[FrancesHinden]

candybar, on Oct 12 2005, 02:44 PM, said:

Contrary to what some people seem to think, a direct cuebid of a natural bid is alertable if it is meant as natural. So if these people had an agreement that 1D 2D was natural, then it would have to be alerted.

Depends where in the world you are.
Or, in BBO, it depends on the alerting regulations of the tournament.

It's not alertable if natural in the EBU, for example.

[pigpenz]

david_c, on Oct 12 2005, 04:55 PM, said:

This seems very wrong to me. Why are we talking about "proof"? It is the TD's job to decide what happened, and then make a ruling based on that decision. He doesn't have to prove what was going on.

Here the TD decided that East was deliberately trying to sabotage the game. Well, that's his decision to make, and he was in a better position to make that decision than any of us. So, though the evidence of the original post doesn't seem sufficient to me, I'm happy to go with the TD's judgement of what happened.

But Roland is correct, East can bid anything he wants its within the rules of bridge call it a psyche or what.

There is no reason to adjust the board.
Now if the player still continues doing that than there is a problem.

[candybar]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 12 2005, 05:49 PM, said:

candybar, on Oct 12 2005, 02:44 PM, said:

Contrary to what some people seem to think, a direct cuebid of a natural bid is alertable if it is meant as natural.  So if these people had an agreement that 1D 2D was natural, then it would have to be alerted.

Depends where in the world you are.
Or, in BBO, it depends on the alerting regulations of the tournament.

It's not alertable if natural in the EBU, for example.

So then in the EBU, you must alert Michaels? Because you obviously cannot have two vastly different meanings for the same bid and not alert at least one of them.

[jillybean]

candybar, on Oct 12 2005, 06:22 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Oct 12 2005, 05:49 PM, said:

candybar, on Oct 12 2005, 02:44 PM, said:

Contrary to what some people seem to think, a direct cuebid of a natural bid is alertable if it is meant as natural.  So if these people had an agreement that 1D 2D was natural, then it would have to be alerted.

Depends where in the world you are.
Or, in BBO, it depends on the alerting regulations of the tournament.

It's not alertable if natural in the EBU, for example.

So then in the EBU, you must alert Michaels? Because you obviously cannot have two vastly different meanings for the same bid and not alert at least one of them.

This is where I get very confused - you are saying a natural bid must be alerted and an artificial bid (in this case Michaels) does NOT need to be alerted?

I assumed Michaels was not alerted because SAYC players have gotten lazy, much like the polish♣ players they cry foul about. The lack of alert usually does not matter, both parties assuming 'michaels' but if the opps make td call after such a bid surely you need to treat it as a failure to alert a conventional bid ?

Perhaps this method works when only one clearly defined system is allowed but I fail to see how it could apply to an open tournament.

jb

[Mr. Dodgy]

The more I consider my last post in this thread, the more I am inclined to concur that those who have responded with the 'legal' opinion that no adjustment should have been made are correct.

West did have the opportunity to save in ♣s, and given that she has now been passed for penalty, considered the possibility that East's original overcall may have been natural (and, as noted by previous posters, given the initial pass, possibly somewhat light) - especially considering her own ♦ holding, but chose not to.

Indeed, if this WAS sabotage, it is a frighteningly subtle example. My apologies to those concerned.

I would like to make one other note: It has been suggested that I lingered at the table because of the 'bad' substitute and reacted with bias. This is not the case - I left the table to attend other matters and was recalled by West saying 'help, partner does not know SAYC', and thought that given the cicumstances re-substituting was fair enough.

Thanks once again, this has been very instructive and I hope I will do better in the future as a result.

[candybar]

jillybean2, on Oct 12 2005, 09:19 PM, said:

candybar, on Oct 12 2005, 06:22 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Oct 12 2005, 05:49 PM, said:

candybar, on Oct 12 2005, 02:44 PM, said:

Contrary to what some people seem to think, a direct cuebid of a natural bid is alertable if it is meant as natural.  So if these people had an agreement that 1D 2D was natural, then it would have to be alerted.

Depends where in the world you are.
Or, in BBO, it depends on the alerting regulations of the tournament.

