[northo_49]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     Pass  2♣
 3♦    Dbl   Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

This was an indy.....west called after the hand and felt the 2!c's should have been alerted.
I'd like some input please...I don't think south needed to alert

[Free]

1. I'm not a TD, so I might be wrong
2. When playing precision, 2♣ opening is alertable, even if you prealerted.
3. If it's not a systemic agreement, then 2♣ is considered a strong (near GF or absolute GF) bid. It's not allowed to psych an unlimited strong opening bid!

So either there was an alert needed or south violated the rules

[jillybean]

(Edited I didnt mean to quote Free)
This is an indy so unless these 2 random players have an agreement, no alert is required and the correct response to a query is 'no agreement'.
Tricky call when you could say there is an implicit agreement between 2 people who have same system on their profile but without a partnership agreement E/W have just as much information as N.


jb

[mycroft]

1) Alert procedure is dependent on the SO, which for BBO tourneys is the tournament organizer. If the SO chooses "no Alerts", that's perfectly legal, but possibly unplayable. So, the answer to your question becomes "what does the Tournament organizer think?"

1a) For instance, McBruce's Alphabet Indy has no real reason for Alerts, because he enforces a standard system on all players.

2) Free's comment is also one of those "up to the SO" things - and perfectly correct if it was an ACBL indy. But if it's an "anything goes" setup, then psyching a strong 2C opener would be just fine. Of course, why South bid 2C is important to find out - it is anyway.

3) So, I'd ask South what 2C was, and apply the SO's Alert regulations and convention regulations. If South followed it all, well, then them's the rules. If South didn't, then there needs to be some work done (of course, the penalties for violation of Alert regs are up to the SO (but at least involve MI to opponents), as are penalties for violation of convention regulations.

4) What was west's 3D? Was it Alerted, or just a psych?

Michael.

[jillybean]

mycroft, on Oct 28 2005, 01:16 PM, said:

1) Alert procedure is dependent on the SO, which for BBO tourneys is the tournament organizer.  If the SO chooses "no Alerts", that's perfectly legal, but possibly unplayable.  So, the answer to your question becomes "what does the Tournament organizer think?"

If you are saying the Sponsoring Oranization could make a rule that says you must alert a bid rather than a partnership agreement wont we be playing an entirely different game where the opps know more than the partnership.

Anyway, I think we are talking here of a running free tournaments on BBO by unqualified TD's wanting to do the best they can so I think its safe just to apply wbf/acbl laws.

1a) For instance, McBruce's Alphabet Indy has no real reason for Alerts, because he enforces a standard system on all players.

This does not eliminate the need to alert, standard bids within a system could still conceal special partnership understandings.

jb

[Mr. Dodgy]

Free, on Oct 28 2005, 11:33 AM, said:

3. If it's not a systemic agreement, then 2♣ is considered a strong (near GF or absolute GF) bid. It's not allowed to psych an unlimited strong opening bid!

WBF online laws state:

Rule 40A. Right to Choose Call or Play
A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call
— such as a psychic bid — or a call or play that departs from commonly
accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior
announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership
understanding.

There is, as far as I can tell, no restriction disallowing a 2♣ (artificial strong), 1NT, or any other psyche.


Back to the question at hand...

Indys are a bit strange - there is little opportunity for partners to make agreements about their their bidding methods, so it's often tempting to rule that no alerts are required.

However, if this pair have - somehow - come to an agreement that they are playing precision/polish club or whatever then they MUST alert ALL conventional bids. As this hand would seems to be a 1♣ opener to me unless they play that as having some other conventional meaning, I believe this is probably the case here.

In fact, even if they are playing Standard American, 2♣ should be alerted as "artificial strong - 23+ HCP" (or something similar).

As stated by others in this thread (and in the WBF online laws), the organising body - In the case of BBO tourneys I supppose this means the tournament host - can require whatever alert regulations they desire. I specifically state that "ALL artificial/conventional bids must be alerted - EVEN STAYMAN" at the beginning of all tourneys I direct.

Not sure if this helps, just my 2 cents worth.

Regards,

Justin

[pigpenz]

I think in acbl events you can psyche just about everything but a strong artificial bid, so you cant psyche a strong 2♣ bid

[Mr. Dodgy]

this was not ACBL

[pigpenz]

yes i understand that it is not the acbl, but that is one of their rules...so what are yours?

[Mr. Dodgy]

WBF-based

[nickf]

I think South's failure to alert is reprehensible. The spirit of the alert regulations and bridge in general are such that it is our obligation to explain bids that wouldnt otherwise be normally understood.

I can mildly condone players for being too lazy to alert a strong 2C opener or even eg a Jacoby Transfer or Stayman

but the example in the cited hand is too woeful to go unpunished.

We need to take a step back and remember we are playing a game based on full disclosure.

nickf
sydney

[jillybean]

Errrr, are we missing a vital point here. This is an INDIVIDUAL
how do alert regulations apply when there are no partnership agreements?

[Mr. Dodgy]

Understood, Jilly - dunno what the answer is. No agreement = no alert, OK, but opening 2♣ on this hand seems to warrant some investigation (regardless of the argument about whether 2♣ should be alerted in SA).

I would not be surprised to find that both N&S were Polish (or Italian, or Chinese...) or were by some other means able to identify each other as playing a system wherein opening 2♣ shows this type of hand (11-15 lonc ♣s and/or other types), in which case it should without any doubt be alerted and explained under any reasonable sort of alerting regulations. Of course I can't be sure that it's not a psyche. The only way to determine this with any degree of certainty would be to ask North and/or South what 2♣ meant.

It's epscially tricky in this particular case, as 2♣ could well be a completely natural bid, although an unusual one.

