simple alerting regulations

[david_c]

Yesterday I suggested the following as alerting regulations:

 

You MUST alert:

- ALL artificial bids;

- opening bids which are not the same as in SAYC.

 

I know that many people don't like this (particularly the first point), so I'd like to explain why I still think it is a good choice.

 

First of all, we need to accept an important fact of life:

Hardly anyone is going to read the alerting regulations anyway.

 

And we need to recognise what it is that we would like to achieve:

1. simplicity and clarity;

2. it must cover as many clearcut MI cases as possible without any room for argument;

3. no loopholes;

4. not too many "pointless" alerts.

 

Now, alerting "all artificial bids" scores very well for 1, 2 and 3, though not so well on 4. It would be possible to reduce the number of unnecessary alerts by introducing some exceptions: "alert all artificial bids except for Stayman and a strong 2♣ opening." I don't plan to do this, however, mainly because of the loss of simplicity. (You also would have to worry about what "Stayman" actually means, which is problematic.)

 

From the TD's point of view, what is the point of having alerting regulations if people aren't going to read them? (see "fact of life".) Well, the reason they are there is so that if someone fails to alert when it was clear they should have done, you can tell them with confidence that they should have alerted, and point them to the regulations if necessary. But suppose that the regulations require an alert in a "pointless" situation, e.g. Stayman. Then in this case it doesn't matter if they don't alert, because you're never going to adjust for MI anyway. (see my other topic "ruling #1".) Though, as a TD, I might still say, "Please alert Stayman - it helps if you are consistent and always alert artificial bids."

 

Let's consider two types of players. These are ordinary players, who don't bother to read the alerting regulations and just go on alerting in the same way as they always do. We have:

- the "goodies", who always correctly alert things which their opponents might not understand, but might not alert Stayman, Blackwood, etc.

- the "baddies", who don't alert properly at all, e.g. by failing to alert a multi 2♦.

 

I hope it's clear that we should aim to punish the "baddies" but not the "goodies". The way to do this is to have unambiguous, strict alerting regs: "alert all artificial bids". When the "goodies" fail to alert Stayman, you can advise them politely to alert in future, but they won't get penalised for MI (though people who repeatly ignore alerting regs would obviously get a PP). However, when the "baddies" fail to alert their multi, you've got them covered.

 

One other point: according to my suggested regulations, you would always have to alert a 2♣ opening bid, whatever its meaning is. I do not think that this is as ridiculous as it might appear. First of all, the software allows us to explain our bids immediately, and people who are conscientious enough to alert 2♣ at all will be likely to use this feature. But apart from that, a significant proportion of SAYC players will not alert 2♣ anyway, so from an opponent's point of view it is always advisable to ask about an alerted 2♣ bid. So even though the idea looks silly in theory, I believe it would work very well in practice.

[coyot]

I don't like the idea of letting "partnership agreements" slip outside of the alerting regulations.

 

What would your definition of artifical bid be, then?

 

Example:

1♠-3♦ as strong with diamonds

1♠-3♦ as strong with diamonds and fit showing

1♠-3♦ as strong with diamonds and fit showing with a side singleton.

 

All three hands contain "natural" strong diamods. Should any of them be considered artifical? OK, I think that the 2nd and 3rd are artifical as they speak about other suits than just diamonds... But I am not sure whether all players would feel the same...

 

Problems with known conventions:

Is a natural 2♣ nonforcing after a NT artificial bid or not?

 

Another, subtler example:

1♣-1♥-1♠ - as denying balanced hand (promising 54xx or 4441)

1♣-1♥-1♠ - as any hand with 3+ clubs and 4 spades

1♣-1♥-1NT - as denying 4 spades

1♣-1♥-1NT - as 12-14 balanced, denies heart support

1♣-1♥-1NT - as 12-14 balanced with anything.

 

If you think about those, you will find that the bidding line has exchanged quite a lot of information, to which are the opps entitled as well. Especially the last case, denying full support, may score significant gains, because with known heart fit, opps may want to balance, while when the fit is not expected, they might fear a misfit board and pass, letting you steal their contract.

 

These are just the most common examples of negative inferences that are NOT obvious (as compared to 1♣ opening, where the negative inference about absence of 5card majors IS obvious).

 

In some cases, these inferences may be very important in the bidding.