It's not alertable if natural in the EBU, for example.

So then in the EBU, you must alert Michaels? Because you obviously cannot have two vastly different meanings for the same bid and not alert at least one of them.

This is where I get very confused - you are saying a natural bid must be alerted and an artificial bid (in this case Michaels) does NOT need to be alerted?

I assumed Michaels was not alerted because SAYC players have gotten lazy, much like the polish♣ players they cry foul about. The lack of alert usually does not matter, both parties assuming 'michaels' but if the opps make td call after such a bid surely you need to treat it as a failure to alert a conventional bid ?

Perhaps this method works when only one clearly defined system is allowed but I fail to see how it could apply to an open tournament.

jb

Once again, I can only speak from the ACBL perspective. The ACBL Alert Chart, which I understand is not global, but IS the best and most well-defined alert system I have seen can be viewed at http://www.acbl.org/...alertChart.html .

In the table section for Cuebids, under Alert, it states, "Direct cue-bid of natural opening bid played as natural".

This is one of the few places that a cuebid of an opponent's natural suit is alertable. Any other meaning does not have to be alerted, including Michaels or other similar systems ... the theory is that (artificial) cuebids carry their own implicit alert.

I would like to see this ACBL alert system become the BBO standard alert system, not because it's necessarily better than any other, but because it's carefully defined, neatly and clearly presented, and easily accessible to anyone.

[Blofeld]

candybar, on Oct 13 2005, 06:03 PM, said:

I would like to see this ACBL alert system become the BBO standard alert system, not because it's necessarily better than any other, but because it's carefully defined, neatly and clearly presented, and easily accessible to anyone.

... but so are lots of other alert systems.

In particular, there are ones that are easier to learn. For instance, "alert any call that isn't natural". And the ACBL policy of not alerting responses to bids above 3NT is silly in an online context of self-alerts.

[jillybean]

I would have thought the answer for BBO is for all artificial bids and special partnership agreements to be alerted and explained…isn’t this what FullDisclosure is all about?

[hrothgar]

[quote name='candybar' date='Oct 14 2005, 02:03 AM'] jb[/QUOTE]
Once again, I can only speak from the ACBL perspective. The ACBL Alert Chart, which I understand is not global, but IS the best and most well-defined alert system I have seen can be viewed at [url="http://www.acbl.org/play/alertChart.html"]http://www.acbl.org/play/alertChart.html[/url] . [/QUOTE]
I admit to preferring the ACBL's alert structure to that used by most other jurisdications. With this said and done, I would NEVER attempt to promote this system based on its clarity or comprehension. If this is your metric, the EBU standard of alerting all artificial bids clearly comes out on top.

The EBU system is more comprehensive and less ambiguous.

Where the ACBL system wins out over the competition is its ability to provide the opponents with useful information. I have argued on several occasions that the EBU structure sacrifices function for form. Players alert bids for the sake of alerting. Transmitting information runs a distant second.

For whats its worth, you might want to avoid lines of arguments in which you simultaneously claim

1. That you don't know the EBU alert standards
2. The ACBL standards are better than the alternatives

At the very least try to avoid referencing both comments in the same thread. It does tend to hurt your credibility...

[Mr. Dodgy]

While I'm here, I'm curious about the idea of averaging A++. It doesn't make sense to me. In this particular instance an A+ would have disadvantaged N-S, as the IMP award for their making game would have been higher than the A+. The adjustment to 4♥+2 was designed to simulate an A+-.

A-- I can understand if there has been some sort of infraction by both sides, but A++ would seem to reward everyone despite the fact there has been some need to make an adjustment - what basis can there be for such?

[hrothgar]

jillybean2, on Oct 14 2005, 02:28 AM, said:

I would have thought the answer for BBO is for all artificial bids and special partnership agreements to be alerted and explained…isn’t this what FullDisclosure is all about?

I think that Full Disclosure may be the greatest thing sice sliced bread. However, it is no panacea.

In many ways, Full Disclosure is going to suffer from the same problem as the EBU alert structure. Full Disclosure has the potential to provide the opponents with so much information that it will be extremely difficult to separate the signal from the noise.

Long term, I can think of a number of ways in which Full Disclosure could be enhanced to compensate for this problem.

