No Alerts

[pclayton]

I learned something new when we played in the Swiss on Thursday. Sat down a pair that I played against in the GNT's a few years ago. At the time, my pard and I played a strong club. Although we were very practiced, they asked us not to alert. No problem I said.

 

On Thursday, he and his pard were playing a strong club, and I asked them not to alert. No problem they said (and no hard feelings either). The 2nd board out of the box had the following auction:

 

Me.....LHO......Brian.....RHO

--------- --------- --------- 1♣

Double...pass....1♥..Pass

1♠.......2♣.....3♠...Pass

Pass.....4♣.....All Pass.

 

1♣ was Precision (not alerted by request)

Double is CRASH showing the reds or blacks (not alerted, Brian forgot they were playing strong club)

1♥ is supposedly pass / correct (NOW - not alerted, since double wasn't alerted)

 

The rest of the auction was muddled and natural. Declarer asks Brian what my double was and it finally dawns on him that a train wreck has occurred.

 

The Director is called over and said that asking your opponents not to alert is a viollation of ACBL policy. Since the board wasn't played at the other table yet, we just threw it out.

 

Furthermore, Jade Barrett who is playing about 3' from us tells me that asking your opponents not to alert is a ZT violation, since its tantamount to accusing them of cheating!

 

While Jade's comment seems extreme, he makes a point.

 

What is the policy on other countries?

 

Has anyone else heard of this policy in the ACBL?

[hrothgar]

On Thursday, he and his pard were playing a strong club, and I asked them not to alert. No problem they said (and no hard feelings either). The 2nd board out of the box had the following auction:

 

...

 

The rest of the auction was muddled and natural. Declarer asks Brian what my double was and it finally dawns on him that a train wreck has occurred.

I'm not sure about the "official" ACBL policy in this area. However, I've certainly been asked to refrain from alerting in ACBL events...

 

I find it highly amusing that Jade decided to insert himself into this affair and lecture people about proprieties. Almost worth calling the Director on him for a ZT violation... We really odn't want a system in which random parties can accuse you of accusing the opponents of cheating...

 

For what its worth, I think that the director should have thrown out the board and then hit you and partner with a significant proceedural penalty. Regardless of whether or not the ACBL permits people to dispense with alerts, it shouldn't tolerate a system in which players tell the opponents not to alert their bids and then screw up their defenses...

[pclayton]

On Thursday, he and his pard were playing a strong club, and I asked them not to alert. No problem they said (and no hard feelings either). The 2nd board out of the box had the following auction:

 

...

 

The rest of the auction was muddled and natural. Declarer asks Brian what my double was and it finally dawns on him that a train wreck has occurred.

I'm not sure about the "official" ACBL policy in this area. However, I've certainly been asked to refrain from alerting in ACBL events...

 

I find it highly amusing that Jade decided to insert himself into this affair and lecture people about proprieties. Almost worth calling the Director on him for a ZT violation... We really odn't want a system in which random parties can accuse you of accusing the opponents of cheating...

 

For what its worth, I think that the director should have thrown out the board and then hit you and partner with a significant proceedural penalty. Regardless of whether or not the ACBL permits people to dispense with alerts, it shouldn't tolerate a system in which players tell the opponents not to alert their bids and then screw up their defenses...

LOL - yeah I know - the whole situation was pretty funny though. I suppose a PP would not have been unreasonable.

 

Maybe it wasn't conveyed here, but Jade's tone wasn't negative, he was just bringing up a point.

 

A PP might have woken up my pard who completely slept through our final match against Ken Gee's team. Even though we won 7/8 matches, we got pipped by Gene Simpson who did better in his match.

 

Believe it or not, 117 VP's wasn't enough to win LOL.

[mike777]

My understanding of the policy is if you ask to not alert, you must always ask to not alert, you cannot switch back and forth?

[pclayton]

My understanding of the policy is if you ask to not alert, you must always ask to no alert, you cannot switch back and forth?

Mike thats not my take on this. You can't flat out ask the opps not to alert.

[mike777]

My understanding of the policy is if you ask to not alert, you must always ask to no alert, you cannot switch back and forth?

Mike thats not my take on this. You can't flat out ask the opps not to alert.

ok a couple of directors just told me this but....would not be surprised to see confusion on this issue. I love that even those in charge seem unable to agree on ACBL policy :P

[Guest Jlall]

Whatever. If you ask the opponents not to alert and they don't care (which they usually don't) then fine. You may lose some of your rights, if you are fine with that fine. I don't even think it's remotely close to a cheating accusation, and it's not surprising I disagree with Jade (as I do in almost every case). There is too much of this nonsense, people should just play bridge (not directed at you Phil or anyone else).

