[sfi]

 Vampyr, on 2017-December-05, 05:47, said:

Self-alerting means you don't alert?

Correct. Like any alert regulations, not everyone follows them all the time. You will still see people alerting these occasionally, but will get no redress if you act on your own misunderstanding.

For example: 1H - (2H - Michaels) - 2S is not alertable. The opponents should ask if they care, and will get no joy from the director if they think it is natural rather than a good heart raise.

3H in this auction is also not alertable (it's a cue bid after all). But I would expect most people to alert anyway if it had a non-standard range, because not many would think of this as a cue bid.

[WellSpyder]

 sfi, on 2017-December-05, 06:21, said:

For example: 1H - (2H - Michaels) - 2S is not alertable. The opponents should ask if they care, and will get no joy from the director if they think it is natural rather than a good heart raise.

Just our of curiosity, how exactly does this work? Say I open 1H. LHO overcalls 2H. Do I understand correctly that this isn't alerted because it is a cue-bid and therefore assumed to be "self-alerting"? Now my partner bids 2S. This may be conventional, but do I understand you correctly that I don't need to alert this IF it is a cue-bid of a suit shown by the other side? But I won't know whether or not oppo have shown spades unless I have had an explanation of the 2H bid, which presumably I'm not entitled to until it is my turn to bid?

[Vampyr]

 WellSpyder, on 2017-December-05, 06:54, said:

Just our of curiosity, how exactly does this work? Say I open 1H. LHO overcalls 2H. Do I understand correctly that this isn't alerted because it is a cue-bid and therefore assumed to be "self-alerting"? Now my partner bids 2S. This may be conventional, but do I understand you correctly that I don't need to alert this IF it is a cue-bid of a suit shown by the other side? But I won't know whether or not oppo have shown spades unless I have had an explanation of the 2H bid, which presumably I'm not entitled to until it is my turn to bid?

But you are using written bidding, so you are alerting your own bids.

I have played bridge in 15-16 countries, which I am sure is a more than average for a non-international player, but it has never been my misfortune to play under alert regulations as poor as these Australian ones. But I admit that I am spoiled, living in a jurisdiction where they have got it right.

[sfi]

 WellSpyder, on 2017-December-05, 06:54, said:

Just our of curiosity, how exactly does this work? Say I open 1H. LHO overcalls 2H. Do I understand correctly that this isn't alerted because it is a cue-bid and therefore assumed to be "self-alerting"? Now my partner bids 2S. This may be conventional, but do I understand you correctly that I don't need to alert this IF it is a cue-bid of a suit shown by the other side? But I won't know whether or not oppo have shown spades unless I have had an explanation of the 2H bid, which presumably I'm not entitled to until it is my turn to bid?

In that situation, 2S is unlikely to ever be alertable since it's either natural and forcing or a cue. But you usually know because either partner has already asked or you can take a look at the system card the opponents have given you.

If it really is an issue (maybe you are playing negative free bids) and you genuinely don't know, you probably should alert it. If RHO asks, you can ask for clarification of the 2H call before explaining. If not, you can ask at your turn.

[sfi]

 Vampyr, on 2017-December-05, 12:30, said:

But you are using written bidding, so you are alerting your own bids.

I have played bridge in 15-16 countries, which I am sure is a more than average for a non-international player, but it has never been my misfortune to play under alert regulations as poor as these Australian ones. But I admit that I am spoiled, living in a jurisdiction where they have got it right.

You don't alert your own bids using written bidding - your partner does. But I'm sure you will find problems with that as well. And it's always easier understanding the alert regulations in your own jurisdiction than others. Amazingly enough, it works fairly well in practice.

You really are determined to not enjoy one of the world's better tournaments, aren't you? Let me give you some other points to gripe about:

• The venue is too cold.
  
• People play strange conventions.
  
• The beer is too cold.
  
• There is no daylight savings, so it gets light too early.
  
• The beach is too sandy.
  
• Too many British backpackers wandering around the town.
  
• Game time is too early.
  
• The venue is too hot.
  
• It's an expensive taxi ride from the airport.
  
• I can't find anything on the ABF cards.
  
• Too much traffic crossing the road.
  
• The dodgy gyros place across the road is dodgy.
  
• People talk funny.

I'm sure I've missed some. At least you'll have the Commonwealth Games beforehand to enjoy under different regulations.

[blackshoe]

 sanst, on 2017-December-05, 03:36, said:

So, during an oral auction there is nothing in the way of legal problems if a players says "Three, no four hearts?" Or, probably even worse, "Three ... eh, pass"? In my book that's UI, but seemingly not in yours. The same with boxes, I see UI if a player pulls a card slightly from one compartment, but then changes that for one from the other.

I was not writing of UI. See below.

 sfi, on 2017-December-05, 03:42, said:

It causes UI, but you can certainly change it.

This fits well with our bidding box regulations that say a call is made when it is "held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or maintained in such a position as to indicate that the call has been made." I believe the regulation on when a call has been made is rather different than in other jurisdictions.

It's identical to the ACBL regulation. However, that one also says "A player is obligated to choose a call before touching any card in the box. Deliberation while touching the bidding box cards may subject the offending side to the adjustment provisions of Law 16."

 Vampyr, on 2017-December-05, 04:18, said:

LOL this hopeless regulation was obviously created by lazily copying from the laws the definition of a played card.

I guess written bidding is better than the potential to remove several cards from the bidding box before deciding on a final call.

See above regarding the ACBL bidding box regulation.

[helene_t]

I love written bidding. sfi gave the reasons. No issues with disputes about which calls were alerted. No bidding boxes falling on the floor. Far fewer insufficient bids.

