Imo it's ok when you only play in Belgium, but it's not useful at all going international.

I'd prefer an international ruling: artificial bids need alerts, so alert stayman, transfers, polish club in Poland (so everywhere),... anything which isn't natural. If you prealert 'sayc', you don't need to alert a 3 card m (sayc is considered a natural system ;) ), but prealerting non-natural systems (red) doesn't take away your alerting obligations.

[hrothgar]

As soon as your opening bid doesn't conform with the standard system, every other bid in your auction is going to be alertable. How has that progressed matters?

From my perspective, your examples illustrate my basic point:

 

If you are playing Strong 2 bids, I want some warning...

If your 1NT rebid promises 15-17 and tends to deny a fit, it might very well impact my decision to balance...

 

I will note in passing that there are any number of examples where divergent systems converge on the same set of treatments...

 

Case in point:

 

Consider the auction 1♠ - (P) - 3♠ - (P) - 4♣ in SAYC and Acol.

 

The intial 1♠ opening has very different meanings. The Acol opening promises 4+ Spades and denies 12-14 balanced with a 4 card major. The SAYC opening promises 5+ Spades.

 

However, in both cases, the 3♠ raises promises a limit raise with 4 card trump support. I believe that 4♣ is a cue bid with Spades as trump in both cases...

[helene_t]

Netherlands: alert artificial calls and also alert unexpected call. There is no reference to any "standard". In principle, if you play against a pair that has only heard about Crazy Diamonds, you should try to alert all non-crazy-diamond calls. This makes sense since there is no "standard" in the Netherlands except that most play 1NT 15-17.

 

There are a few natural calls that are explicitly alertable (Walsh, weak notrump). It is unlclear what "Walsh" means in this context (many play some kind of "soft" walsh). Some examples are given of natural calls that do not need alert (negative freebids, inverted minors). Some say that this extrapolates to all natural calls, while others say that you must alert weak jump overcalls etc. when playing against beginners. The problem is that it is debatable whether the "do alert unexpected calls" takes precedence over "do not alert natural calls".

 

There are a few artificial calls that do not need alert. Transfers and Stayman are not alertable in response to an opening if LHO of opener passes. In all other cases you must alert. A natural 2♣ response to 1NT (uncontested auction) is alertable. This is probably not that case for ♦ and ♥ at the moment but the rules change frequently.

 

A 2♠ response to 1NT (the case that started this discussion) is natural if not alerted. This is quite obvious since there is no artificial standard meaning of this call.

 

At a reasonable high level, this mess does not cause much problems, but at internal club competition the alert rules are completely useless IMHO.

 

You are not allowed to alert doubles, no matter how exotic (Lionel, DONT).

 

This is not so relevant to online bridge since you obviously have to alert everything that might be misunderstood when playing online. Note that online, alert is not a binary flag since it is usually acompanied by explanation.

 

A couple of years ago I played in a Belgian tournament. Bidding culture is very similar to the Dutch one. There is intimate collaboration between the Dutch and the Flemish BF: for example, the most popular beginner's textbooks in the Netherlands were written on the basis of Flemish specifications. Even so, the alert procedures were very confusing to us. When playing in more exotic countries like England and Denmark I have no idea what to alert.

 

As for BBO alerting procedures, I agree with Free.

[kgr]

Netherlands: alert artificial calls and also alert unexpected call. There is no reference to any "standard".

.....

A couple of years ago I played in a Belgian tournament. Bidding culture is very similar to the Dutch one. There is intimate collaboration between the Dutch and the Flemish BF: for example, the most popular beginner's textbooks in the Netherlands were written on the basis of Flemish specifications.

In Belgium Berry Westra's books are used for teaching beginners. I'm surprised you say "the most popular beginner's textbooks in the Netherlands were written on the basis of Flemish specifications. ". I think it is the other way around.

And I also thought that these books were widely used in the Netherlands and that they are the basis for the alerting procedure?

[coyot]

Czech Republic: Mix of both. All "artifical" calls are alerted, the only exception being normal (4M promising) Stayman.

Also, unexpected bids alerted. In fact, I don't know how strict are the rules here, but I presume that you alert all bids that carry extra partnership agreement or experience (unless they are natural in principle and the extra agreements are described on your CC.)

 

SO, for example, 1♣-1♥-1♠ will be alerted by responder if denying 12-14 balanced, unless the convention card says so.

 

So will 1♣-1♦ be alerted as "denies 4M unless has 5♦ and GF strength".

Andm 1♣-1♠ will be alerted as "may have longer diamonds if not GF strength".

 

Those alerts may seem ridiculous to somebody but I think that they are the result of "full disclosure" rule.

 

For example, the first case, of 1♠ rebid, usually describes 9 cards in opener's hand - and if I do not alert the bid, opponents may assume that partner could still have 4-3-3-3 shape. I know he does NOT - and I think that under present rules, I should alert opponents to this fact.

 

IMHO, any bridge federation that does not require similar rules is swimming upstream. Quote from WBF (and is there any higher authority?):

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(:).

