[paulg]

hotShot, on Jan 9 2007, 05:43 PM, said:

Asking about bids create UI, so you should avoid asking unnecessary questions.
Alert is a short form of: "Opps, please ask about this bid!", so if you ask about an alerted bid, no UI is generated.

If I were a natural 2♦ bidder, after this inquiry i would check whether the question was used to show a ♦ control or to ask for one. And if there is indication of this, i will ask the TD for a score correction, because of use of this UI.

I knew this thread would work out alright in the end. A post that can only generate sympathy for the job facing the Tournament Directors.

p

[fred]

brianshark, on Jan 9 2007, 04:24 PM, said:

*rant*

I don't think anyone playing either online or in person has ANY obligation to ask for the meanings of bids that should be alerted and aren't. Not only does it slow down the play waiting for a response (sometimes in vain) but it encourages the strategy of reluctant disclosure of methods, and not everyone has the patience, or cares enough, to wait to squeeze every piece of information out of them.

I think they are entitled to assume that the bid is natural. And if/when any damage is done, they are entitled to whatever compensation they get, and the no-alert culprits deserve any punishment they get, and then some.

*rant over*

I agree with this, but unfortunately I have had some bad experiences in which the TDs told me that the onus was on me to ask. I can recall 2 such experiences from relatively recent ACBL National Events where the TDs who were called to my table are widely considered among the best in the world.

In my opinion the onus should be on the opponents to know their system and to know when to alert. If they don't and if the other side is damaged then there should be a score adjustment.

I have to admit that there have been times (plenty of them in fact) that a combination of my hand, the auction, and my table presence have strongly suggested that the opponents did not know what they were doing. In such cases I generally ask some questions (as opposed to just assuming that the alert/lack of alert/convention card/explanation was accurate and later calling the TD if I turned out to be right and perceived damage as a result).

Not only does this approach feel like good sportsmanship to me, it is in the best interest of my score to behave this way (because otherwise a TD might rule "you should have known enough to ask").

As an extreme example of this I would not have much sympathy for a player who assumed 2D was natural in the auction in question if he held something like:

x
x
AKQJxxx
AKxx

However, I think it would be best if the rules were set up so that a TD's judgment never had to come into play in these kind of situations. The TD should not be placed in a position of deciding whether or not a player should start asking questions (instead of assuming that his opps know what they are doing).

But as far as I can tell the current thinking of ACBL TDs (even the best ones) is that the laws do indeed place them in this position.

I don't like this much, but as long as it is the case it is impossible to evaluate the quality of a ruling like this one without more information (the actual cards that everyone held for example).

To clarify something, I have no problem with Forums posts that discuss rulings from ACBL games as long as those posts are (sincerely) along the lines of "This was an interesting situation, what do you think?". The type of posts I would like to see stop are along the lines of "Look at how the idiot TD screwed me (again) on this board".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[bid_em_up]

fred, on Jan 9 2007, 12:11 PM, said:

To clarify something, I have no problem with Forums posts that discuss rulings from ACBL games as long as those posts are (sincerely) along the lines of "This was an interesting situation, what do you think?". The type of posts I would like to see stop are along the lines of "Look at how the idiot TD screwed me (again) on this board".

Fred,

I didnt mean to put words in your mouth, sorry. But unfortunately, since it is hard to distinguish the two types of posts sometimes, and you have, ummm, chewed at least two forum users out that I am aware of for a post of this nature (yes, I saw the last thread on this subject before it was pulled), I assumed that it was your position that you would prefer to have TD rulings appealed properly, as opposed to discussed on the forums. My mistake.

Since the poster stated "he didnt know if this was the appropriate forum for this question or not", I was trying to give them the alternative of "appealing the ruling" through the proper venue.

I also suspect that as the forums get advertised more and more (with the new release), we will see more new members and more posts of this nature. I think it might be best if you or the moderators could make it clear (somehow) that posts regarding ACBL TD's rulings need to be addressed to the proper channels.

A forum policy of sometimes its ok, and sometimes its not, will not work, imo. Who makes the decision? (Of course you or the mods do, but thats not what I mean.) Just because a user is frustrated with a decision and says "I got a stupid ruling", does that immediately mean the thread is not allowed? Even if they are correct in their assessment of the situation? Additionally, new posters will usually not know that it is/isnt allowed, and post accordingly. Do "we" (as a group) alienate them by coming down hard on them for unknowingly doing something that isnt acceptable?