One option would allow players to select what type of Alert system that Full DIsclosure uses: Fred cleverly designed Full Disclosure such that each bid has a flag that indicates whether or not the bid is artificial. If the system file has been coded properly, Full Disclosure already has all the information necessary to automatically alert all artificial bids. However, as an alternative, players could chose to automatically compare the opponent's Full Disclosure file to their own file. The alert system would ignore all bids where the two files matched but flag bids where there were differences. Ideally, players will have the ability to configure FD to customize they alert system based on their own preferences.

Another option would be to color code different announcements. The WBF color codes different bids (Systems are labelled as Green or Red. Coventions are labelled as Brown Sticker). It might be interesting to permit players to color code announcements using this same system. BSCs would be announced in Brown. A Strong Club or Strong Diamond opening would be displayed in Blue since these bids distinquish a "Blue System". A Polish style 1♣ or a variable NT opening would be displayed in Red since either of these methods make a system "Red"

In short, I think that theres a lot that can be done to address these issues. However, its important to recognize that FD is but one step in a long evolving process...

[Mr. Dodgy]

As the thread is heading this way I'll throw in my 2 cents on alert regulations.

I prefer ABF/WBF alert regs which seem to essentially state that ALL artifical/conventional bids should be alerted, although in same cases the alerts should be post-alerts (and some things require pre-alerts). I think the clearest and simplest approach on BBO should be that ALL are alerted (and pre-alerts would be nice). My preference is surely influenced by the fact that I am an Australian and that theses are the regulations I am most familiar with, but they seems to make sense.

ACBL regs which, as I understand it, define certain conventions (stayman, JTB, MCB) as 'standard' and therefore not requiring alerts seem inconsistent. Stayman is an particularly interesting example. In Australia the use of 'Extended Stayman' is quite common - not everybody uses 1NT-2C in quite the same way.

I do like certain aspects of the ACBL regs - the announcing of point-range for NT openings is a good idea.

I once watched a table with 3 GIBs playing, and for some reason they alerted EVERYTHING with quite detailed explanations. I thought this was great. Bring on FD!

[pigpenz]

FD will be great if people in tournaments ever start using it
so far in ACBL tourney i havent noticed it being used, people usually play Bridge base Advance and/or SAYC....even with that build into the CC for the majority of the bids, the partnerships still dont know what most of the bids mean.

take for examample last night when kibbing

auction:
1NT p 3♣ p
4♣ p4♦ p
4♥ p 5♦ p
p p


the nt bidder knew what 3♣ was supposed to be, but the3♣ bidder didnt!
all that person had to do was open and look at their own cc to make sure before making the bid. I dont know, but if they arent even willing to do that what are the chances that they are going to make a FD system CC?

[Mr. Dodgy]

I don't think FD has been implemented yet by BBO to auto-alert.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...full+disclosure

oh it's your thread...

[david_c]

Mr. Dodgy, on Oct 14 2005, 12:49 AM, said:

While I'm here, I'm curious about the idea of averaging A++. It doesn't make sense to me. In this particular instance an A+ would have disadvantaged N-S, as the IMP award for their making game would have been higher than the A+. The adjustment to 4♥+2 was designed to simulate an A+-.

A-- I can understand if there has been some sort of infraction by both sides, but A++ would seem to reward everyone despite the fact there has been some need to make an adjustment - what basis can there be for such?

Well, suppose this was a more clearcut case, say for example East had bid 7NT and then redoubled. Then you certainly have to adjust, otherwise this silly result will affect everyone else's scores. Furthermore, I would say that Law 12C1 applies here - that is, no result could be obtained on the board. (Yes, I know that the hand was played out in the sense that the players continuted to click on bids and cards, but if one player is making bids at random trying to sabotage the game then this doesn't count in my opinion.) So you award an artificial adjusted score. A side which is not at fault gets ave+ and a side which is directly at fault gets ave-. Clearly N/S are not at fault so they get ave+. But also you are going to replace East with a sub; so now West and his new partner are not at fault either, and so they should also get ave+. Hence A++.

