ruling #1

[coyot]

Good point Ben! If you HAVE the agreement, alert. If you're just using your judgement and don't have an agreement, no need for alert.

 

I've used superacceptance of a transfer with a 4fit and good hand without agreements, hoping that partner will take it naturally (invitational). Rebidding 1NT when you have no agreement about spade suit is the same - judging that it will be a good bid even when you happen to have 4 spades.

[jillybean]

On the subject of agreements about natural bids being alertable, you might be interested in Appeal no. 2 from this week's EBU event in Brighton:

 

page 5 of this document

David Stevenson says here "...The wording thus is intended only to make players alert their opponents where something totally unexpected may have occurred" (EBU I assume)

 

ACBL code of ethics on the other hand says...

A major tenet of active ethics is the principle of full disclosure. This means that all information available to your partnership must be made available to your opponents.

 

This is going to be an ongoing debate atleast until all parties agree on the above.

 

And perhaps another reason to move towards an electronic playing environment so full disclosure is possible without fear of unuthorized information to partner.

[david_c]

David Stevenson says here "...The wording thus  is intended only to make players alert their opponents where something totally unexpected may have occurred" (EBU I assume)

 

ACBL code of ethics on the other hand says...

A major tenet of active ethics is the principle of full disclosure. This means that all information available to your partnership must be made available to your opponents.

Well, those two quotes aren't necessarily contradictory, as David Stevenson is referring to specifically the alerting regulations. The ACBL quote says that full disclosure must be achieved, but not necessarily by alerting.

 

But the appeal certainly does illustrate that there's a lot of disagreement on this subject.

[jillybean]

but not necessarily by alerting.

Oh, how else?

[david_c]

but not necessarily by alerting.

Oh, how else?

By giving a complete and accurate description when the opponents ask for one.

 

As far as "full disclosure" is concerned, that's all there is to it. Full disclosure is only indirectly connected with alerting. This was all discussed in the "information requests" topic a couple of weeks ago - if you don't understand, I suggest you reread some of Frances's posts there.

[jillybean]

Thanks, I will. I always think (incorrectly) of alert and disclosure as one action, an alert without an explanation is useless imo.

In ONLINE bridge

Edited August 19, 2005 by jillybean2

[Rebound]

I hope you will all forgive me for saying so, but I am of the impression this whole discussion is a bunch of hoohaw. I firmly believe we can assume that the vast majority of players wish to be fair to their opponents while at the same time obtaining the best result possible on a given hand.

 

By fair, I presume they do not wish to obtain a result through misleading their opponents in obfuscating the meaning of a given call. The intent of the alert procedure, as has been pointed out, is to prevent the opponents being mislead by a call they may, for whatever reason, believe to mean something other than it does. But the whole thing is overblown to me. The part of the regs I seem to quote most often is, "- Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." This statement echoes my belief that too much reliance is placed on the opponents protecting you with alerts.

 

This does not eliminate the responsibility of the "offending" side to alert those calls which carry a special meaning but in the original example given, I would basically dismiss the entire thing out of hand. Inquiry's example of 2♥ promising fewer than 4 is a prime example of imformation that I believe must be communicated (or at least offered via an alert). If I play old-style Standard American and a double raise of a major shows a game forcing hand, should it be alerted? I think so, natural or not, since almost no one plays that way anymore and your opponents should be informed. Would I cry if I came in over this auction and went for a telephone number without asking about the bid, alerted or not? No.

 

On the other hand, any cue-bid of a suit bid by the opponents pretty obviously carries meaning other than a desire to play in the denomination named. Whether it's alerted or not I would have no sympathy for anyone who made a poor bidding decision due to not asking what it means. (Mind you, I think this implies that a natural call in a suit bid by the opponents should be alerted.)

 

I realize this may be a minority view, especially given the number of posts relating to the apparent dismissal of alerting natural calls. But to quote Brandal, "I think it's when a pair deviates? (sic) from the standard use and understanding of a convention or bid,it really needs to alert the opps without assuming the opps will ask." I believe this applies equally well to natural calls with highly unusual meanings.

 

I guess maybe I am thinking of a perfect world where everyone wants to have a nice game of bridge and no one cheats or tries various sleazy tricks to obtain a result from the director they didn't get from playing the hand. Oh well. If we spend 99% of our time fussing over 1% of players we are doing a disservice to the rest of the bridge community. No matter what the SO, the intent is the same: be fair to the opponents. I really don't think we need to agree on a specific alert procedure (although, for the record, when running a tournament, I endure the conditions of contest specifically state that for the purposes of the regs, it is an ACBL event and post links to the Laws and the Alert procedure on their site.) What we need is to educate the players as to the purpose of alerting in the first place. Alltogether too many players I have encountered misunderstand even that. There was a thread a while back discussing players who expect you to alert and describe your actual holding rather than the agreed meaning of the call. This is the sort of stuff we need to educate people about, not whether EBU rules say you should alert a transfer.

