[Flame]

Do i have to give alrerts only for agremnts (like in offline bridge)
or also for something i bid and hope p will understand.
ex. i played today, i cue bid 2c on my RHO 1c.
we didnt agree on anything, but i hoped he will take it as micheals.

[Free]

Michaels would be pretty obvious when you didn't agree, so I think you should alert...

[inquiry]

Each tournment director can establish their own rules for alerts. But if you would go to the "explore bridge" area, pick bridge library, and then pick the artilce entitled rules of this site, you can read what the BBO management has to say about alerting. Among the quotes there are these...

"It is up to our members to try to do their best to try to provide their opponenets with information that may be helpful to them. Remember that is is against the laws and spirit of the game of bridge to conceal information about your partnership agreements from your opponents."

and

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

Ben

[Flame]

inquiry, on Apr 6 2004, 09:57 AM, said:

Each tournment director can establish their own rules for alerts. But if you would go to the "explore bridge" area, pick bridge library, and then pick the artilce entitled rules of this site, you can read what the BBO management has to say about alerting. Among the quotes there are these...

"It is up to our members to try to do their best to try to provide their opponenets with information that may be helpful to them. Remember that is is against the laws and spirit of the game of bridge to conceal information about your partnership agreements from your opponents."

and

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

Ben

I think the key word their is parnership, im talking when there is no partenership agrement.
And about what free said if its clear then its clear to both p and opps and if not then to non of them.
Not taking stand on this, i gave the info, but i am not sure that this is right.

[inquiry]

Flame, on Apr 6 2004, 10:03 AM, said:

I think the key word their is parnership, im talking when there is no partenership agrement.
And about what free said if its clear then its clear to both p and opps and if not then to non of them.
Not taking stand on this, i gave the info, but i am not sure that this is right.

Then we are back to a question for which there is no consensus amoung regular posters here in this forum. Rather than rehash the arguements here, let me point you to the next youngest version of this recurring question in the forum...

Small ethical question, obligation on disclosure

With in that thread, you will find I posted links to other threads with similar version of the same issue. Suffice it to say that reasonable people can disagree about rather or not if you make a conventional bid and hope your partner will work it out, if you should alert it or not.

Ben

[spwdo]

hi

i can only talk for myself in this case but if i see someone explaing as "michaels""i hope my partner gets it" then i private his partner that, i think its only fair, the rules states that u need to provide opps of your agreements , in this case u doughbt that so i woud give that info to your partner, i find no pleasure in getting a good score due to an misundertsanding of opps bidding, however it is diffrent when i dont see the initional bid alerted and explained then i take the whatever the scorebaord will bring me



marc

[Flame]

Thanks Ben and evenryone else.
I conclude reading everything that there isnt an obligation to give alert (and i think its right because there is no good resson to make online bridge different then offline for this matter) but i will probebly give alerts most time.

[easy]

Bridge is a game where there are no secrets from the opponents re: the bidding and partnership agreements.

I have a very simple policy. I self alert everything that could have a dual meaning. I found when playing in italy that what i think is normal may not be so for someone from another country/region. It costs me nothing to explain to the opponents what my bids mean and since pard can't "hear" my explanation i feel very comfortable explaining my own bids. Perhaps some may thinkthis might be excessive but i prefer to win based on the merits of my "good" play and bidding as opposed to my opponents ignorance.

[Flame]

easy, on Apr 7 2004, 05:36 PM, said:

Bridge is a game where there are no secrets from the opponents re: the bidding and partnership agreements.

I have a very simple policy. I self alert everything that could have a dual meaning. I found when playing in italy that what i think is normal may not be so for someone from another country/region. It costs me nothing to explain to the opponents what my bids mean and since pard can't "hear" my explanation i feel very comfortable explaining my own bids. Perhaps some may thinkthis might be excessive but i prefer to win based on the merits of my "good" play and bidding as opposed to my opponents ignorance.

Do you give them your exact hand ?
For example when you open 1nt with 17 hcp, do you say its 17 hcp and give the exact distribution ? or do you say 15-17 balanced ?

[inquiry]

Flame, on Apr 7 2004, 05:51 PM, said:

Do you give them your exact hand ?
For example when you open 1nt with 17 hcp, do you say its 17 hcp and give the exact distribution ? or do you say 15-17 balanced ?

No you do not tell them EXACTLY what you have, after all, you don't tell your partner EXACTLY what you have.

If your 1NT range is 15-17, you tell them 15-17, EVEN IF YOU HAPPEN to have 14 or 18 on the actual hand. It is your job to alert you agreement, not what you actually hold.