[jillybean]

I think there is too much guess work involved here unless as you say you can get
an answer from NS.
Take note of the pair, nothing more to do.

or I have completely missed something in my understanding of alert regulations ...which is quite possible

This post has been edited by jillybean2: 2005-October-29, 19:36

[McBruce]

Perhaps the best response to West, when he asks for an adjustment because South did not alert his 2♣ opener, is:

What was 3♦? Did you alert that?

I don't see any evidence that N-S have any special agreements. South opened 2♣ for reasons known only to himself--if they were known to anyone else the result would have been different. West made a 3♦ call that defies reason. North had a penalty double and decided to make it. East sensed that the BBO Indy retrovirus was infecting the table, and by passing he would give himself 2-1 odds in favour of having one of the opponents make the Final Mistake. South decided he did not want to collect a penalty of 1700 and tried 3NT. West probably didn't start with the A-Q♥ or we wouldn't be hearing the story.

I don't think there is any reason to even bother with investigating here.

It is, however, my contention that a standard system imposed on all players within an indy (and automatic adjustments when a non-system call is fielded by partner for a good score) requires NO alerts at all. I have run 65 tourneys without a complaint that two players have a special partnership agreement that is completely within the system imposed on players. It might conceivably happen, but if it does the chances are that it will not have a major effect on the results.

[epeeist]

jillybean2, on Oct 28 2005, 10:12 PM, said:

Errrr, are we missing a vital point here. This is an INDIVIDUAL
how do alert regulations apply when there are no partnership agreements?

Warning: long response, and I'm not an expert. But I feel strongly about this topic.

This is a bit of a philosophical question. My own view is, if I expect my partner has a good chance to understand what I meant, we have an implicit agreement. Whether or not we've ever discussed it.

Let's say I sub, don't discuss bidding for whatever reason (short time, lazy, tired, partner an enemy, whatever), and my partner opens 1NT. If their profile has a US flag, "sayc" in the "other" section, a "J" in the top left corner, and I reply with 2 clubs, I expect them to understand it as stayman and reply accordingly. 99% of the time I'll be correct. If my opponent asked what my bid meant (for whatever reason), am I allowed to say "no agreement" because p and I have never EXPLICITLY agreed to use sayc and thus stayman?!

By contrast, let's say partner in an indy has "novice", "wj2000" and "no english" in their profile. They open one heart, I think we have a chance to make 3NT and bid it. We genuinely have no agreement, and if asked I will state that, I have no clue what my partner will think my bid meant.

But these are extremes. Let's say partner (the first example, with sayc in profile) opens 1 heart and I jump to 4 clubs, intending it as a splinter bid. But again, never discussed. Some think this is explained as "no agreement". In one sense, they're correct since it was never discussed and there's a good chance in an indy that p will mess it up... But I think that if I make that bid I expect my partner to understand it, and thus am morally (if not ethically) obliged to explain it that way. For instance, if my partner is a "star" (though I think I've only been that lucky twice, in all the individuals I've played...), it would be in my view dishonest to explain a bid, which I expect them to understand, as "no agreement". There IS an agreement, just implicit, not explicit.

Turning to the specific example, in an acbl tournament, I think the "default" bidding system is deemed to be sayc/2/1 unless agreed (and opponents told, explicitly or by cc) otherwise. Unless that happened here, there was a de facto partnership agreement that two clubs was strong, even if no discussion between the partners ever occurred. Thus, it seems like what pigpenz said, an improper psyche of an artificial bid.

If, of course, the two club bidder didn't know what it meant, then they may not have psyched, but they violated the rules in another way (not disclosing use of a non-sayc or 2/1 system...).

[candybar]

Epeeist, well said and exactly right.

If you have no agreement, and no reason to expect your partner to understand your bid, you are REQUIRED to say "No agreement". Anything else would be a lie. It is just as unethical to imply an agreement by explaining one as it is to lie about the meaning.

If you have never discussed anything at all, you must still assume an implicit agreement based on the standard system wherever you are playing. In ACBL tournaments, for example, that is SAYC with all of the ACBL rules. In generic BBO tournaments, I would think BBO Basic would be your assumption. Anything alertable in that system should be alerted, even if not discussed explicitly with partner.

If you make a bid that is NOT covered or implicit in that standard system, you then you must answer "No agreement". Online where you cannot convey UI to partner, you may if you wish explain further, but then you must make it clear that you do not have an agreement and do not know if partner will understand it.

[helene_t]

If the rules say that all artificial calls must be alerted, EW can infer from the fact that 2♣ was not alerted that it shows clubs.

Of course, since most WJ/Precision playes alert 2♣ and many standard players do not, it is, in practice, more likely not to show clubs.

Tell South that this 2♣ opening should be alerted allthough it's natural, and tell EW not to make the assumption that opps forgot to alert. If it interests them what 2♣ means, they should ask, whether it's alerted or not. Same applies to a 2♣ response to a 1NT opening.

[Al_U_Card]

I am curious to know why people would subject themselves to this kind of inanity when finding a pard and spending 20 min. to discuss system basics would be no trouble at all. I gather lots of people do, but it's beyond me......

[candybar]

Al_U_Card, on Oct 31 2005, 11:22 AM, said:

I am curious to know why people would subject themselves to this kind of inanity when finding a pard and spending 20 min. to discuss system basics would be no trouble at all. I gather lots of people do, but it's beyond me......

I'm with you! Bridge is a partnership game.

I even think that when a pair signs up together, and one of them crashes, the other should be allowed to withdraw from a tournament if they wish, and not be forced to play with a random sub. I never blacklist someone who asks to leave for that reason, and I let them go from my tournaments without prejudice.