Rather than allowing these types of questions deginerate into "well, you should have done this" or "your methods were bad" or "insert whatever else occurs", personally, I believe they should be halted immediately (or at least as soon as possible), and the original poster directed to send the complaint via the proper established methods.

As always.

jmoo.

[kenberg]

I plan to never, ever, direct. It must be easier to deal with Mideast problems. When 1D need not show any diamonds at all it is reasonable for a bid of 2D by the opponents to show diamonds. If 2D shows, instead, something else then it needs alerting. If this common sense answer requires hours of legal research to determine if it is in fact the ruling required by the laws there is something seriously wrong with the laws.

[ohioply]

I would assume that the 2♦ bidder here thought the bid was michaels. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but michaels isn't alertable online. I know in club it is not alertable.
I think that the bidder was not aware of whether or not it should be alerted. If he and his partner have no agreement for a defense against a strong 1♣ system, then he has not damaged you because his partner was also in the dark about whether his bid was natural or michaels.
I think this would be the ruling at my club.

[glen]

bid_em_up, on Jan 9 2007, 10:16 AM, said:

I think its fairly clear that some damage was incurred (or at least the poster feels that there was), or we wouldnt be seeing this post here.

I disagree with the assumption that the starting post implies that "some damage was incurred (or at least the poster feels that there was)". Why couldn't the poster just be asking the question to sort out the rules and regulations, for future play? Personally I've started multiple threads dealing with policies and rules (to the endless joy of Fred) where the policy applied or ruling given did not actually damage me at that time - however the policy or rule might have damaged me and/or others in the future, so one brings it up for hopefully calm discussion (though overreaction followed by overreaction can be fun until a thread is deleted). The starting poster has not stated they were damaged (actually states "we did get a decent score, fwiw"), so let's not assume so until further details are provided, if they are. The question was whether 2♦ should have been alerted and this has now been established that it should have - though see posting just above for a ruling that might be given in a f2f club game where ACBL rules are not clearly understood, and just below for the unwritten ACBL rules.

[awm]

Yes, 2♦ should have been alerted.

However, ACBL directors have ruled fairly consistently that certain calls are very frequently alertable and that when such a call occurs it is the responsibility of the non-offending side to look at the opponents' convention card and/or ask questions, and that no adjustment will be made for a failure to alert in these instances. To give an example of this, at a regional my partner opened 1NT (15-17) and my RHO bid 2♦. Their convention card indicated that this showed diamonds and a major (DONT) which is alertable. The 2♦ call was not alerted. I jumped to 4♥ (transfer to ♠) and my partner was declarer in 4♠. After pulling trumps (spades were 2-2), partner had to decide how to play the heart suit. He played for a 3-3 break instead of for 4-2 (four on his left). This is a reasonable play in a vacuum but a terrible play if he knows that his LHO has shown "diamonds and a major." At the end of the hand I called the director to indicate there was a failure to alert (opponents didn't say anything after the hand, although they're supposed to). The director ruled that "overcalls of an opening 1NT are frequently artificial, and therefore partner should've known to ask and/or look at their card, thus no adjustment." This was the ruling despite the fact that partner was playing in his first regional open event and had very few acbl points (and no international experience).

Personally I'm troubled by this, feeling that at the very least a split score is in order, as the opponents should not effectively gain from their failure to alert, even if the director feels that our side "really should've asked." This sort of ruling encourages the (supposedly unethical) practice of pros who ask about opponents bids just to make sure partner knows what their calls mean (since inexperienced partner may not know to ask) as well as encouraging a lack of disclosure. But just like Fred, I've seen this kind of ruling from many ACBL directors. The 2♦ bid in question over 1♣!-P-1♦! may come under that category.

[fred]

bid_em_up, on Jan 9 2007, 05:48 PM, said:

fred, on Jan 9 2007, 12:11 PM, said:

To clarify something, I have no problem with Forums posts that discuss rulings from ACBL games as long as those posts are (sincerely) along the lines of "This was an interesting situation, what do you think?". The type of posts I would like to see stop are along the lines of "Look at how the idiot TD screwed me (again) on this board".