Ben

[Rain]

I find it hard to alert agreements when I make a wrong bid, either deliberately or by accident. Smacks of cheating....

Why can't we have partner alerting, like usual, instead of self alerting?


Rain

[mink]

Quote

Why can't we have partner alerting, like usual, instead of self alerting?

Hi Rain,

in face to face bridge there are a lot of difficult director calls because opps are misleaded by a wrong explaination your partner gives. It is a great advantage of online Bridge that you explain your bids yourself, which means that the explaination nearly never misleads the opps. Even if you accidently deviate from your system, you still tell them what you think in this moment your system is. So cases were opps are mislead by an explaination are very rare.

There have been bidding sequences by opps where I felt that they had different oppinions about what they had agreed upon. In such cases I ask both opps by private chat, and normally get 2 explainations. So even if one of them has indeed forgotten the system, I am still well informed. I consider this a great improvement as compared to face to face bridge.

On the other hand, the very rare cases where I deliberately deviate from my system, either slightly or by psychic call, I am self confident enough to explain what the system is. I opps think this is cheating, they are free to avoid me in future and report to abuse.

Karl

[ehhh]

A cue bid, in general, isn't alertable.
They are if they convey a "highly unusual or unexpected meaning".
This is to my knowledge the current ACBL policy re: cue bidding.
Better players will protect themselves and ask if it is relevant.

[1eyedjack]

Flame, on Apr 6 2004, 09:39 AM, said:

Do i have to give alrerts only for agremnts (like in offline bridge)
or also for something i bid and hope p will understand.
ex. i played today, i cue bid 2c on my RHO 1c.
we didnt agree on anything, but i hoped he will take it as micheals.

Flame, you may wish to review some similar threads:

http://forums.bridge...p?showtopic=453
http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...?showtopic=2601

Bottom line appears to be:
If you definitely have no agreement, and among the possible meanings is one or more alertable meaning, it cannot hurt to alert, even if upon enquiry you explain "no agreement". Opponents are entitled to know your agreements, AND LACK of them.

Having said that, some normal players do not appreciate this and think you are playing the fool. With a pickup partner recently I self-alerted a 2D response to my partner's 2C opener - totally undiscussed. Opps asked for an explanation. I entered "no agreement" and was booted from the table by the host.

[bearmum]

easy, on Apr 8 2004, 11:36 AM, said:

Bridge is a game where there are no secrets from the opponents re: the bidding and partnership agreements.

I have a very simple policy. I self alert everything that could have a dual meaning. I found when playing in italy that what i think is normal may not be so for someone from another country/region. It costs me nothing to explain to the opponents what my bids mean and since pard can't "hear" my explanation i feel very comfortable explaining my own bids. Perhaps some may thinkthis might be excessive but i prefer to win based on the merits of my "good" play and bidding as opposed to my opponents ignorance.

I totally agree ------ and when playing Precision with my reg f2f partner we self alert ANY bid which conveys information to one another ( even PASS and DOUBLE) for exactly the same reason ( I must say that some of our "normal" looking bids convey a NOT "normal" meaning so we feel obliged to alert and explain them )

[paulg]

ehhh, on Apr 8 2004, 01:19 AM, said:

A cue bid, in general, isn't alertable.
They are if they convey a "highly unusual or unexpected meaning".
This is to my knowledge the current ACBL policy re: cue bidding.
Better players will protect themselves and ask if it is relevant.

This is indeed the ACBL rule, but many of us play under different rules. For example, in the UK a cue bid is always alertable. The WBF rules are that everything is alertable, including Stayman!

Some bridge sites have established the rule that SAYC is the alerting standard, but BBO has not so I feel that cue bids should be alerted.

Cheers

Paul

[joker_gib]

One simple sentence can summarize this topic :

Should you have any doubt, pls alert !!!

[Flame]

joker_gib, on Apr 8 2004, 09:35 AM, said:

One simple sentence can summarize this topic :

Should you have any doubt, pls alert !!!

If you have doubt about a PARTNERSHIP AGREMENT.

[spwdo]

!S!H only english is allowed during play and bidding, we remain silent as dummy, when a query is made, we explain in english, remember: when u wonder a bid is to be alerted or not, alert and explain in english (all convention bids are alertable, gl and enjoy) !H!S

[Maaa]

As for today tournamentrules are made by host!
Of course hosts try to follow some - prespecified rules, but when a tourney is clearly decleared as a lets say "polish" tournament - the polish bridge law appears not acbl or whatever. In some countries michaels is alertable in other not... However - I think Tournament Host should clearly announce BEFORE tournament under which laws s/he wishes to run the tournament in question.