[jillybean]

P_Marlowe, on Nov 28 2006, 08:22 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Nov 28 2006, 09:55 AM, said:

<snip>
Im not sure if this is the WBF definition or Bens endeavor to clarify the requirements. I understood (1NT) X is for penalty - does this change when the doubler is a passed hand?
<snip>

Assuming the partner to the passed hand,
passed as well, the dbl cant be penalty,
did he miscount?
If they play it, I would like to play for money
with them.
I promise, we wont use the redbl card.

With kind regards
Marlowe

A 'yes, no exceptions' would have sufficed

I fnd a lot of this game confusing, but perhaps none more so than doubles, everyone talks of natural meanings and people have many different understandings of whats natural.

This post has been edited by jillybean2: 2006-November-28, 15:58

[david_c]

jillybean2, on Nov 28 2006, 03:55 PM, said:

4. Any double below the three level that is not for TAKEOUT, and any double after your partner has bid notrump naturally that is not for PENALTY. (Example: if your partner opens 1NT and the next hand overcalls, if you make negative (takeout) or card showing rather than penalty double, you must alert the double.)

Well, it could be worse, I suppose. Obviously it only makes sense for doubles of natural suit bids, not for NT bids or artificial bids. That problem could be fixed easily enough, but there are more fundamental issues.

It's hard enough to get this right in face-to-face bridge (I've been lobbying the EBU for a change to their rules); for online bridge you have the additional problem that there is no fixed set of alerting rules and so people probably aren't going to take the trouble to learn yours. So having very idiosyncratic alerting regulations (which HB rule 4 certainly is) is not going to work IMO. The only way out that I can see is to make the rules explicity based on common sense, like the ACBL does:

"Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert." [They also give a few examples.]

[blackshoe]

You play a game. Where the rules of the game are specified, you play by those rules, whether you know them or not. Where the rules are not (or not completely) specified, but there is an authority who can make rulings, you play by those rulings (I don't much like that method, but it happens). Bottom line: the Sponsoring Organization ought to make and publish the necessary rules; players ought to learn them, and should certainly expect any rulings to be in accordance with them.

[david_c]

blackshoe, on Nov 28 2006, 06:19 PM, said:

You play a game. Where the rules of the game are specified, you play by those rules, whether you know them or not. Where the rules are not (or not completely) specified, but there is an authority who can make rulings, you play by those rulings (I don't much like that method, but it happens). Bottom line: the Sponsoring Organization ought to make and publish the necessary rules; players ought to learn them, and should certainly expect any rulings to be in accordance with them.

Sure, players have a duty to follow the published regulations. But also the SO has a duty to make their regulations easy to follow. Perhaps some TDs might take a sadistic pleasure from having idiosyncratic regulations and then penalising players who get them wrong, but this is obviously not good for the game.

Like it or not, players will not learn detailed rules for every SO on BBO. Even if they wanted to, it would hardly be possible since there are so many different SOs to choose from. So, roughly speaking, it is better if the SO chooses rules which correspond to what the players would already expect to happen.

[jillybean]

david_c, on Nov 28 2006, 11:16 AM, said:

Perhaps some TDs might take a sadistic pleasure from having idiosyncratic regulations and then penalising players who get them wrong, but this is obviously not good for the game.

I try to get my pleasure elsewhere, but I am aware of tournaments having their own unique rules.

This is a reoccurring problem, doubles are not usually alerted at all and players rightly or wrongly call attention to it and claim damage.
Stating a rule such as alert all non natural bids is little help here and asking players to alert any bid that their opps may not understand is too subjective in this multi system environment.

If indeed games played behind screens require all doubles to be alerted, this may be a good rule to adopt. Failure to alert does not automatically mean damage and an adjustment, having a clear rule that everyone could understand would be a great start.

jb

[helene_t]

jillybean2, on Nov 29 2006, 04:23 AM, said:

This is a reoccurring problem, doubles are not usually alerted at all and players rightly or wrongly call attention to it and claim damage.
Stating a rule such as alert all non natural bids is little help here and asking players to alert any bid that their  opps may not understand is too subjective in this multi system environment.

