[scarletv]

---

MP

West: Sweden Expert
North + South: France Experts Profile: "Standard francais"
East: Argentinia Advanced

West is calling the TD and asking for adjustment when he realised 2♦ was strong opener.

North/South played French Standard and had the Agreement of 2♦ strongest opening but did not alert which I guess is normal in France (not sure). No CC loaded but both players had "Standard francais" in their profile without any further comments.

No additional rules or restrictions defined in the tourney.


What is the correct way to handle the call?

[Bbradley62]

<<retracted>>

[blackshoe]

scarletv, on 2014-November-21, 20:51, said:

No additional rules or restrictions defined in the tourney.

Not sure what this means, but it sounds to me like there were no alert regulations in force, so no call requires an alert. If that's the case, result stands, as there has been no infraction. Did this happen on line?

[nige1]

scarletv, on 2014-November-21, 20:51, said:

West: Sweden Expert
North + South: France Experts Profile: "Standard francais"
East: Argentinia Advanced
West is calling the TD and asking for adjustment when he realised 2♦ was strong opener.
North/South played French Standard and had the Agreement of 2♦ strongest opening but did not alert which I guess is normal in France (not sure). No CC loaded but both players had "Standard francais" in their profile without any further comments.
No additional rules or restrictions defined in the tourney.
What is the correct way to handle the call?

---

On-line, Self-alerting is standard and easy, so South is at fault. No BBO "advanced" would imagine that he need to protect himself against an "expert". Arguably, South's bidding is consistent with a weak 7-5 in the pointed suits and EW were damaged in the play: If you know South has a mountain, then ♣A is an unlikely lead. GIB still makes 4♠ on a ♥ lead, but it's possible that a human might misguess ♣s. So the director might rule 4♠-1.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2014-November-21, 21:15, said:

On-line, Self-alerting is standard and easy, so South is at fault. On-line, no "advanced" would imagine that he need to protect himself against an "expert". Arguably. EW were damaged in the bidding (EW have a cheap 5♦ sacrifice). And in the play (if you know South has a mountain, then ♣A is an unlikely lead. GIB still makes on a ♥ lead, but it's possible that a human might misguess ♣s

South is only at fault if there an alert regulation in place that he has violated.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-21, 21:16, said:

South is only at fault if there an alert regulation in place that he has violated.

Bridge law imposes an obligation to disclose. BBO provides several disclosure mechanisms from which to choose. For example, You can explain your own actions (to opponents only). Partner can explain your actions (to opponents only). You can post a full-discloure card that automatically tells opponents what your are doing. You can post an ordinary convention card.

At white, 5♦X isn't a good sacrifice, so I've corrected my earlier post

[scarletv]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-21, 21:16, said:

South is only at fault if there an alert regulation in place that he has violated.

That is something I really would like to know if there is a kind of international alert regulation that can be set? If yes where can I find details?

I know self alerting is standard in BBO but is the bid still alertable when it is not in the country of the players? I cannot expect that all players know international standards if there are any? Does anyone knows if 2♦ is alertable in France? It definitely belongs to SEF.

blackshoe, on 2014-November-21, 21:15, said:

Not sure what this means, but it sounds to me like there were no alert regulations in force, so no call requires an alert. If that's the case, result stands, as there has been no infraction. Did this happen on line?

Yes it happened online - I only deleted the names of the players.

There was nothing included in the tourney description like forbidding psyche bidding or referring to ACBL rules or anything like that. But of course I would like to run the tourneys with alert regulations.

[nige1]

scarletv, on 2014-November-21, 22:07, said:

That is something I really would like to know if there is a kind of international alert regulation that can be set? If yes where can I find details?

IMO there's no reason for omitting general alerting rules from the laws. The nearest thing to what scarletv would like may be:

TFLB, L40A1b said:

Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done.

BBO provides several such disclosure mechanisms.

TFLB, L21B1 said:

Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation.

