[MiltWork]

After seeing some guidance on cheating and self-ratings ("what is an expert") in the "News" feature, I was pleased to see an explanation of Full Disclosure.

However I would have preferred the title "Alerts" instead of nosy opponents and an explanation of what the alert procedure is for.

My observation is the general BBO community outside of players with previous tournament experience still misunderstand "Alerts".

Associating the alert procedure with partnership understandings is neither supported well by the software nor well known by TD's.

I would venture the majority of the bridge population feels that an opponent must be alerted by a bidder when the bidder is deviating from any normal course of action known by the opponent.

I could give numerous examples since it is such a frequent occurance.

This is a recent one from an individual (I am sitting S):

W 1NT
N 2D
E X (after 1 minute wait)

The reason for the wait was both opponents were going back and forth with my partner, getting an explanation of the 2D bid. After the dialog, they both knew that my pards meant 2D to mean the majors. I had never played with this partner and of course had no special understanding of what 2d means. But now the opponents did and had unfair advantage.

The software makes it convenient to continue hitting the alert feature until an opponent explains his/her cards. Many times if an explanation of "We have no partnership understanding" is given, the TD is summoned and the bidder is forced to disclose his/her hand or leave the tournament.

If the software was enhanced so when the alert feature was pressed to include a script saying "Partnership Understandings must be explained clearly" with a checkbox for "no partnership understanding", the alert issue would cease.

Does anyone feel the same or perhaps have a different opinion?

[helene_t]

When I direct indys, I say in tourney chat that since this is an indy and you are only supposed to disclose partnership agreements, you should not alert anything, and the propper answer to any questions from opps is "no agreement". It seems to work. People understand it.

[brianshark]

I also didn't like the way he suggested "11-15, Majors" instead of "flannery" because it in itself is not sufficient information.

Also, I noted how he said that there wasn't a lot of space to put in your description but do the best you can. Why not just put more space in the alert box. It's such an annoying restriction that causes abbreviated and often confusing explanations. And I find it weird to encourage full disclosure and then have feature which restricts full disclosure.

The only counter-argument I can think of is that people might start writing essays and there could be too much information on the screen. I personally have no problem with that whatsoever. Perhaps there is a technical reason though (too much memory required?)

[jillybean]

Hi Chris,
I agree and I dont know why people want to change the game but they do, we are not playing bridge here. I disagree that adding a script to the alert function is the answer - the rules of the game should be promoted. Until people learn the rules there will always be problems and silly TD decisions. The latest I heard today was 'alert your unusual bids or I will come to the table and tell the opps your hand'

Play with friends or in known TD's tournaments, and as Ive been told many times - people dont care, 'get over it'

[barmar]

Making the alert box bigger won't help. It's inconvenient and time consuming to type a long explanation, so players are usually going to give a terse explanation, using convention names and frequently abbreviations (e.g. FSF, NMF). If an opponent needs more details, they should ask, and the chat area can be used for this response more easily (he should use the "To opponents" option so his partner doesn't see it). ACBL's rule that simply giving a convention name in an explanation is insufficient is simply not going to fly in this environment (and most players tend to ignore it in f2f play as well, for the well known conventions like Flannery).

[mycroft]

Oh, good, so next time I play in the ACBL tourneys, I can speed up time by alerting 1D "Prec.", and 2D "Prec. could be 34 or 43 in M"? Oh, are those not the "well known" conventions like Flannery (Oh, by the way, what's Flannery?)

The reason convention names aren't sufficient in ACBL tournaments (even though everyone does it) is that while there are obnoxious people like me who will ask if they don't know, and even sometimes ask if they do know, just to be sure (if you play O/E against me, be prepared to explain it - I'm never 100% sure I remember it properly), there are a lot of people who are cowed by stuff they don't get. Yeah, they shouldn't be, and we tell them not to be, but the feeling of "if you don't know, it's your problem" still persists (and FtF, at least, is still actively encouraged by some players). Oh, and there's the fact that some people allow Flannery with 4=6, some do it with 17, ...