Of course you must alert everything that opps might not understand. That's the whole purpose of the alert feature. The fact that some calls are not alertable in F2F bridge is for specific F2F reasons and thus irelevant in an online bridge context.

This is subjective, yes, but you can add a remark like "only obvious adjustments will be given".

And no, it does not mean that you have to alert "everything". You still only have to alert agreements and BBO pairs generally have few agreements.

Hence, allthough Stayman should be alerted because it's artificial, you could refuse to adjust on the basis of the idea that opps probably understood that it was Stayman or at least that it might be Stayman, even if not alerted. Besides, it could very well be that the pair has no agreement about Stayman. If you respond 2♣ to 1NT without any agreement, just hoping that p will take it as Stayman, you don't have to alert.

The double of the 2♥ overcall is quite trivial. Yes, it should be alerted if there is a special agreement about it. Could it be argued that it is "natural"? No of course it's not natural, a natural double is always for penalty, even when you double opps' opening of one in a suit. Could it be argued that opps are sure to understand the meaning of this double? I don't think so, but if all four players have "expert" on their profile maybe yes.

And no, there is no basis for adjustment since it's not likely that NS have an agreement about the meaning of this double.

[jillybean]

helene_t, on Nov 29 2006, 02:51 AM, said:

Of course you must alert everything that opps might not understand. That's the whole purpose of the alert feature. The fact that some calls are not alertable in F2F bridge is for specific F2F reasons and thus irelevant in an online bridge context.

In theory this is fine, in practice I find this rule as little effect in getting people to alert the bids they should.

Like my first post here says, this isnt about damage and adjustments this is about me trying to find a more effective and clearly understood rule that I can use in my tournaments. Alert all doubles (if you have an agrement) seems to be the winner so far

[blackshoe]

People like the rules they're used to. That doesn't make those rules necessarily best - or worst, for that matter.

If you impose alert rules that some players are not used to, those players will resist, conciously or unconciously, following them.

If you say "alert all doubles (when you have an agreement", some people will implement that as "alert all doubles". Some will insist they have no agreements, and alert no doubles. You might as well say "doubles are self-alerting, in that if you see a double by opponents, you should consider it to have been alerted, even if it wasn't, and ask accordingly".

In the end, you take your best shot and see how it works out.

[helene_t]

"Alert all doubles" is silly and also doesn't solve the more general problem of which calls should be alerted.

Is it so difficult to make people understand that they must
- alert all calls about which they have a non-natural agreement
- alert no calls about which they have no specific agreement
- alert calls about which they have a natural agreement that may be considered highly non-standard by reasonable opps

To me, this seems much simpler than a long list of specific conventions that should or should not be alerted

Examples:
1NT-(pas)-2♣*
- alert if you have some specific agreement about this (what kind of stayman, i.e. crawling stayman, smolen, whatever)
- alert if you have the agreement that 2♣ is natural (because opps probably do not expect it to be natural since stayman is standard everywhere)
- do not alert if you assume partner to understand it's some unspecified kind of stayman, allthough you have not discussed this

1NT-(pas)-2♠*
- alert if you have agreed to play SAYC (since 2♠ as a weak hand with a minor is part of SAYC but not part of all other systems)
- alert if you have the specific agreement that 2♠ is natural (opps will probably not be surprised by this but just for safety's sake). By the same token, alert if you have agreed to play Cinderella since 2♠ is natural in Cinderella
- do not alert if you have no agreement and just hope that partner takes 2♠ for whater you mean it as. For example, if you agreed to play Acol, do not alert 2♠ here since it has no universal meaning in "Acol". (But of course, if you agreed on some specific Acol dialect that specifies this 2♠ bid, you must alert it).