[Vampyr]

 helene_t, on 2017-December-05, 22:38, said:

I love written bidding. sfi gave the reasons. No issues with disputes about which calls were alerted. No bidding boxes falling on the floor. Far fewer insufficient bids.

Far fewer? I see an insufficient bid once every several years, so I can't see a big advantage there. Who knows, perhaps it will be only a small annoyance and not as bad as I imagine.

But anyway, if you take 10 seconds after all jump bids (you might expand this as sensible RAs do to all competitive bids at the 3-level and above), is it sufficient for this to just be on your convention card or must you tell the opponents when you tell them your general system?

[helene_t]

 Vampyr, on 2017-December-06, 02:53, said:

Far fewer? I see an insufficient bid once every several years, so I can't see a big advantage there. Who knows, perhaps it will be only a small annoyance and not as bad as I imagine.

But anyway, if you take 10 seconds after all jump bids (you might expand this as sensible RAs do to all competitive bids at the 3-level and above), is it sufficient for this to just be on your convention card or must you tell the opponents when you tell them your general system?

I'm not sure what annoyance you are talking about. Other than the waste of paper I don't see any disadvantages. Unreadable bids do happen but not more often than people arranging bidding cards in unreadable ways.

Not sure what the 10 sec rule has to do with anything. We use the stop card the same way as they do in boxistan.

[Zelandakh]

 sfi, on 2017-December-05, 06:21, said:

For example: 1H - (2H - Michaels) - 2S is not alertable.

How about 1♦ - (2♦) - 2♥, where third hand has assumed 2♦ to be Michaels but it is actually being played as Top-Bottom?

[Vampyr]

 helene_t, on 2017-December-06, 05:44, said:

I'm not sure what annoyance you are talking about. Other than the waste of paper I don't see any disadvantages. Unreadable bids do happen but not more often than people arranging bidding cards in unreadable ways.

Not sure what the 10 sec rule has to do with anything. We use the stop card the same way as they do in boxistan.

A previous poster said that the Stop card is not used, and that the next player is not entitled to any extra time.

The annoyance about written bidding is about trying to read at a distance and upside down, working out the order of the auction from things written in little boxes, the fear that people at other tables are cheating by leaving the auction exposed, and likely others I will not know about until I've tried it. There must be a reason written bidding has not caught on in any other parts of the world!

My experience with bidding boxes is different to yours. I never see bids arranged in a manner that is in any way unclear.

[WellSpyder]

Vampyr, people who have been over to play in the Gold Coast Congress say it is the best congress in the world bar none, so I wouldn't let a few uncertainties about how effective written bidding is put you off.

[gordontd]

 Vampyr, on 2017-December-06, 06:18, said:

The annoyance about written bidding is about trying to read at a distance and upside down, working out the order of the auction from things written in little boxes, the fear that people at other tables are cheating by leaving the auction exposed, and likely others I will not know about until I've tried it.

Funny that you seem to know about all these negative points before having tried it. Might it be that you will actually find advantages with experience?

[gordontd]

duplicate

[blackshoe]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-December-06, 06:17, said:

How about 1♦ - (2♦) - 2♥, where third hand has assumed 2♦ to be Michaels but it is actually being played as Top-Bottom?

Do you really expect the guy in first seat to know what his partner is assuming?

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2017-December-06, 06:18, said:

The annoyance about written bidding is about trying to read at a distance and upside down, working out the order of the auction from things written in little boxes, the fear that people at other tables are cheating by leaving the auction exposed, and likely others I will not know about until I've tried it. There must be a reason written bidding has not caught on in any other parts of the world!

I've not used written bidding, but I suspect your concern about reading upside down is not warranted.

I believe that most people can read upside down text, although obviously it's not as easy as rightside up. But here we're talking about a very limited vocabulary -- just 7 numbers and 6 letters, not whole words and sentences. I'll bet that after 1 or 2 sessions it becomes completely natural.

[barmar]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-December-06, 06:17, said:

How about 1♦ - (2♦) - 2♥, where third hand has assumed 2♦ to be Michaels but it is actually being played as Top-Bottom?

How is this specific to written bidding? We don't alert these bids in ACBL, either.

Last week in San Diego someone made a cue bid that was Top-and-Another. It correctly wasn't alerted, we didn't ask, and we didn't realize until dummy came down.

Personally I feel that Michaels is so common that any other agreement should be alertable, but that's not the ACBL regulation, and apparently not the ABF regulation, either. The issue is with the alert regulations, not the bidding method.

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2017-December-06, 10:20, said:

I've not used written bidding, but I suspect your concern about reading upside down is not warranted.

I believe that most people can read upside down text, although obviously it's not as easy as rightside up. But here we're talking about a very limited vocabulary -- just 7 numbers and 6 letters, not whole words and sentences. I'll bet that after 1 or 2 sessions it becomes completely natural.

Indeed. I find it easy to read the Bridgemate upside down when I turn it for the rest of the table to see.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2017-December-06, 10:25, said:

How is this specific to written bidding? We don't alert these bids in ACBL, either.

Last week in San Diego someone made a cue bid that was Top-and-Another. It correctly wasn't alerted, we didn't ask, and we didn't realize until dummy came down.

Personally I feel that Michaels is so common that any other agreement should be alertable, but that's not the ACBL regulation, and apparently not the ABF regulation, either. The issue is with the alert regulations, not the bidding method.

The principle that there should be at most one non-alertable meaning for a call is a good one. This philosophy prevails in the EBU, which is why our alert regulations are excellent, although some people pretend to be very proud that they can't remember them.

I guess in places like Australia you have to ask every time they eg double, but I guess it just becomes automatic.