Having said that, there is a problem, especially if you don't have canned scripts to cut-and-paste or alias, and if you don't type 50+wpm; but if they don't understand your agreement, it's your problem.

The OP, however, has a point, and the response is "I just sat down to play with him. You heard our system discussions. Your guess is as good as his." Of course, in that case I wouldn't be playing Cappelletti, unless it's in both players' list of stuff-they-play (in which case, of course, you announce "majors", and assume partner is going to get it from the same source you did).

[barmar]

If you play a system with frequent alerts, you definitely should use canned scripts to address this problem. But if you're playing in a speedball and don't have scripts, keep the initial explanations brief, as every second counts.

[Cascade]

I completely disagree with the presumption that if the opponents need more information then they should ask.

The aim should be to make your explanations clear so that the opponents do not need to ask for further clarification.

Adding a checkbox for "No Agreement" would also be bad in my opinion as it would encourage that answer when a different answer would be more accurate. It is already difficult enough to get information out of players online. I would guess that online the most common (if not nearly so) bridge ruling problem for a director online is misinformation or failure or refusal to answer simple questions about system. If there is a convenient way to say "No Agreement" I think it is likely that we would make the problem worse.

While "No Agreement" is a possible answer to a question it is relatively infrequently the best answer. One has an obligation to explain their explicit as well as their implicit agreements. The fact that you are using some fancy convention suggests to me that you have some expectation of partner understanding the convention which in turn suggests that there is an agreement of some sort.

[peachy]

Cascade, on Mar 30 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

I completely disagree with the presumption that if the opponents need more information then they should ask.

The aim should be to make your explanations clear so that the opponents do not need to ask for further clarification.

Adding a checkbox for "No Agreement" would also be bad in my opinion as it would encourage that answer when a different answer would be more accurate. It is already difficult enough to get information out of players online. I would guess that online the most common (if not nearly so) bridge ruling problem for a director online is misinformation or failure or refusal to answer simple questions about system. If there is a convenient way to say "No Agreement" I think it is likely that we would make the problem worse.

While "No Agreement" is a possible answer to a question it is relatively infrequently the best answer. One has an obligation to explain their explicit as well as their implicit agreements. The fact that you are using some fancy convention suggests to me that you have some expectation of partner understanding the convention which in turn suggests that there is an agreement of some sort.

Well said.

If you venture to use, say, Capp, you use it because both you and your indy stranger have it on your profiles and you assume that your partner will understand it. It would be risky to spring a convention on a stranger unless you have reason to believe this stranger plays it and the stranger has reason to believe you play it.

Lets say both you and partner have CAPP in your profile. It would IMO be completely proper to say "we both have Capp on our profiles so I assume we play Capp" and then explain the bid. Technically, "No Agreement" could be correct but being truthful about the quality and firmness about your agreement does not hurt!!! If nothing shows on either profile and nothing was discussed with this stranger, then "No Agreement" is proper. But then you would not have used Capp in the first place...because you had no sort of agreement, even implicit, to use it...

[Old York]

MiltWork, on Mar 26 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

I could give numerous examples since it is such a frequent occurance.
This is a recent one from an individual (I am sitting S):
W 1NT
N  2D
E  X (after 1 minute wait)

Perhaps this is a bad example. It is widely assumed that the alerting procedure in Pairs is different to Indies, but the rules of the site remain the same:

"Guidelines for Alerts:

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

You do not have to tell your opponents how you intend your bid - only what you have agreed with your partner."

Remember that this "agreement" is either direct or implied by your system and profile. In ACBL Indies, you can still be penalized for breaches in alert procedure.

Your partner seems to have had reason to believe that you played capelletti and made the 2♦ bid in the full expectation that you would understand, perhaps he was foolish to make this bid in an indy if you do not display "Cap" on your profile, or maybe he had "Cap" on his profile

I would have clicked on RHO's double for an explanation of this bid, that might have clarified the situation for you (also - the cards in your own hand might shed light on the situation). if you were damaged by RHO's failure to alert his double, then maybe you could ask TD for adjustment?