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

 

Rule 2 explicitly says to alert bids that have special meanings or lead to special understandings.

 

Those strict alerting rules both educate players for full disclosure and protect you in case of any dispute.

[helene_t]

In Belgium Berry Westra's books are used for teaching beginners.

Yes, I was refering to those books.

[Fluffy]

I receently received regulations from spanish organization, it said what is standard: stayman, weak 2s and take out doubles, almost anything else (Even trransfer or opening 2NT with 5c major) should be alerted.

 

Then I took a look at what was banned on normal events, and they say you cannot have an agreement for opening a pre with less than 7 HCP, this is just ridicoulous. Also opening flannery 2♦ or 2♥ is banned, so I guess my both majors 2 suiters or strong balanced is as well lol.

[Al_U_Card]

Active ethics and the desire to play a fair, equitable contest should ultimately be the arbiter.

 

In a recent club game, pard failed to alert my 1NT rebid which bypassed but could contain a 4-card S suit. He then bid 2C which I alerted and explained on request as CBS at which moment my pard remembered our agreement and started to explain the possibility of a Spade suit in my hand. I interrupted him with " wait until the auction is over" and proceeded under questions at the end of the hand to explain about my spades precluding the presence of 3 H cards in my hand, as we show them first. I thought that I had done my job, until LHO started asking questions about my UNALERTED club opening bid. At this point I told him that this request was unethical and a heated exchange took place.

 

Since the 1C bid was not alerted and the sequence was as described, was he entitled to direct his partner's attention to the club suit????

[McBruce]

The last couple weeks have seen a lot of give and take regarding different alert structures...  In particular, there has been some very vocal disagreement regarding what information should be conveyed by an alert.  If I could be so bold, I'd like to divide the world into two different camps

 

1.  Alerts are used to flag "artificial" bids.  The absence of an alert indicates that a bid is natural.

 

2.  Alerts indicate "non-standard" bids.  The absence of an alert indicates that the bid conform to some local standard.

Point One:

 

I am uncomfortable with rules that allow players to imply something from the absence of an alert. It seems to me that most jurisdictions will bite the non-offending side for making such assumptions. Observe:

 

If the opponent's auction goes 1NT - 2♦ and there is no alert, non-offenders are expected to protect themselves by looking at a convention card or asking.

 

If a non-offender here psyches a 2♥ call with ♥Jxx and goes for 800, the side that failed to alert may get a procedural penalty levied against their 800 but the non-offenders are going to have to eat their bad score.

 

If a non-offender here decides to bid 3♣ and goes for 200 against a partscore, he doesn't get to claim that he assumed 2♦ was weak because of the absense of an alert if there was a visible convention card on the table, or if it was common knowledge that transfers were being used.

 

Now let's argue the other way...

 

Auction goes 1NT - 2♦, alerted and explained as a transfer. If the partnership agreement is that 2♦ is a signoff, the non-offending side will virtually always get an adjusted score.

 

 

Online, there is virtually no reason at all not to protect yourself when a commonly alerted call is not alerted. You can ask one or both opponents what their agreements are privately, and no UI will be passed. Assuming a bid means something is never a good idea online, because you can always find out.

 

 

 

Point Two:

 

There is no constant definition of 'natural,' at least, not a simple one that players are aware of. Some Polish players, as pointed out elsewhere, think 1♣ in WJ is natural. The problem with the artificial-natural approach is defining what is natural and making that definition common knowledge among players. Still, I think it is better than your alternative of "standard-non-standard." I routinely tell players to ignore the ACBL alert rules, try to use common sense, and pay any penalty imposed when you cause damage and move on. This, to me, is far better than studying the GCC and becoming a bridge lawyer instead of a bridge player.

[keylime]

I wholeheartedly agree with Bruce.

 

Bridge is a game that should be won at the table, not won in the back room of an appeal committee.

[hrothgar]

After looking at the range of response, i've settled on a simple solution.

The only simple solution is for us to alert everything.

EVERY bid, no matter how innocuous needs an alert.

 

Of course, the act of alerting won't convey any kind of useful information, but at least we get to say alert alot. And isn't that what bridge is really all about.

[mycroft]

Quotes aren't working, Al_U_Card's comments in ">":

 

>In a recent club game, pard failed to alert my 1NT rebid which bypassed but could

>contain a 4-card S suit. He then bid 2C which I alerted and explained on request as

>CBS at which moment my pard remembered our agreement

 

Fine.

 

>and started to explain the possibility of a Spade suit in my hand.

 

Not fine.

 

>I interrupted him with " wait until the auction is over"

 

Also not fine. From TFLB:

 

Law 75D. Correcting Errors in Explanation

 

1. Explainer Notices Own Error

If a player subsequently realises that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must immediately call the Director (who will apply Law 21 or Law 40C).

 

Partner should wait for the end of the CBS explanation, call the TD, and retroactively Alert 1NT (I am assuming here that it is Alertable in your jurisdication).

 

If he starts explaining anything, you must call the TD - and it certainly can *not* wait until the auction is over. The opponents may wish to change the pass over 1NT, an option that will go away if they call over 2C (although the adjusted score possibility is still there).