Blackshoe seems correct that BBO Site rules are a bit vague about what specifically is alertable

BBO Site-rules: Alert-guidelines said:

All members should understand that, due to the fact that we have members from all over the world as well as members of all levels of ability and experience, not all players will agree on which bids should be alerted and which bids should be considered "standard". The management of BBO is not going to get involved with trying to make rules in this area.
It is up to our members to try their best to provide their opponents with information that may be helpful to them. Always remember that it is against the laws and spirit of the game of bridge to conceal information about your partnership agreements from your opponents.The BBO software is designed so that players alert their own bids. This is called "self-alerting" and it is opposite to the approach that is used in live bridge clubs and tournaments. If you have any doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert.
f an opponent asks you for the meaning of one of your bids, you are expected to answer them politely, even if you think the answer is obvious. An appropriate answer can be "I have never discussed this with my partner". You do not have to tell the opponents how you intend your bid - only what you have agreed with your partner. It is innapropriate to use chat to explain your bids to your partner unless you get permission from the opponents first.

Nevertheless, the paragraph that I've emphasised seems unequivocal about methods and principles, especially:
"if you have any doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert".

[blackshoe]

Nigel is entitled to his opinions, but the fact remains that the laws do not contain general alerting regulations. That's left up to the regulating authority or tournament organizer. That said, I suppose the quoted "BBO site rules" are what you have on BBO if the tournament organizer (the person or organization setting up and running the tournament) hasn't specified anything. Given the realities mentioned in the quote, I suppose the rule — alert anything about which you're in doubt — is about the best that can be done. Just remember that no ruling in favor of either side in these cases should be automatic. The TD has to consider whether, in his opinion, an alert should really have been made.

If you're running a tourney on your own, you can make whatever alert regulations you like for your tourney, as long as you make sure everyone playing in your tourney knows what they are. Which means, I think, keeping them very simple.

[diana_eva]

nige1, on 2014-November-21, 22:50, said:

"if you have any doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert".

True, but what if the players with SEF don't have any such doubts and believe it's clear what 2D means? I've seen this happen too, not only with the strong 2D from SEF or Forum-D players, but also with 1C strong or 2C (not strong) from precision players.

[scarletv]

For Forum D players 2♦ is still alertable. I would clearly not accept a missing alert from German players. But I would have to accept a strong but natural 2♦, 2♥ or 2♠ opening from them without alert.

For openings 1♣ and 2♣ in a strong club style I would expect they will be alerted but to be honest I am not 100 % sure that they are alertable in all relevant countries (China, Poland?).

[blackshoe]

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that 2♦ would not require an alert in France, French players unfamiliar with other jurisdictions would have no reason to expect that it would require an alert anywhere else. So it seems a bit harsh to ding them for "failure to alert" when there's nothing to tell them what to alert other than "anything you think might require an alert". That's likely to lead sooner or later to "heck with it, I'm going to alert everything". OTOH, players to whom, in their experience, a particular meaning is unusual will be rightly aggrieved if they mess something up because they weren't told that meaning. I don't think there's a good answer to this dilemma.

[nige1]

diana_eva, on 2014-November-22, 02:55, said:

True, but what if the players with SEF don't have any such doubts and believe it's clear what 2D means? I've seen this happen too, not only with the strong 2D from SEF or Forum-D players, but also with 1C strong or 2C (not strong) from precision players.

If you aren't sure whether a call is alertable but it's artificial (promising neither length nor strength in the bid-suit) then I think you should alert it. Even if you start alerting take-out doubles, it won't do any harm

scarletv, on 2014-November-22, 03:23, said:

For Forum D players 2♦ is still alertable. I would clearly not accept a missing alert from German players. But I would have to accept a strong but natural 2♦, 2♥ or 2♠ opening from them without alert.

IMO, you should alert natural bids of a strength that opponents might not expect (e.g. probably, almost any 2-bid).

blackshoe, on 2014-November-22, 03:46, said:

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that 2♦ would not require an alert in France, French players unfamiliar with other jurisdictions would have no reason to expect that it would require an alert anywhere else. So it seems a bit harsh to ding them for "failure to alert" when there's nothing to tell them what to alert other than "anything you think might require an alert". That's likely to lead sooner or later to "heck with it, I'm going to alert everything". OTOH, players to whom, in their experience, a particular meaning is unusual will be rightly aggrieved if they mess something up because they weren't told that meaning. I don't think there's a good answer to this dilemma.