Anyway, that's how I've decided to deal with this situtation. You might decide differently - there's no "right" answer because the Laws don't deal with this sort of thing specifically - but it pays to be consistent.

[candybar]

Blofeld, on Oct 13 2005, 06:24 PM, said:

And the ACBL policy of not alerting responses to bids above 3NT is silly in an online context of self-alerts.

This is completely false and a common misunderstanding, even in live bridge.

The ACBL policy is that all bids over 3N after the first round of bidding are a DELAYED ALERT. They are still alertable -- however the alert is made at the end of the auction, not at the time of the bid. Even defenders must make their delayed alerts at the end of the auction, one of the few times that defenders give information before the end of the hand.

In online bridge, it should not apply, in my humble opinion, because the reason for it is to avoid giving info to partner in high level bids, something that is not a problem online.

[candybar]

hrothgar, on Oct 13 2005, 06:36 PM, said:

For whats its worth, you might want to avoid lines of arguments in which you simultaneously claim

1. That you don't know the EBU alert standards
2. The ACBL standards are better than the alternatives

At the very least try to avoid referencing both comments in the same thread.  It does tend to hurt your credibility...

I believe my statement was: I would like to see this ACBL alert system become the BBO standard alert system, not because it's necessarily better than any other, but because it's carefully defined, neatly and clearly presented, and easily accessible to anyone.

..... something that is not true of the EBU alert system as far as I can find. Perhaps you can direct me to a website that spells out the EBU alert rules as clearly as the ABCL ones are?

[candybar]

Mr. Dodgy, on Oct 13 2005, 06:49 PM, said:

While I'm here, I'm curious about the idea of averaging A++. It doesn't make sense to me. In this particular instance an A+ would have disadvantaged N-S, as the IMP award for their making game would have been higher than the A+. The adjustment to 4♥+2 was designed to simulate an A+-.

A-- I can understand if there has been some sort of infraction by both sides, but A++ would seem to reward everyone despite the fact there has been some need to make an adjustment - what basis can there be for such?

A+ is not and should never be construed as a "reward". It is simply an adjustment specified by the Laws to compensate players who were unable to play a board through no fault of their own. It could even hurt players whose score for the round is running higher than A+.

[Blofeld]

candybar, on Oct 14 2005, 01:29 PM, said:

Blofeld, on Oct 13 2005, 06:24 PM, said:

And the ACBL policy of not alerting responses to bids above 3NT is silly in an online context of self-alerts.

This is completely false and a common misunderstanding, even in live bridge.

Apologies then. I've never played in an ACBL jurisdiction, and have picked up this impression probably mostly from these forums.

However that's largely irrelevant to the thrust of my point (which you appear to agree with), which is that when self-alerting we should be following different guidelines.

[candybar]

Blofeld, on Oct 14 2005, 01:38 PM, said:

candybar, on Oct 14 2005, 01:29 PM, said:

Blofeld, on Oct 13 2005, 06:24 PM, said:

And the ACBL policy of not alerting responses to bids above 3NT is silly in an online context of self-alerts.

This is completely false and a common misunderstanding, even in live bridge.

Apologies then. I've never played in an ACBL jurisdiction, and have picked up this impression probably mostly from these forums.

However that's largely irrelevant to the thrust of my point (which you appear to agree with), which is that when self-alerting we should be following different guidelines.

Delayed alerts are a different issue than WHAT is to be alerted.

Yes, obviously online self-alerts are different than live alerts, and there is no reason the MECHANISM for making the alerts needs to be the same.

The mechanism for alerting in live bridge is either the spoken word ALERT, or showing the Alert card from a bidding box. The alert is made by the partner of the bidder. The mechanism for alerting in online bridge is a private message to the opponents, and the alert is made by the bidder. When screens are in use, the mechanism is alerting by your screenmate.

Nothing in the Laws says that the mechanism for alerting needs to remain the same. In fact, what the Laws say is that the bidding information must be conveyed honestly to the opponents. If live bridge had a mechanism for private self-alerting that partner couldn't see/hear, I have no doubt we'd be using it.

The question of WHAT has to be alerted is entirely different. I really wouldn't care what alert rules were used on BBO, as long as it was clearly spelled out, accessible, and enforced consistently.