 

I believe you are confusing this situation with the next Law down (that does require waiting until at least the end of the auction):

 

Law 75D2. Error Noticed by Explainer's Partner

A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made; a defender may not correct the error until play ends. After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy; after play ends, if he is to be a defender), the player must inform the opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous.

 

On the other hand, the opponents should have called the TD once you pointed out your partner's (supposed) irregularity in correcting his explanation.

 

Side note:

>LHO started asking questions about my UNALERTED club opening bid. At this point

>I told him that this request was unethical

 

Quite possibly. But in the situation where he's been told two totally different meanings of the same auction, including one partner stopping the other from explaining something, and everything *else* meaning something "weird" (to him, at least), are you not surprised he asked? Of course, if he has C-- or CAKJ965, the TD will deal with that.

 

Of course (as always) the right thing to do instead of using words like "une--" or "ch--" is to call the TD and explain what happened. The TD is paid, often quite well, to explain bridge's often unexpected system of ethics to players, and part of what the TD is being paid for is to know what that system is - and to be able to explain to each player what restrictions their, or their partner's, actions have put them under.

 

>and a heated exchange took place.

 

No, really? Colour me so surprised. I'll bet dollars to donuts (though at Tim Horton's prices, that's only a 5-4 bet) that it would have been a lot less heated if the TD had been there when required, or at least before the slings started.

 

Michael.

[han]

After looking at the range of response, i've settled on a simple solution.

The only simple solution is for us to alert everything.

EVERY bid, no matter how innocuous needs an alert.

Back to the topic:

 

As Richard very well knows, alerting every bid is the same as not alerting any bid. While this might be ok, alerts were introduced for a good reason, and I think that they still serve a purpose. Having to ask for the meaning of every bid just in case it is something unusual doesn't make the game more fun.

 

In an ideal world, you would alert a bid if you think that the opponents might not know that the bid conveys a special message. In the real world that needs strict laws, the closest we can come to this is to alert bids that differ from some standard system. The only problem is that this standard system has to be well defined, and that all players need to know it.

 

People who play unusual systems or conventions often feel discriminated against by the alerting procedures. In my opinion there is no reason for this.

[helene_t]

After looking at the range of response, i've settled on a simple solution.

The only simple solution is for us to alert everything.

EVERY bid, no matter how innocuous needs an alert.

Pretty close. That's what I do, unless I'm sure that the opps will understand without alert.

 

For example, playing precision or acol: alert all 1-openings.

 

Alert 3+ clubs if playing against players who might not play that. I do not alert 5-card majors when playing against 4-card majorites though and I don't alert weak jumps except for jump shifts.

 

Alert responses to 1NT, whether natural, stayman, transfer or whatever. (I don't alert a natural 2NT response to 1NT, though).

 

Playing Acol, alert a non-forcing 2NT response to one of a suit.

 

People who play unusual systems or conventions often feel discriminated against by the alerting procedures. In my opinion there is no reason for this.

 

That's not my experience. The main purpose of the alert call is to impress the opponents by showing them what a wonderfull system you play and how accurately you know it. It's a privilege to be able to alert.

[coyot]

I think that you should alert bids that are conveying special agreements. I don't think you should alert acol 2NT responses to 1 in suit, if they show something like 10-12 balanced.

 

You should alert 3+club no matter against whom you play, unless you're playing under a jurisdiction that explicitly says this is not to be alerted (ACBL). (But remember that playing on BBO does not mean playing under ACBL. If there is any jurisdiction, it is WBF).

 

You should alert Stayman under the condition that the jurisdiction does not state otherwise. (Ours does - this is the ONLY convention that is not alerted and therefore 2♣ natural has to be alerted here, not that I've ever seen it :))

 

When alerting your bids, you should NOT worry about "what exactly the local customs are". You should worry about what system you play, what are it's basic rules.

Basic rules of SA based systems are Majors first, NT then, minors last. Therefore the 1NT rebid with possible 4spade holding must be alerted, because it is unexpected. I would alert 1NT in both cases anyway, just to tell opponents that we have a clear agreement, but strictly speaking, 1NT which denies spades is the "natural" bid in American Standard and therefore does not need to be alerted.

[csdenmark]

The main purpose of the alert call is to impress the opponents by showing them what a wonderfull system you play and how accurately you know it. It's a privilege to be able to alert.

Very nice Helene - never thought it that way. :)

I have often wondered why opps. are asking me to stop alerting.

[borio]

I can tell about Bulgaria,especialy our city(Stara Zagora).

We are guided by Valery Yanev's credo,which says;

'alert everything,that could be wrongly understood by the opponents'

Else all open tournament have different rules,but the commonly used

(may be on Dimiter georgiev's influence :-) is:

'alert all the artificial bids untill 3nt '.

But again it depends on the conditions,if there are screens,then everithing is alertable.

I could say as an acting TD that if the regulations are not so tightened,the people enjoy it much more,they are pleased to be respected as honest and ethic players!