Fred,

I didnt mean to put words in your mouth, sorry. But unfortunately, since it is hard to distinguish the two types of posts sometimes,

It's not hard for the original poster to make this distinction.

I did not think you were trying to put words in my mouth. In fact, I appreciated you mentioning this in your post.

But I did not want SteelWheel to think he had done anything inappropriate since his post that started this thread was clearly in the "this was an interesting situation, what do you think?" category.

So I thought I should clarify.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[SteelWheel]

Quote

In the auction you come up with your partner shows ♦ so I wonder why you pass out opps.' 2♥. Again nobody but yourself to blame.

ok, I can't take this anymore. Claus, please do us all a favor and learn how to read, before offering more of your ridiculous opinions:

Quote

Not bothering to post rest of auction, or final result, since it's not relevant (we did get a decent score, fwiw).

If you had bothered to READ the original post, you would have seen that this was not asking for "lessons" about whom to "blame" as I consider myself quite capable of handling myself as a bridge player, thank you. I was merely trying to determine where the TD might have gone wrong in adjudication. It would seem that the general sense of the posters here is in agreement with my position.

[kenberg]

Awm's story concerns me greatly. An opening bid of 2D is frequently alertable. If there is no alert and I don't ask, I may have no redress if it turns out to be artificial?

Let me give two incidents:

1. A while back lho opened 2D, no alert, and my partner asked for an explanation. This upset me. Is partner trying to tell me he has a diamond stack? He should know better, or so I thought, than to ask for an explanation of a probably natural call that had not been alerted. It turned out he had no special holding (he's an ethical guy) and I have no idea why he asked. Maybe he heard of this policy.

2. In a recent competitive auction, over my suit bid, lho bid 2NT, partner passed, rho bid, my turn. The 2NT seemed unlikely so I asked rho: "I am unfamiliar with various good/bad meanings of 2NT, is this one of them?". Rho was indignant and told me icily that if it had been, then it would have been alerted. OK, I should have just said "please explain" but I just wanted to check that it was natural before proceeding.

The idea that players should take responsibility for knowing that maybe a bid should have been alerted but wasn't seems to me very bad. If this is actually acbl policy instead of some individual director's whim, I think the policy needs rethinking.

Bridge is supposed to be a complex game, but the alerting rules are not supposed to be the hard part.

[csdenmark]

Steelwheel I assume I have no problems to read your intensions for this post. I have stated you were right claiming an alert was needed and it was harmful to you it was missing and you would be right claiming score correction.

What I also said, some others agreed to my position, you ought at least to have the knowledge to be suspicious of the meaning and therefore you are to be blamed for ignoring or lack of knowledge.

I have advocated you waste your bids for nothing - for that you don't need to listen but I think you will privately.

[csdenmark]

kenberg, on Jan 9 2007, 11:42 PM, said:

OK, I should have just said "please explain" but I just wanted to check that it was natural before proceeding.

Click alert button - no words needed. Thats the simple way speeding up the game avoiding problems.

[the hog]

I can't comment on ACBL rulings, but I can make a comment on the term "self alerting". We have this concept in Oz as well, and certain callas are deemed to be self alerting. One of those is the cue bid, which even takes the following form (1C) 16+ 2C. 2C is deemed here to be self alerting and thus requires no showing of the alert card.

Yes, I agree that this is not a good policy as frequently this bid has some sort of conventional meaning which the opposition are entitled to know.

[barmar]

I also find awm's story about the unalerted DONT bid disturbing. ACBL's regulation about protecting yourself by asking about calls that are likely to be conventional is:
[blockquote]Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.[/blockquote]

Notice that this makes explicit mention of the experience level of the non-offending player. A novice playing in his first regional tournament should NOT be expected to realize that many NT overcalls are conventional.

Conversely, I suspect the experience of most big club players is that when the opponents overcall in the suits they bid artificially, it's usually natural. Thus, their experience and expertise would not suggest to them that the opponents failed to alert in the auction that started this thread.

And to whoever posted that players should protect themselves after an opening 2♦ bid, I respectfully disagree, at least with respect to ACBL territory. While there certainly are many players who play Flannery or Mexican (Multi and Wilkosz are not allowed in GCC events), the vast majority of American players play it as a weak 2. Unless you're looking at 6+♦ in your hand, you'd have little reason to expect otherwise. But if you only ask in those cases where your holding makes you suspicious, you have UI problems. So you have to be consistent in whether you ask, and since this is not a bid that's likely to be artificial, I don't think anyone is expected to ask every time it's not alerted.