 

There are a few possible solutions:

1) alerting rules that conform to full disclosure (WBF style, alert all bids that carry explicit or implicit agreements or partnership experience)

2) simple alerting rules (as your suggestion)

3) a set of rules that will explicitly state what is the expected approach of the bidding system. (majors first, NT range later or vice versa... own suit vs. support first... long suit vs. shortness showing first...)

 

1) This may be painful and timeconsuming, if you don't have your CC posted. (There have been suggestions how to make the BBO help players so that they will not have to type long descriptions repeatedly), but produces the best results when it comes to level playing field

 

2&3) Getting rid of "pointless alerts" causes players either to resign on getting the information or to bother opps with unnecessary questioning. For example, I tend to interrogate opponents quite a lot, because I expect them to have agreements they don't share voluntarily...

[helene_t]

It's quite simple.

 

1♠-3♦ as strong with diamonds

Natural, do not alert. It is a proposal to play in diamonds. A weak or intermediate jump would be natural as well.

 

1♠-3♦ as strong with diamonds and fit showing

Not natural, it is a proposal to play in spades rather than diamonds. Alert.

 

1♠-3♦ as strong with diamonds and fit showing with a side singleton.

See above.

 

1♣-1♥-1♠ - as denying balanced hand (promising 54xx or 4441)

Natural, do not alert. It shows spades and presumably some interest in playing spades.

 

1♣-1♥-1♠ - as any hand with 3+ clubs and 4 spades

Natural. See above.

 

1♣-1♥-1[NT] - as denying 4 spades

Natural, do not alert. It shows a ballanced hand and willingness to play in notrumps.

 

1♣-1♥-1[NT] - as 12-14 balanced, denies heart support

Natural, as above.

 

1♣-1♥-1[NT] - as 12-14 balanced with anything.

I don't think this is playable, except if 1♥ denied a 4-card major or showed at least invitational strength. But if it's non-forcing (don't mind missing the 4-4 fit with a ballanced hand) I see no reason to alert it. It's a natural bid.

 

The non-alerted 1NT rebid tends to show a ballanced or semiballanced hand without 4-card support. Of course, they are likely to have more specific agreements. If you are interested, you just ask.

 

Saying that natural calls are not alertable is not the same as saying that opps are not entitled to any information beyond "it's natural". I don't alert partner's jump overcalls, whether weak, intermediate or strong. My non-alert says they are natural (3♣ is not Ghestem, Copenhagen or similar). If opps want to know, they ask.

 

We could also alert everything, like the bots do. A non-alert then says that we have no agreement beyond "natural". For example, a non-alert of an overcall would specifically say that we have no agreement on overcall style.

[candybar]

I suggest that the ACBL alerting regulations be adopted as BBO standard, for the following reasons:

 

1. They are well considered, well-defined, and kept up-do-date.

 

2. They are familiar to a large percent of BBO players already.

 

3. They are posted in a very clear form already, at the ACBL website, for reference.

 

4. They are not hard to understand or to learn for those used to a different alert structure.

[coyot]

The non-alerted 1NT rebid tends to show a ballanced or semiballanced hand without 4-card support. Of course, they are likely to have more specific agreements. If you are interested, you just ask.

 

Saying that natural calls are not alertable is not the same as saying that opps are not entitled to any information beyond "it's natural". I don't alert partner's jump overcalls, whether weak, intermediate or strong. My non-alert says they are natural (3♣ is not Ghestem, Copenhagen or similar). If opps want to know, they ask.

 

We could also alert everything, like the bots do. A non-alert then says that we have no agreement beyond "natural". For example, a non-alert of an overcall would specifically say that we have no agreement on overcall style.

I think that if your system specifically allows 1NT rebid with 4card support for partner's major, you should alert it. It is an "against the system philosophy" agreement, highly unexpected if embedded in any natural system. And it may mislead opps.

 

My main point is that you should make opponents aware that a specific agreement exists. I do not want full explanation unless I ask, of course - but if your bid tells your partner something extra, I want to be aware of that - and I think that the purpose of alert is just this - opps, you might want to know something I just told my partner...

 

There are cases where most of players ARE aware of the existence of such agreements (as is the favourite-of-mine 1NT rebid), but I am sure that you could think up some example where the existence of an agreement or negative inference is not obvious to the opponents, yet they might act differently, should they know about it.