Alternatively, you could say:
- alert all artificial calls
- you don't have to alert natural calls but of course it's nice to do it anyway if you have some unusual natural agreements, e.g. Baby 1NT opening, 2-over-1 non-forcing etc.

Personally I like the artificial=alertable criterion in IRL tourneys since alerts are not accompagnied by explanation so alerting a natural call may be misleading (for example, in some situations you could have the agreement that you double artificial calls for lead and natural calls for t/o so you won't have to ask what a call means, just look if it's alerted or not). But it doesn't make much sense online, I think. Then again, the alernative (non-standard=alertable) is not so meaningfull in a multicultural environment.

But I see myself writing too much in this issue. Considering the fact that it might have happened two or three times in my life that I was damaged by a failure to alert. I also rarely see players call the TD for missing alerts and when they have done so there has never (so far, in my experience) been a reason for adjustment.

[gwnn]

Alerting doubles is not very "natural" Only if the X of 2♥ was "5+ spades, less than 3 diamonds" or so, would I understand alerting it.

But I personally hate it when I ask a defender "what was that double?" and they say "can't tell you now, I'd tell you what I hold" or just don't reply, or give me some weird explanation which is neither t/o or pen.

[blackshoe]

gwnn, on Nov 29 2006, 03:59 PM, said:

But I personally hate it when I ask a defender "what was that double?" and they say "can't tell you now, I'd tell you what I hold" or just don't reply, or give me some weird explanation which is neither t/o or pen.

It is true that a player is not required to tell you what he holds, but it is also true that he is required to tell you the partnership agreement as to the meaning of a call. "I can't tell you now..." is not a legal response to the question. No reply is not a legal response to the question. "Some weird explanation which is neither t/o or penalty" may or may not be a legal response, depending on whether it fully describes the agreement.

Call the director and tell him you do not believe the opponent is disclosing his agreements as required by the law.

[jillybean]

Thanks for all the replies, just out of interest how do alerts work behind screens? Is the bid is alerted by the player making the bid and then again by her partner? If the partner misunderstands the bid or doesn’t alert it then her screen mate does not receive the correct information?

ty

[blackshoe]

As I understand it (I have no hands on experience with screens, but I've read the ACBL's and WBF's regulations), when screens are used, each player of a pair alerts his side's alertable bids to his screenmate - the member of the opposing pair on his side of the screen. Sometimes this can result in MI - as when the alert or lack of one is different on the two sides of the screen, or when an explanation differs. But the main purpose of screens is to reduce UI, and they work pretty good for that.

[barmar]

In fact, there have been some pretty spectacular disasters that resulted from different explanations being given on each side of the screen. I don't remember the specifics (maybe Fred does), but one of these occurred during the finals of a major ACBL tournament 3-4 years ago; the match was really close, and the appeal of this board decided the victor.

[helene_t]

There is a WBF booklet with appeal cases from World Championships. I can reccomend it. Some of the cases make a good laugh. For example:

A player opens 1NT. His screenmate reads the description of the 1NT bid on the CC (14-16 with 4432 or 4333, 13-15 with 5332) and bids according to his own agreements against a weak 1NT.

Intervenor's partner also looks at the CC but can't find the 1NT opening. His screenmate points him to the 1NT opening but the print is too small so intervenor's partner starts looking for his glasses. It turns out he forgot his glasses at his hotel room. He then starts asking questions about possible shapes. Then he starts thinking. "Oh btw, what's the range?". Time is running out, a time penalty is close, and the screenmate is getting annoid. "Well, 14-16 basically". Since 14-16 is strong while (13)14-16 is weak, the player-without-his-glasses responds as agreed against a strong 1NT so they reach a ridicolous contract.

I don't remember what the TD said, but the appeals commitee rules that the print on the CC was normal and it's a player's own responcibility to assure adequate glasses. Result stands.