[bambi1]

With online bridge , it is best if we follow the Duplicate Laws.

Law 40 - Partnership Understanding - states "a player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call)" without prior announcement, provided it is not based on partnership agreement.

Law 75 - "Special partnership agreements, must be fully and freely available to the opps.

In my opinion the opps should know exactly what your partner knows (or thinks he knows :-).

[bearmum]

Maaa, on Apr 9 2004, 11:25 AM, said:

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.

BIGGEST problem with that is SOME folks ( INCLUDING ME) have NO idea WHAT is or isn't alertable (or anouncable as in USA) in different countries ( EG ANYTHING over 3NT MUST NOT --- I repeat must NOT be alerted here in Australia even if it conveys a meaning other than might reasonably be inferred by the opps )

SO --I think-- at LEAST in 'online' bridge that to "SELF alert" a conventional bid AT WHATEVER level should be a good idea

(BTW my reg P and I self alert ANY bid -including pass double or redouble IF it conveys a SPECIFIC meaning to partner -- as we feel that opps have the ABSOLUTE right to know of them under the MORAL --even if not the absolute-- laws of the GREATEST card game ---- BRIDGE)

[bambi1]

Best policy, if you think it might need alerting than Alert !

In the tournaments I direct, I have the policy written in the Tournament Rules, I ask for ALL bids (with the exception of stayman, blackwood and neg X) to be alerted. Full explanation is required if asked. I think it has to be spelled out by the TD what is acceptable.

[Gerardo]

Please remember the different mechanics in place.
The "don't alert above 3NT" rule, intends to avoid to wake up partner, but here partner doesn't know you alerted, so that's NOT a problem.

[mink]

I have a specific question about alerts.

I know that many take their system less seriously when preempting in 3rd seat. Should this be alerted and explained, e.g. is it sufficient to explain just "multi" or should it read "5 cards or more in either major, weak"?

And what should a director do if just "multi" was explained and opps lost some imps because they trusted on multi has to be a six card suit?

Karl

[paulg]

mink, on Apr 12 2004, 07:41 PM, said:

I have a specific question about alerts.

I know that many take their system less seriously when preempting in 3rd seat. Should this be alerted and explained, e.g. is it sufficient to explain just "multi" or should it read "5 cards or more in either major, weak"?

And what should a director do if just "multi" was explained and opps lost some imps because they trusted on multi has to be a six card suit?

Karl

The English Bridge Union advises that convention names should not be used precisely because interpretations vary. However online bridge is a shorthand environment so we have to cope with such things.

In this case, if the pair have the agreement that the multi may only contain 5-card suits then this should be included in the explanation, e.g., "multi, may be 5+ major". If they don't have this agreement, then they should only alert after the first time that it occurs (because they now have an agreement).

For the director, if there is no agreement then no grounds for any change - if there is agreement then there is misinformation and there is potential for an adjustment in the event of damage.

Paul
A big fan of taking time to make full disclosure

[1eyedjack]

mink, on Apr 12 2004, 01:41 PM, said:

I have a specific question about alerts.

I know that many take their system less seriously when preempting in 3rd seat. Should this be alerted and explained, e.g. is it sufficient to explain just "multi" or should it read "5 cards or more in either major, weak"?

And what should a director do if just "multi" was explained and opps lost some imps because they trusted on multi has to be a six card suit?

Karl

Once again, if you use OKscript (or equivalent) it is no more of an effort to say "Multi" than it is to say "5 cards or more in either major, weak". Both would take a single mouseclick.

We really must encourage its use. At least the pursuit of active ethics would not be found wanting because of lack of keyboard skills.

[Rhutobello]

Quote

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.

Yep, there can be, BUT let me try to give my option of this.

First, with 2 partners that have worked together in a long time, know what is going on and the way it works today is fine.

But when you have pick up partners, or partner on no regular basis then the case is something else.
When you play brigde and give a call, you know what you will say with the bid. But the question is, do partner?
When we advocat self exp as a great advantage on Bridge play I dissagree. As long as only O are able to recive this information, you give away information that maybe (in lots of cases) partner don't have, and he/her is responding out from what he/her think the call is. That is the important information! That is the call he will give and act from, that's why we have a lot of missunderstanding.

I agree that partner that has no common agreement don't have to alert their bidding. But in many cases O ask me what my call are, and since I am a polite man I give them it freely But time and time agein P has belived it is something else, that's why I think it is wrong.

Some days ago I kib a "world class player" that always ask for exp world class players to attend.

He had no info in his profile over what he has as common bids.
Well he opend in 2 d, the calls goes all around with all particepating. At last his p put the contract in 5 D (he had best D)
The world class player then said he had played multi 2 d, with weak hearts,kicked P out and asked for redeal.

Is this the way we shall do it

Agein I advocat an option to let all 4 on the table to see all alerts and the expl. For us lowerplayer it will be a great help.....and maybe for som wc players too

Have a nice day
Edvin

[inquiry]

Rhutobello, on Apr 12 2004, 04:59 PM, said:

Some days ago I kib a "world class player" that always ask for exp world class players to attend.

He had no info in his profile over what he has as common bids.
Well he opend in 2 d, the calls goes all around with all particepating. At last his p put the contract in 5 D (he had best D)
The world class player then said he had played multi 2 d, with weak hearts,kicked P out and asked for redeal.

Please immediately report this behavior to a yellow. This is not acceptable action for any player, world class (yeah, right) or otherwise.

Ben