Tony

p.s. If you cancel an oppo's query, then "No Information Available" is displayed... maybe this should be changed to "No Partnership Agreement"

[BillHiggin]

Old York, on Apr 5 2009, 09:21 AM, said:

p.s. If you cancel an oppo's query, then "No Information Available" is displayed... maybe this should be changed to "No Partnership Agreement"

If the displayed message needs to be changed, something like "request canceled or denied" or similar would be more appropriate. The software should definitely not try to read the mind of the users (or appear to be doing so).

[jillybean]

Old York, on Apr 5 2009, 07:21 AM, said:

Remember that this "agreement" is either direct or implied by your system and profile. In ACBL Indies, you can still be penalized for breaches in alert procedure.

Unless you have discussed a sequence beforehand how would you be penalized for a failure to alert in an indy?

If you sit down opposite a pickup with SAYC on their profile you can be reasonably confident 1nt:2♣ will be stayman and 1nt:2♦ will be transfer. The opps aren’t likely to query these sequences but if they do it would be fair to say ‘I hope its stayman’. The opps can read your profiles too.

OTOH if you both have ‘leb’ on your profile and the auction goes 1nt (2x) 3nt and your 3nt bid is queried, what are you going to say? You play 3nt denies a stop but by looking at your hand you are confident partner must have their suit stopped.

In my opinion, the bids that cause the most problems are the ‘general forcing’ type bids that are made with no agreement but in the hope that you can convince your partner to explore slam. Unfortunately, the suit bid is often your opps strength, deflects a lead and secures the contract. Thus the TD call after the opps see you made your 'no agreement' 3♠ bid with 2♠’s.

It would be a good idea to post some hands where there has been an alleged failure to alert so we can discuss actual cases.

[brianshark]

I'm sorry but something appearing on your or your pard's profile does not, in itself, constitute an agreement implicit or otherwise, is not alertable, and certainly not in an individual.

If you agreed it before the game, then that's a completely different story.

[Old York]

brianshark, on Apr 6 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

something appearing on your or your pard's profile does not constitute an agreement

If I have "Landy" on my profile and partner has "Capp" on his, then there is no agreement
If we both have "Capp" on our profiles, then there is an agreement
If only one player has "Capp" on his profile and partner has nothing on his, then it should be implied that the partnership are playing Cappelletti. to assume otherwise is illogical and against the spirit of online play

This posting was not meant to refer exclusively to Indies... only the (incomplete) example given mentioned Indies, and thus muddied the water imho

Tony

[brianshark]

Old York, on Apr 6 2009, 02:45 PM, said:

brianshark, on Apr 6 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

something appearing on your or your pard's profile does not constitute an agreement

If I have "Landy" on my profile and partner has "Capp" on his, then there is no agreement
If we both have "Capp" on our profiles, then there is an agreement
If only one player has "Capp" on his profile and partner has nothing on his, then it should be implied that the partnership are playing Cappelletti. to assume otherwise is illogical and against the spirit of online play

I understand your point. I was always under the assumption that no matter what our profiles say, even if one or both of us have capp on our profiles, that we aren't playing cappaletti unless we have agreed to play it in chat. Perhaps I am out of touch with the latest pick-up etiquette regarding what is agreed and what isn't in the main bridge club.

[Gerardo]

I for one refuse to play Capp against strong NT, whatever partner's profile says about it. Disagree there is an implicit agreement unless both profiles show the same thing.

[MiltWork]

what is very typical and I would venture generally accepted on BBO is for opponents to hound your p for information that you do not have. On average I see this at least 10% of the boards. It also slows down the game.

Here's a recent example(s) from an indi, you are sitting S:

W: 1H
N: 2NT
E: X (after long wait)

The wait was because opponents have interrogated p to clarify what 2NT means.
Now as S, you are at a big disadvantage because the opponents know the nature of your p's hand, but you are still guessing.