 

But I'll stop spamming the forums with my desire for active full disclosure, I'm sure that everyone must have gotten the message now and they're simply not interested B)...

[david_c]

Thanks helene, you've saved me a load of typing B)

 

Indeed, "not natural" might be a better phrasing than "aritificial". The EBU regs do it that way.

 

I think the question of whether certain natural bids should be alerted is quite difficult. There are some which I believe definitely should NOT be alerted (such as the 1♣-1♥-1♠ and 1♣-1♥-1NT examples above) - this has been discussed before. But there are other things which are so unusual that it would be sensible to require an alert - for example, non-forcing change-of-suit responses by an unpassed hand. The problem is that it's impossible to write a regulation which does this objectively. You could write a long list of things which you want alerted (again, the EBU regs do this), but no-one's going to read it! And such a list can never hope to be exhaustive anyway.

[helene_t]

Yes, the ACBL site is quite ok.

 

I used to think that ACBL required the alert of everything that is not SAYC (negative freebids, 1M-2M showing 8-10 rather than 6-9 etc), but that does not seem to be the case.

 

Have the ACBL rules changed?

[helene_t]

but I am sure that you could think up some example where the existence of an agreement or negative inference is not obvious to the opponents, yet they might act differently, should they know about it.

 

But I'll stop spamming the forums with my desire for active full disclosure, I'm sure that everyone must have gotten the message now and they're simply not interested B)...

Lol, I believe in active full disclosure too, in case you haven't noticed.

 

For example, playing Raptor, a 1♦ overcall of a 1♣ opening denies a 4-card major. It makes sense to alert that.

[mycroft]

...or enough strength to reverse, or not enough strength to bid 1NT, or S8642 DAKQ9xx, or ...

 

I don't agree that ACBL Alert Procedure be used as the base for games here. For one thing it's complicated, NA-expert-standard-centric, and possibly impossible to implement online (with the delayed alerts, after-auction explanations, and the like).

 

But I disagree mostly because it's complicated and NA-centric primarily to minimize UI passing at the 99.99% of tables that don't use screens. Alerts that partner doesn't see is de rigeur on BBO; there's no reason not to be more WBF-like with the regulations.

 

So - Alert anything non-natural.

Alert anything that is forcing or non-forcing in ways your opponents may not expect.

Alert all NT ranges - especially if they vary.

 

Note that that's pretty much the Alert Procedure for BBO ACBL tournaments!

 

I will admit I do violate those rules in casual play - I've been known to not alert Stayman and Blackwood. And on the gripping hand, I usually play systems with very few non-Alertable bids, so the possibility rarely comes up. But I much think that's the way to go.

 

And no, it's not natural if it's "this suit and (specific information about another suit - not <8 of them, but fit jumps, splinters, promising a singleton simewhere, anything you would tell your partner when agreeing on the bid)".

 

Michael.

[DrTodd13]

According to David's criteria, the ACBL alert regs fail every single point. As demonstrated, it is hard enough to define what natural means let alone the long list of what to alert and what not to alert. If you want people to read the rules and follow them then you're going to have to make them clear and short and repeat them over and over until people get them. Making them read ACBL regs is a non-starter.

 

As for the definition of natural, how about "a bid is natural if it is 1) an offer to play in the specified strain, 2) does not promise length or shortness in any specified or unspecified outside suit, and 3) is forcing if this is a new suit by an unpassed hand responder or non-forcing otherwise."

[McBruce]

Yesterday I suggested the following as alerting regulations:

 

You MUST alert:

- ALL artificial bids;

- opening bids which are not the same as in SAYC.

How about this instead:

 

You MUST self alert:

 

--opening bids differing significantly from SAYC by partnership agreement

--bids that are artificial by partnership agreement

--partnership agreements that a novice might not expect

 

Adjustments will be given only if ALL of these are true:

 

a] there is an infraction in alerting or explaining

b] there is clear damage resulting directly from the infraction

c] the circumstances reveal that the non-offenders could not have protected themselves by asking for further information (required in all doubtful cases)

[jillybean]

Adjustments will be given only if ALL of these are true:

 

a] there is an infraction in alerting or explaining

b] there is clear damage resulting directly from the infraction

c] the circumstances reveal that the non-offenders could not have protected themselves by asking for further information (required in all doubtful cases)

I don’t understand this at all – edit, ok I think I do !