[helene_t]

fred, on Jan 9 2007, 07:11 PM, said:

I have to admit that there have been times (plenty of them in fact) that a combination of my hand, the auction, and my table presence have strongly suggested that the opponents did not know what they were doing. In such cases I generally ask some questions (as opposed to just assuming that the alert/lack of alert/convention card/explanation was accurate and later calling the TD if I turned out to be right and perceived damage as a result).

Not only does this approach feel like good sportsmanship to me, it is in the best interest of my score to behave this way (because otherwise a TD might rule "you should have known enough to ask").

This creates a lot of problems. First, opps who play some convention which they can't remember themselves get reminded of their agreement when you ask them. Second, your partner receives UI from you through your (failure to) asking about the meaning of a non-alerted call. Third, it could become a slippery slope: one may wonder if one can ever trust opps to alert alertable calls.

It appears to me that you do the right thing given the circumstances, but imho the laws should protect you against having to cause UI.

[the hog]

One point that hasn't, (I don't think), been mentioned yet is the UI that can result from asking about a specific bid.
Eg Xs come under the ambit of self alerting bids in Oz as well. Take the following situation.

1S (2H) 2S (X)
If opener is required to ask about the nature of this and then makes say a 3S bid, UI has been passed.

Back to the OZ situation, many players actually alert these self alerting bids to try and be helpful, especially if playing an inexperienced pair, and that then causes further complications if the RD happens to be called. Self alerting is NOT a good rule.

[kenberg]

I don't want to beat too many horses to death so I'll stop after this one but:

1. Yes, UI is definitely a problem if you ask about a non-alerted call. Even if everything is on the up and up it gives the appearance of impropriety.

2. About this idea that folks playing in a regional should know that 2D might be conventional (DONT or whatever). How about saying that folks playing in a regional event should know their basic defenses over strong club openings, at least enough to know whether 2D was natural or Michaels or whatever, and should know that if artificial then it is (as most agree that it is) alertable.

3. As to assessing whether the player is experienced enough to know that maybe it's artificial: I am not an expert. I am not a beginner. I think I would rather be ruled against than to have someone say that they are ruling in my favor because they think I am too stupid to understand what was going on. I have no problem with rulings in 0-300 games that allow for inexperience. That's the point of a 0-300 game. But if a guy shows up in an unlimited regional event then he should be treated like everyone else in that event. Sympathetically, sure, if he didn't understand. But it shouldn't change the ruling.

Anyway, I am exhausted of opinions on this.

[blackshoe]

When a venue (club, bbo, whatever) publishes regulations, it seems to me incumbent on players to be aware what those regulations are. That said, I recognize that most players don't say to the themselves "I should look at the alert regulations" and then go do so. Aside from that, the regs are in some ways hard to understand. I wouldn't penalize a player for not knowing a particular bid is alertable, for a first offense. I would explain to him the rule and expect him to follow it in future. If he doesn't, that's time enough to start penalizing.

The ACBL alert regulation's definition of "cuebid" is "A bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally or in which he has shown four or more cards." A Precision 1 ♦ response to 1 ♣ is not natural, and does not show four or more cards in any suit. Therefore, next bidder's 2 ♦ is not a cuebid within the meaning of the alert regulation. This conflicts with what "everybody knows", of course, since "everybody knows" that a cuebid is a bid of a suit an opponent has bid. I can only commend "everybody" to something Robert Heinlein said: "If 'everybody knows' such and such, then it ain't so."

Given that 2♦ here is not a cuebid, the general rule "cuebids are not alertable" does not apply. However, 2♦, if it shows both majors, is conventional, and "most conventions are alertable". This one isn't in the short list of those that aren't. Ergo, this 2 ♦ bid is alertable.

BTW, it is not Michaels. First, the full name of the convention is 'Michaels cuebid", and as I've just demonstrated, this bid is not a cuebid. Second, Michaels, as originally defined, at least, applies to a cuebid of a natural bid, which 1 ♦ here is not. So while a Michaels cuebid may not be alertable (it isn't under ACBL regulations) that too is irrelevant in this case.