 

Here's one for ya: the auction - 1♥-p-3♦ - when I asked what the 3♦ bid meant, the player said, "8-10, heart support". Now, having no first hand knowledge of Bergen raises at the time, I still didn't know if this was showing a diamond suit a la fit showing jump or not because he/she didn't specify the bid was artificial. It was my mistake not to ask for further clarification as I proceeded to misdefend the hand. It could be argued that the player should have disclosed that 3♦ was artificial, but at the time, I just went on with the next hand and counted myself to have learned a new lesson and made it a point to learn Bergen raises even tho I don't play them. My point? Sure, I could have called the director and made a big deal of being mislead by the explanation, but why would I? Because I failed to protect myself by making an unfounded assumption? I don't think so. I have no reason to believe the player in question had any intent to mislead me. And that, to me, is the key consideration. Good judgement of the tournament director is what is required. This explains why terms such as "special agreement" are deliberatley left vague.

 

I hope I have offended no one. And sorry for the long post. I guess I just want us all to get along and enjoy this great game and waste less time crying foul.

[david_c]

If I play old-style Standard American and a double raise of a major shows a game forcing hand, should it be alerted? I think so, natural or not, since almost no one plays that way anymore and your opponents should be informed. Would I cry if I came in over this auction and went for a telephone number without asking about the bid, alerted or not? No.

But there's a third question, which is more important as far as this forum is concerned. Suppose you're a TD, and you get called to a table where the bidding has gone 1♠:3♠ etc., and their opponents complain that the 3♠ bidder's hand is too strong - they want an adjustment because they think 3♠ should be alerted if it is game forcing. Now you have to decide, how do you rule? You have precisely two choices (usually):

 

1. "I don't think you can expect your opponents to alert 3♠ here." [and to the 3♠ bidder: "I'm not going to adjust the score, but please alert 3♠ in future because most people play it as showing a weaker hand."]

 

2. "Your 3♠ bid is very unusual - you really need to alert it if you've agreed that it is forcing. I will look at the hand, and if it seems that the result might have been different if 3♠ had been explained properly then I will adjust the score."

 

Both sides here are probably "innocent" in that they aren't trying to gain any unfair advantage. But you have to rule one way or the other.

 

I doubt this one would actually come up; but still, it's important to discuss this sort of thing.

[Rebound]

Agreed. However, since the opinion I stated differs from the community at large, when directing, I adhere to the currently accepted practice. In this case, the bid is natural and therefore not alertable.

 

Under the given scenario, however, I would choose option 1. It could further be argued that by failing to examine the convention card, assuming it exists, the opposing pair would be entitled to nothing in that example.

[LH2650]

You have precisely two choices (usually)

 

Hopefully there is a third option. You pull out your Alert Chart, and look it up. If you are running an ACBL tournament, you then say "Not Alertable."

 

Your Appeals Committee case realizes my worst fears about 12C3 rulings. The committee now tries to placate everybody, avoiding tough decisions. Has there been any increase in marginal appeals, now that you have a good chance of getting at least a small piece of the pie?

[coyot]

If I play old-style Standard American and a double raise of a major shows a game forcing hand, should it be alerted? I think so, natural or not, since almost no one plays that way anymore and your opponents should be informed. Would I cry if I came in over this auction and went for a telephone number without asking about the bid, alerted or not? No.

But there's a third question, which is more important as far as this forum is concerned. Suppose you're a TD, and you get called to a table where the bidding has gone 1♠:3♠ etc., and their opponents complain that the 3♠ bidder's hand is too strong - they want an adjustment because they think 3♠ should be alerted if it is game forcing. Now you have to decide, how do you rule? You have precisely two choices (usually):

 

1. "I don't think you can expect your opponents to alert 3♠ here." [and to the 3♠ bidder: "I'm not going to adjust the score, but please alert 3♠ in future because most people play it as showing a weaker hand."]

 

2. "Your 3♠ bid is very unusual - you really need to alert it if you've agreed that it is forcing. I will look at the hand, and if it seems that the result might have been different if 3♠ had been explained properly then I will adjust the score."

 

Both sides here are probably "innocent" in that they aren't trying to gain any unfair advantage. But you have to rule one way or the other.

 

I doubt this one would actually come up; but still, it's important to discuss this sort of thing.

It's a clear number 2 this time - this bid is alertable as "unexpectedly forcing or non-forcing" - just as 1♣-2♣ is alertable when it is forcing.

 

I'm not sure whether 3♠ is alertable when it is a preempt (as opposed to limit-raise), because in both cases it promises a spade fit and is not forcing (therefore could be considered natural... I alert weak variant, though... but I am sure that if any natural raise of any natural bid is forcing, it should be alerted.

[david_c]

You have precisely two choices (usually)

 

Hopefully there is a third option. You pull out your Alert Chart, and look it up. If you are running an ACBL tournament, you then say "Not Alertable."

That would be nice, but even if this situation is covered explicitly there will be plenty of others which aren't, and the TD will need to make a judgement decision.

 

Also remember that (with the exception of ACBL tourneys, where players are expected to know the ACBL rules) detailed alerting charts are not practical for online play because the players won't take any notice of them.

[Dragan]

Things is simply:

1. After X for E/W, 5♥X+1

2. Becouse no Alert 2♠, for N/S 5♥+1 and warning

 

btw, can we make such split score at BBO ?

 

Dragan

[mink]

btw, can we make such split score at BBO ?

not today, maybe in future