 

 

--partnership agreements that a novice might not expect

I'll be setting my profile to novice

 

 

jb

[david_c]

How about this instead:

 

You MUST self alert:

 

--opening bids differing significantly from SAYC by partnership agreement

--bids that are artificial by partnership agreement

--partnership agreements that a novice might not expect

Ah, I see what you've done there, you've put in the words "by partnership agreement" :)

 

I don't think that's a good idea. In the case of "different from SAYC" it's simply redundant, because if you've agreed a system with your partner then that determines your opening bids. And if you haven't agreed a system with your partner ... then you're playing SAYC! :P

 

The more interesting question is, should players be required to alert artificial bids even when they are not covered by partnership agreements? I think the sensible answer is yes. Otherwise you will be in the unfortunate position that an unalerted bid means either that it's natural, or that it hasn't been discussed. Much better to require an alert. And I think this can still be reconciled with the fact that it is only partnership agreements that have to be disclosed. If someone makes an bid which is intended to be artificial, then they must be expecting their partner to understand its meaning. In nearly all cases, this in itself can be taken as evidence of a (possibly implicit) partnership agreement. The only exception is when it is possible to deduce from the auction that a bid cannot be natural; but in that case the opponents will never be misled anyway.

[DrTodd13]

Yesterday I suggested the following as alerting regulations:

 

You MUST alert:

- ALL artificial bids;

- opening bids which are not the same as in SAYC.

How about this instead:

 

You MUST self alert:

 

--opening bids differing significantly from SAYC by partnership agreement

--bids that are artificial by partnership agreement

--partnership agreements that a novice might not expect

 

Adjustments will be given only if ALL of these are true:

 

a] there is an infraction in alerting or explaining

b] there is clear damage resulting directly from the infraction

c] the circumstances reveal that the non-offenders could not have protected themselves by asking for further information (required in all doubtful cases)

Any regulation that uses words like "differing significantly" or "that a novice might not expect" are just invitations for endless squables over what it means to differ significantly and what novices expect. I'm convinced that alert regs should be objective and not subjective.

 

Conversely, the current rules on how to proceed when there is MI are fine and there is no need to restate what is required for an adjustment to be granted.

[hrothgar]

Might I suggest the following modifications

 

1. Alerting strucutres are worthless. As currently implemented, Alerts are vehicles to get people to say the word alert rather than providing any useful information. I advocate abolishing them as a waste of time and a cause of bad blood.

 

2. Announcements have significant value, particularly in an electronic playing environment. Partnerships should be encouraged to announce as many bids as possible

 

3. Appropriate tools should be made available to decrease the burden associated with making announcements. Remote Keys type implementations are a nice first step, however, and automated system is strongly preferable. It might be interesting to start color coding announcements based on the "importance" of the information. For example, the pre-alerts for a green system would be displayed in green. The pre-alerts for a red system would be displayed in red. A Brown Sticker convention would be displayed in brown. Still trying to make up my mind about this one...

[guggie]

Once upon a time alerts were invented to alert opponents that a bid meaned something different than the opponent would expect.

 

I still think the use of alerts is to call the opps' attention to a bid with unexpected properties.

 

I think it is utter nonsense to alert transfers for the majors. An alert for stayman might be usefull if a 4c major is not obligatory. Alerts are meant to be helpful, not to be a goal per se and means to get un undeserved plus score if some opp forgot to alert an xfer.

 

If these riules: "alert all unnatural bids" will prevail, the only safe way is to alert all yr bids. The explaining will take a lot of time away from the bridge ("may be off shape and off agreements" maybe handy as universal explication). It is one sure way to chase people away from bridge.

 

I would strongly advocate to go back to: "alert if you think yr opps should know about this bid".

[coyot]

c] the circumstances reveal that the non-offenders could not have protected themselves by asking for further information (required in all doubtful cases)

You must be kidding... This basically says that you don't have to alert anything, because, after all, opps COULD have protected themselves by asking for further information! This is a bianco check!

 

OK, I know what you intended by this point - but to decide whether they could or could not ask more would be very thin ice anyway, giving a lot of room for TDs to make wrong decision.

 

Making alerts dependant on the perceived level of opponents is not a good idea, as well (as said above, I'd set my skill level to Novice immediately :-)).