[pigpenz]

ZT violation, never heard of that before! If used to be alot of people would ask opps to not alert cause they knew sometimes they would hurt themselves(0pps) by not alerting. It can in a very obtuse way it could be a viloation. But look at how things happen on BBO you can alert your bid and partner doent know it.

 

20 yrs ago there was always this idea that part of active ethics was:

say you were playing Flannery vs Weak two in diamnds, and you opened 2♦ with a weak two in ♦'s but your card said Flannery.

 

2♦ pass 3♥ pass

you

 

Are you allowed to bid 4♦ or do you just have to take your lumps in 3♥?

[Al_U_Card]

A number of years ago, a director told me that opps (I was playing a 10-12 NT system with bags of alerts) may ask for bids not to be alerted, but they cannot change their mind during a hand. They can ask for a complete explanation of all of the alerts at the end of the bidding (as with any other topic). This was back in the early 90's so it may have changed since then.

[pigpenz]

A number of years ago, a director told me that opps (I was playing a 10-12 NT system with bags of alerts) may ask for bids not to be alerted, but they cannot change their mind during a hand. They can ask for a complete explanation of all of the alerts at the end of the bidding (as with any other topic). This was back in the early 90's so it may have changed since then.

it may have changed but i am used to being able to ask for opps to not alert. what is amazing is that you aksed them not to alert and your partner forgot that quickly :P In some ways you probably might have had the same convuluted auction using crash as what did occur, though usually with CRASH you try to bid as quickly to the 2/3 level as the law allows. You and your partner just did it alot slower.

 

I am suprised that the TD threw out the board :o

 

Like we have discussed before you are allowed to forget conventions. With CRASH it would seem pretty normal if your partner bid a red suit and you were black suited you would now show a black hand. But normally at a higher level.

[Elianna]

Me.....LHO......Brian.....RHO

--------- --------- --------- 1♣

Double...pass....1♥..Pass

1♠.......2♣.....3♠...Pass

Pass.....4♣.....All Pass.

 

1♣ was Precision (not alerted by request)

Double is CRASH showing the reds or blacks (not alerted, Brian forgot they were playing strong club)

1♥ is supposedly pass / correct (NOW - not alerted, since double wasn't alerted)

While the rule may seem funny, you were required to alert his 1♥ bid.

 

Basically, you should be playing on the assumption that he forgot to alert, not that he forgot what the bid meant. And why did you not think that was the case at the table, anyway? With most of my partners, it's almost always the case that they forgot to alert, not that they forgot the meaning of the bid.

 

If your alert wakes partner up, he's supposed to be ethical and bid as if he hadn't been woken up.

 

About Jade's comment: I understand what he's getting at, as I've had lol's think that by alerting, we're giving each other information. There have been people on BBO who have accused us of that! (Yes, they were computer geniuses.) So I understand where Jade may be getting that from, but of course, there are many different reasons people ask others not to alert. What Jade said is not what would have first occurred to me, though.

 

I also don't understand why the board was thrown out. If someone had revoked, would you have thrown out? Or a lead out of turn? Or...? I doubt it. This is also an error in procedure, and it seems that the easy way out was chosen in this case, instead of figuring out exactly what should happen according to the rules.

[hrothgar]

I also don't understand why the board was thrown out. If someone had revoked, would you have thrown out? Or a lead out of turn? Or...? I doubt it. This is also an error in procedure, and it seems that the easy way out was chosen in this case, instead of figuring out exactly what should happen according to the rules.

Here's my thought:

 

The goal in most rulings is to restore equity.

 

In this case, the board has not been played at the other table. Accordingly, neither side has a vested interest in ensuring that one particular hand gets played. (In theory, you can make an argument that the hand might favor bidding system A versus bidding system B, but thats difficult to prove".

 

With this in mind: Compare the following two mechanisms to restore

 

1. Wipe the slate clean and play a new board

2. Have the other table play the board in question: Attempt to make a judgement about what WOULD have happen in the absence of the screw up at this table.

 

Option 1 seems better to me

[Elianna]

I also don't understand why the board was thrown out.  If someone had revoked, would you have thrown out?  Or a lead out of turn?  Or...? I doubt it.  This is also an error in procedure, and it seems that the easy way out was chosen in this case, instead of figuring out exactly what should happen according to the rules.