Do you want to know what 2NT really was?

1st time is was the minors
2nd time it was a balanced 18

both times you are SOL because you are the sole player guessing.

Now what gets really thorny is when you make a creative bid:

W: 1H
N: P
E: P
S: 3NT

After your (S's) 3NT, the opponents usually vehemently want to know what it means. What can you say? If you say "I want to play 3NT", the button pushing continues until you clarify the hand. A typical question is "do you have a solid minor"...what can you say? Its a real mess. The interrogation will continue until blood is spilled by being called a cheater or having the TD summoned. Most of the time, the TD makes you tell your opponents what is in your hand. It gets even worse if you are taken out of 3NT by opponents or P. Your p is really at a
disadvantage now.

One time I balanced 3NT and was told that it was an illegal bid because it was not a convention (by an "expert" opponent) who summoned the TD in order to complain. This led to my getting ejected/blacklisted from the tournament because I did not alert what was in my hand. In this case, I did have a solid major but around 18 points. The TD (who claims to be ACBL certified) said this must be alerted and explained, subsequently adjusting the score for the opponents. Gave us and A- and opponents an A+.

What's even worse, is that this all took place after opponents misdefended and the hand was over.

True story, I promise you.

___________________________________________________________

just for the record, this is from the ACBL Code of Active Ethics:

"Principle of Full Disclosure
The philosophy of active ethics tells us that winners should be determined solely by skill, flair and normal playing luck. Actively ethical partnerships take pains to ensure that their opponents are fully informed.

A major tenet of active ethics is the principle of full disclosure. This means that all information available to your partnership must be made available to your opponents. "

Using implied logic, this also says that if your p has no understanding/agreement of a particular bid, then the opponents have no right to your p's interpretation of his/her bid either.

[jillybean]

brianshark, on Apr 6 2009, 09:29 AM, said:

Old York, on Apr 6 2009, 02:45 PM, said:

brianshark, on Apr 6 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

something appearing on your or your pard's profile does not constitute an agreement

If I have "Landy" on my profile and partner has "Capp" on his, then there is no agreement
If we both have "Capp" on our profiles, then there is an agreement
If only one player has "Capp" on his profile and partner has nothing on his, then it should be implied that the partnership are playing Cappelletti. to assume otherwise is illogical and against the spirit of online play

I understand your point. I was always under the assumption that no matter what our profiles say, even if one or both of us have capp on our profiles, that we aren't playing cappaletti unless we have agreed to play it in chat. Perhaps I am out of touch with the latest pick-up etiquette regarding what is agreed and what isn't in the main bridge club.

No, youre not out of touch, there are 2 schools of thought regarding agreements.
I agree with you that 'matching profiles' does not constitute an agreement. If you want to be safe, the opps can also read both profiles and draw their own inferences.

[jillybean]

MiltWork, on Apr 7 2009, 09:40 PM, said:

True story, I promise you.

Hi Milty, you generally get what you pay for.
Volunteers are running most of these games under their own rules and at no cost. Many players are happy playing this way and it seems your only option is to ignore it or not play.

[MiltWork]

I agree that most players like to play this way, but I don't think the BBO development team designed the software with the intention that players had to reveal their hands when an indecisive opponent needs some input to make a decison. The alert button was present years before there was even a tourney.

The sad truth though is even "star" players use the alert button to get information that helps make a decision. But usually a "star" is content with "no agreement".

The software could be easily enhanced so that the alert procedure was uniform and clearly understood. I suggested an enhancement in my first post of this topic.

The downside of the present situation is
1) it creates a lot of animosity when you don't give in to opponents and an uninformed TD,

2) Players are in for a shock when they go to play live bridge and are told they are only allowed to ask about partnership agreements.

3) Its going to be difficult to ever run a meaningful tournament with the overall BBO bridge population. Say BBO wanted to sponsor a BBO championship someday. I imagine it would be possible to get 1-2000 players at X$ a pop to participate. But administering this tournament without adhering to common bridge laws would be a nightmare.