 

1) Make it simple - not ACBL like. The point that ACBL alerting rules mainly prevent passing UI between the two bidders is a important one - we don't need this on BBO.

 

2) Make it understandable to anyone and make it, if possible, NOT depending on any particular bidding system.

 

I would agree with alerting/announcing:

1) NT range

2) openings that do not guarantee 3 in minor or 4 in major.

 

Helene_t:

if 1♦ overcall over 1♣ denies 4card major and IS alertable, why should not an NT rebid denying 4 spades be alertable? It carries quite similar kind of information that might be useful to opps as much as to partner!

[helene_t]

if 1♦ overcall over 1♣ denies 4card major and IS alertable, why should not an NT rebid denying 4 spades be alertable? It carries quite similar kind of information that might be useful to opps as much as to partner!

Both should be alerted if you think the inference is surprising for the opps. Neither should be alerted if you are confident that the opps are used to that kind of agreements and would ask if they cared.

 

(Guggie)I would strongly advocate to go back to: "alert if you think yr opps should know about this bid".

Of course. If you have some idea about what the opps expect. But sometimes you don't know the level and cultural background of the opps. They might find all your agreements surprising.

 

What I'm arguing against is the attempt to formalize what kind of agreements are expected, like "SAYC is expected while Acol and Precision are not". Of course, if you know the opps are familiar with SAYC only you should try to alert non-SAYC calls. However, you can't require players to alert non-SAYC calls since many players don't know SAYC.

 

Some beginners have odd agreements like a simple overcall denies opening strength and a 1NT opening shows stoppers in all suits. Should they alert? Yes, of course. Can the TD legally require them to alert? No, of course not.

[david_c]

I think it is utter nonsense to alert transfers for the majors. An alert for stayman might be usefull if a 4c major is not obligatory. Alerts are meant to be helpful, not to be a goal per se and means to get un undeserved plus score if some opp forgot to alert an xfer.

Transfers definitely cause problems. This is because a significant minority of players use 1NT:2♦ and 1NT:2♥ as natural bids, and these have to be non-alertable. And yet we need a way to distinguish these natural bids from transfers. For face-to-face bridge, the ACBL method of announcements is excellent. But for some reason it seems that the same players who are accustomed to announcing transfers in face-to-face bridge don't bother to alert them at all online.

[guggie]

Hehe. I think the Dutch alert regulations are excellent;-)

It is just what you are accustomed to.

I cannot play in ACBL tournaments, because i do not understand the alert regulations. Something simple and elementary as multi is forbidden, and the 2 tournaments I played the opps I encountered were - to say it polite - rather convinced of the ACBL superiority and supremacy and not very willing to help but ready to snatch tops because of alert misunderstandings.

[coyot]

Once upon a time alerts were invented to alert opponents that a bid meaned something different than the opponent would expect.

 

I still think the use of alerts is to call the opps' attention to a bid with unexpected properties.

 

I think it is utter nonsense to alert transfers for the majors. An alert for stayman might be usefull if a 4c major is not obligatory. Alerts are meant to be helpful, not to be a goal per se and means to get un undeserved plus score if some opp forgot to alert an xfer.

 

If these riules: "alert all unnatural bids" will prevail, the only safe way is to alert all yr bids. The explaining will take a lot of time away from the bridge ("may be off shape and off agreements" maybe handy as universal explication). It is one sure way to chase people away from bridge.

 

I would strongly advocate to go back to: "alert if you think yr opps should know about this bid".

Utter nonsense to alert transfers? Does that imply that you would want natural stop bids alerted? OMG, where is the world coming to?

 

Many of the succesful czech pairs play ACOL written by Ota Svoboda, which includes two staymans and natural stop bids (weak NT). It is absolutely AGAINST any sense to alert a natural bid!

 

You don't get an undeserved plus if some opp forgot to alert a transfer, UNLESS the lack of alert causes damage (lead-director double etc).

 

These alerting guidelines are meant to protect the innocent and save their time. I certainly don't want to waste my mental energy when playing online bridge or playing while travelling abroad by thinking:

- oh, I should really learn what do they play here. Do I get a penalty if I fail to alert some natural bid?

- oh, this double of my diamond stopper must be a takeout, so if the other opponent passed, they're in a bad fix...

 

I readily agree that you should "alert if you think yr opps should know about this bid." - but use this rule only AFTER the rule "alert ALL artifical bids".