Here's my thought:

 

The goal in most rulings is to restore equity.

 

In this case, the board has not been played at the other table. Accordingly, neither side has a vested interest in ensuring that one particular hand gets played. (In theory, you can make an argument that the hand might favor bidding system A versus bidding system B, but thats difficult to prove".

 

With this in mind: Compare the following two mechanisms to restore

 

1. Wipe the slate clean and play a new board

2. Have the other table play the board in question: Attempt to make a judgement about what WOULD have happen in the absence of the screw up at this table.

 

Option 1 seems better to me

And would you do this with a revoke? Or a bid/lead out of turn? Or a card exposed during the play? Or other examples I'm sure that could be thought of.

 

If you would, cool. I know that I wouldn't.

 

I would redeal if a card got exposed before the auction, or something else happened before the auction started, but I know that I wouldn't once the auction got started.

 

I realize that not redealing creats a lot more work for directors than the examples that I gave, but it still fits in that category, and if you decide to circumvent one bridge rule, why not others? I just think that it's clearer to have a line that can't be crossed, rather than trying to bargain that line.

[hrothgar]

And would you do this with a revoke?  Or a bid/lead out of turn?  Or a card exposed during the play?  Or other examples I'm sure that could be thought of.

 

If you would, cool.  I know that I wouldn't.

 

I would redeal if a card got exposed before the auction, or something else happened before the auction started, but I know that I wouldn't once the auction got started.

 

I realize that not redealing creats a lot more work for directors than the examples that I gave, but it still fits in that category, and if you decide to circumvent one bridge rule, why not others?  I just think that it's clearer to have a line that can't be crossed, rather than trying to bargain that line.

Comment 1: To some extent, the correct answer depends on whether we are looking at pairs or teams. Throwing out a board is not an option during pairs matches except during the very first round. Accordingly, directors are often forced to "adjust" the score to attempt to restore equity. However, on those occasions where Directors have the option of throwing out a board, they frequently make use of it. I've seen this done during teams matches at the top level of play and even during the first round of pairs events.

 

Comment 2: A revoke is a mechical error that takes place during the play of the hand. The "game" is simplier and its much easier to figure out what "should" have happened than this example in which both the bidding and the play were polluted. Equally significant, the proceedure for dealing with a revoke is very well defined with established penalties for the act of revoking.

 

Most of your hypotheticals involve "play" where the simplicity argument holds true. I've seen plenty of occasions where directors have had to attempt to compensate for a misbid or a bid out of turn. Normally the glorious proceedure that you advocate consists of praying that the auction would have proceeded the same. If it doesn't the director pulls A+ / A` out of thin air.

 

Sorry if I sound cynical...

[the hog]

Alerts up to and including 3NT are compulsory here in Australia. You are not allowed to ask for "no alerts". After the completion of the auction, bids above 3NT are marked if they are artificial, and a post explanation can be requested.

 

As to the comment that asking for "no alerts" is tantamount to suggesting the opps are cheating; well you say it yourself, this is extreme.

[pigpenz]

this whole thing maybe sounds like it should be decided by a committee not by a director since the hand has been played. I could see where maybe a substitue board could be put into play at both tables and then let the committe at the event decide if there was sufficient damage that it should have been thrown out.

 

the whole idea that the ZT sugges a possiblity of cheating is ridiculous, in the past the alerts at the table always used to help the partner of the alerter not the opps.

[helene_t]

For what it's worth, Dutch laws specifically allow you to ask the opps not to alert anything.

 

I'm surprised you could decide to throw out the board. Here in NL you can't throw out a board in a pairs event, not even the first board. I'm not sure about team matches, though but I think you can't do it there either.

[Free]

Here in Belgium, you're allowed to forbid opponents to use their alert, but only for ALL bids, and for the entire time you have to play against them. You can't change your mind during or in between games.

 

Seems to me it's a fair deal, and it has nothing to do with cheating. It's just that when playing unusual systems, sometimes one may wake up because of an alert. Actually it's more like playing with screens, but the opponents don't get to see the alerts as well.

 

Btw, what's a "ZT violation"?? :D

[Guest Jlall]

The ACBL has a policy called zero tolerance. This applies for rude behavior basically, and you can get penalties if you violate this policy (i.e. are rude).

[pclayton]

(snip)... in the past the alerts at the table always used to help the partner of the alerter not the opps.

Thats the point. If you are implying the alerts help them, that's saying they cheat.