[ajain456]

Why is the bridge laws designed to help the defensive teams?
When offensive team bids a hand, defensive team often fails to use bridge judgment and always asks the meaning of the bid even when the bid is not alerted.
It is so easy to ask a question by clicking on the bid several times rather than use the bridge judgment.
Is it the trend developed for the defensive teams that they can ask any question at any time during the bidding?
If the answer does not match the hand pattern, why players get upset, call director, or criticize?
Why players cannot assume that if the bid (call) is not alerted then, it is natural call and proceed to use the bridge judgment?
Bridge laws allows to ask any question at any time at their turn.

Is it something wrong with the bridge laws?
Or is it the alert system which was created 20 years ago ruined the game?
Any thoughts or comments?

[blackshoe]

Your assumptions are seriously flawed.

Bridge is not a game of secret messages. Players are at all times entitled to know what meaning(s) their opponents attach to their calls and plays. An alert does not convey information about meaning - it says "this is a call about which you might wish to ask questions". Similarly, lack of alert does not necessarily mean "it's natural", so assuming that it does mean that is not very smart. Guessing what a call means is not "using bridge judgement", it's using no judgement at all.

Players get upset when the hand does not match the explanation because they don't think. If they did, they'd be aware that deviations from system, including psychs, are perfectly legal as long as there is no concealed partnership understanding. As for calling the TD, anytime there's a problem or potential problem at the table, playing duplicate, you should call the TD. It's his job to sort things out. If you don't want to bother with a TD, you should play kitchen bridge.

Neither the bridge laws nor the various alert procedures (which differ in different jurisdictions) are perfect, but they aren't broken, either.

[awm]

If non-alerted calls always had a particular meaning, then we could certainly expect that there would be no need to ask about them. However, it's very frequently the case that there are multiple meanings which would not be alertable.

For example, suppose I open 1♥. What makes this call an alert depends where in the world this game is, but most likely none of the following will require an alert:

(1) 1♥ shows 5+♥ and 11-21 points
(2) 1♥ shows 4+♥ and 11-21 points
(3) 1♥ shows 5+♥ and 11-14 points
(4) 1♥ shows 4+♥ and 11-14 points
(5) 1♥ shows 4-5♥ and 11-14 points (playing 2♥ intermediate)

It stands to reason that in some situations, you might want to know what my definition of 1♥ is. There aren't supposed to be secret messages in bridge, and which of the above "natural" meanings I have shown could easily effect your bidding and subsequent defense.

Some bridge organizations (notably ACBL, but WBF seems to do this too) have also ruled that it's my responsibility to "protect myself" in situations where conventional meanings are common. For example, my LHO opens 1NT and my RHO bids 2♣. It might be that 2♣ stayman is alertable (it's artificial) and that "to play" is the natural non-alerted meaning. But almost no one plays 2♣ "to play" after partner's 1NT. So if my opponents don't alert, and I assume that 2♣ is "to play" and it's actually stayman, the directors are not going to give me any help. On the other hand, what if 2♣ actually WAS "to play"? You can see that I will need to ask about a non-alerted 2♣ bid in this auction to protect myself.

[ajain456]

blackshoe, on 2010-November-10, 18:40, said:

Bridge is not a game of secret messages.

Everyone knows this. I am not referring secret messages.
Players are at all times entitled to know what meaning(s) their opponents attach to their calls and plays.
I am referring to simple calls natural when no meaning is attached.

[cloa513]

awm, on 2010-November-10, 19:13, said:

If non-alerted calls always had a particular meaning, then we could certainly expect that there would be no need to ask about them. However, it's very frequently the case that there are multiple meanings which would not be alertable.

For example, suppose I open 1♥. What makes this call an alert depends where in the world this game is, but most likely none of the following will require an alert:

(1) 1♥ shows 5+♥ and 11-21 points
(2) 1♥ shows 4+♥ and 11-21 points
(3) 1♥ shows 5+♥ and 11-14 points
(4) 1♥ shows 4+♥ and 11-14 points
(5) 1♥ shows 4-5♥ and 11-14 points (playing 2♥ intermediate)

It stands to reason that in some situations, you might want to know what my definition of 1♥ is. There aren't supposed to be secret messages in bridge, and which of the above "natural" meanings I have shown could easily effect your bidding and subsequent defense.

Some bridge organizations (notably ACBL, but WBF seems to do this too) have also ruled that it's my responsibility to "protect myself" in situations where conventional meanings are common. For example, my LHO opens 1NT and my RHO bids 2♣. It might be that 2♣ stayman is alertable (it's artificial) and that "to play" is the natural non-alerted meaning. But almost no one plays 2♣ "to play" after partner's 1NT. So if my opponents don't alert, and I assume that 2♣ is "to play" and it's actually stayman, the directors are not going to give me any help. On the other hand, what if 2♣ actually WAS "to play"? You can see that I will need to ask about a non-alerted 2♣ bid in this auction to protect myself.

That's what system cards are for. There is always some secret part to the message- its a vague message. Its just relatively less secret to your partner because he has played with you before and opponents haven't but that's equal between pairs on the board. Pass is equally a message. Should opponents ask you over and over what your pass means?

[Zelandakh]

ajain456, on 2010-November-10, 21:47, said:

I am referring to simple calls natural when no meaning is attached.

'Natural' to you may not mean the same as 'natural' to me. Natural is a system of bidding rules but there are subtle differences between those rules between different regions. A simple example is the sequence 1C - 1H - 1NT. In America Opener has not denied 4 spades and is simply showing their range and shape. Whereas in France for example, it is my understanding that 1NT usually denies 4 spades. And an example from my own system. 1H - 2D. Both are natural bids so nothing could be simpler right? Well yes, except that 2D here shows 6-9hcp and is non-forcing. Would you be happy exercising your 'bridge judgement' without being told this information?

[Bbradley62]

Zelandakh, on 2010-November-10, 22:58, said:

A simple example is the sequence 1C - 1H - 1NT. In America Opener has not denied 4 spades and is simply showing their range and shape.

Really? If I rebid 1NT here, I am certainly denying 4♠. Anyone else?

[jschafer]

Bbradley62, on 2010-November-11, 02:06, said:

Really? If I rebid 1NT here, I am certainly denying 4♠. Anyone else?

It is a matter of style and most deny 4♠ with 1NT, I am not one of them. Even other seemingly obvious bids like 1♥-2♦ could have different meanings in 2/1. For some it shows 5+♦, for some only 4.

[mgoetze]

ajain456, on 2010-November-10, 21:47, said:

Everyone knows this. I am not referring secret messages.
Players are at all times entitled to know what meaning(s) their opponents attach to their calls and plays.
I am referring to simple calls natural when no meaning is attached.

Well, most of the time I play Bridge against people who have been playing for longer than a month. In this case, meanings are attached.

BTW, do you know what is considered a simple natural 1♣ opening in Poland?

[pooltuna]

Bbradley62, on 2010-November-11, 02:06, said:

Really? If I rebid 1NT here, I am certainly denying 4♠. Anyone else?

I would be denying a "biddable 4 card ♠ suit" but not an "unbiddable 4 card suit." The quotes mean my definition

[mtvesuvius]

pooltuna, on 2010-November-11, 09:46, said:

I would be denying a "biddable 4 card ♠ suit" but not an "unbiddable 4 card suit." The quotes mean my definition

Who let GIB take over his account?

[Bbradley62]

pooltuna, on 2010-November-11, 09:46, said:

I would be denying a "biddable 4 card ♠ suit" but not an "unbiddable 4 card suit." The quotes mean my definition

So, what is your definition of "biddable"?