With players of different ability and nationality, it would be hard to formulate specific rules. "If you aren't sure, then you should alert" is clear enough for practical purposes. There's no harm in over-alerting on BBO because alerts are simply explanations that only opponents can see. IMO, the game would be nearly dead, were it not for on-line bridge with it's simpler, saner, fairer rules. Finally..

• BBO has standard editable cards for most systems, including 2/1, Precision, and SEF.
• BBO full-disclosure cards automatically present relevant alerts and explanations.
• Magical

[scarletv]

Please don't misunderstand. It is not the question if I should or would alert. The problem is that players from different nations have a different understanding of what is normal and what not. The problem is they might have no doubt about a bid that is alertable for others. And my personal problem is how to handle that as TD in a good way. I really see that as dilemma especially when I try to make a good job.

For SEF problem it would still be helpful if a player from France could report if the 2♦ opening is alertable or not.

nige1, on 2014-November-22, 05:15, said:

scarletv, on 2014-November-22, 03:23, said:

But I would have to accept a strong but natural 2♦, 2♥ or 2♠ opening from them without alert.

IMO, you should alert natural bids of a strength that opponents might not expect (e.g. probably, almost any 2-bid). With players of different ability and nationality, it would be hard to formulate specific rules. "If you aren't sure, then you should alert" is clear enough for practical purposes.

Why? It is not allowed to alert those openings in German. Why should you expect a normal club player not too experienced at BBO, not playing with others than German partners to know that someone else is expecting this bid to be alerted? There might simply be no doubt.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-22, 03:46, said:

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that 2♦ would not require an alert in France, French players unfamiliar with other jurisdictions would have no reason to expect that it would require an alert anywhere else. So it seems a bit harsh to ding them for "failure to alert" when there's nothing to tell them what to alert other than "anything you think might require an alert". That's likely to lead sooner or later to "heck with it, I'm going to alert everything". OTOH, players to whom, in their experience, a particular meaning is unusual will be rightly aggrieved if they mess something up because they weren't told that meaning. I don't think there's a good answer to this dilemma.

It's a "welcome to the world" problem. Simply put: If you want to stick to the French alert rules, stay in France. If you want to go out into the world, you will need to be more flexible in your thinking, whether you are going on a visit to a Hindu temple in New Delhi or play bridge on BBO.

It is very simple to just self-alert and explain your bids. It can't possibly hurt, there is no UI. It is the flexibility that is needed to be a "BBO world citizen". The only problem may be that of the language, but learning a few terms ("strong", "art.", "forcing", "nat.") should be doable for people who can remember the meanings of a list of conventions.

Rik

[hrothgar]

Lets ignore the entire question of whether or not there should have been an alert.

Was there damage and did the failure to alert cause this to happen?

[steve2005]

West should protect himself and ask meaning of 2♦ & possibly 4♠ bid. Something unusual definitely going on.

[jillybean]

I doubt that we will ever get a satisfactory answer to this type of question.
The call was in a BBO game and will be decided by the person taking the call, there are no specific laws followed.

A sensible answer could be given if the question asked was How would you rule playing under these specific regulations.

[helene_t]

No damage so results stand.

S is told that next time he must announce but no pp since it's not materially different from all those who fail to alert transfers and artificial 2c openings

Agree with nigel btw.

[scarletv]

This happened at the table:

I told North and South that they have to alert 2♦ in future and made notes that I will know next time.

I asked West what he would have done different when the bid had been alerted but did not get an useful answer. He only repeatedly asked for penalty getting more and more in rage.

I did not see the damage though I must admit that play of clubs might be more tricky after a different lead.
I ruled result stands.

West run away sending some very unpleasant messages to me before and afterwards. That ended in adding him to the blacklist.