I agree, in principle at least, with Fred that a player should not, in effect, lose his right to redress because he failed to ask about an unalerted bid. However, the ACBL General Conditions of Contest say this:

Quote

4. Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves. ...
6. Adjustments for violations are not automatic. There must have been damage, and an adjustment will be made only when the Alert violation was a direct cause of the damage. Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation.

It seems that a semi-automatic "you should have known" is not what the regs require, so even if this is generally what ACBL TDs do, it seems not in accord with the rules. Peerhaps we need a test case appealed to the National Authority.

I would not make assumptions about what the 2♦ bidder thought - I would ask him. At least, I would if I was making the ruling at the table.

It is true that no alert is required if the pair have no agreement - and that usually the TD would rule no damage - but that's not what we're discussing here.

Speaking of discussing rulings in forums like this - it's a fine way to vent, and players may be mollified by the idea that others agree they got a bad ruling, but it will not fix the problem of TDs giving incorrect rulings. The way to do that is by the established appeal or reporting procedure.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Jan 9 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

It appears to me that you do the right thing given the circumstances, but imho the laws should protect you against having to cause UI.

There's a small problem with that. Provision of UI is not, in itself, an infraction of law. Players have a right to ask questions for a reason: they are entitled to know the full extent of any partnership agreements or understandings their opponents may have. There is no way, at least in current law, to protect a player from the fact that asking questions may generate UI. If the law said, for example, that asking questions cannot generate UI, then a dishonest player in receipt of UI can use it with impunity. And if an honest player accidently used UI, his opponents would be denied redress. We don't want that either.

My take on how to minimize UI from asking questions: follow, wherever possible, the procedure in Law 20F. In brief, ask for a full explanation of the entire auction, not pinpointing any particular bid unless you need more information after the full explanation. In the case of alerts, always ask. I don't like the second one much, but I can't see another way to minimize UI. When asking about alerts, use the neutral "Please explain" specified in the alert regulation. Do not ask leading questions, such as "is that weak?" "Michaels?" or the like. Lastly, remember that while you can minimize UI, you can't eliminate it. Not without putting each of the four players in an isolation booth, restrict communication between players of opposite sides so that only one player of each side is privy to the communication, and restrict communication between players of the same side so that they only have access to partner's calls and plays. I suppose bridge at world championship level may come to that some day, but at the level of everyday bridge, I hope not - it would kill the game.

[Codo]

blackshoe, on Jan 10 2007, 10:42 AM, said:

helene_t, on Jan 9 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

It appears to me that you do the right thing given the circumstances, but imho the laws should protect you against having to cause UI.

There's a small problem with that. Provision of UI is not, in itself, an infraction of law. Players have a right to ask questions for a reason: they are entitled to know the full extent of any partnership agreements or understandings their opponents may have. There is no way, at least in current law, to protect a player from the fact that asking questions may generate UI.

So, why don´t you use your power and change the laws?

I know, that you cannot descirbe the alert rules in one sentence, but wouldn´t it be a good rule, if any bid that transports "secret" informations, which my pd will understand, but my opponents won´t, is alertable?
In this case you do not need to aks after a not alerted 2 ♦ opening in the US. It is a weak two in diamond. You don´t need to ask about the NT bid in a competetive auction, because it is natural. And you don´t need to aks about the 2 Diamond bids after 1 Club pass 1 Diamond or after 1 NT because they are natural.
If these bids had not been natural, the TD will take away any damage which came from the failure to alert.

With the laws the way you have them, one problem is:
North: 2♦ East: Having 6 Diamonds: "Explain please" and passes after the explanation, because they play negative double, South passes and West looks at f.e. Qxxx,Kxxx,x,Kxxx.
To double is surely more actractive now, because he now "knows", that East has the penalty double. So what shall he do? X and explain later, that he allways double with this shape (maybe he does, but who sets the frontier)? Who can check this? The TD has to belive him or not. Or give West QJTxx,KQxx,x, AKx. Without an information, he has to choose between 2 Spade and X. With the UI he maybe has to explain the TD why he did not bid his suit but doubled first.

I agree, that any player must protect himself. But the responsibility for the pair which failed to alert must be much higher then for the non offending side.