[Peter0000]

In Australia, at the table, you only have to alert agreements that you have with your partner. And of course, it is your partner, not you, who alerts. A common situation is that you make an unusual bid, and the opponents ask what it means. Your partner may then say "We have not discussed this. I can guess what it means, but we have no agreement." And that's the end of the matter. No more is divulged.

Is this the situation in USA? In Europe?

Most people on BBO expect EVERY artificial bid to be alerted and explained. This causes me much grief.

I sit at a table. It is immediately apparent to the opps that we have no agreements because we have not chatted much and I just arrived. Say I make a double in a complex competitive auction. Is it penalty? Takeout? Just values? Who knows? Pard does not! But the opps sometimes insist that I tell them what the X means. Or maybe I bid 2C over 1C, which I think should be the majors. Why should I tell the opponents when my partner does not know? That is so unfair. I remember a time when my pard made a psyche (I think that is bad form on BBO). The opps later complained that the psyche was not alerted! Really! I've never heard anything more absurd.

It should only be required to alert a bid WHEN YOU HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR PARTNER. That is how I would like to see the BBO aletring rules changed.

Peter Jeffery. Peter0000 peterm_jeffery@hotmail.com

[helene_t]

You only alert agreements. Now there sometimes is a gray area between "implicit agreements" (which must alerted) and pure guess (which must not). For example, if partner opens 1NT, RHO doubles and I bid 2♣, it could be that opponents' guess is as good as my partner's (in which case I do not alert), but if my p is from the same country as I am I may have a qualified guess as to whether p will take it as natural or Stayman, and that should probably be alerted.

Many players and TDs don't know this and think everything must be alerted. When I organize tournaments, I say in lobby chat at the beginning: "This is an indy so you are not required to alert anything unless you have made some special agreements with your partner". Since I started doing this, players don't alert anymore and don't ask opps for the meaning of bids.

[paulg]

Peter0000, on 2010-October-25, 03:37, said:

In Australia, at the table, you only have to alert agreements that you have with your partner. And of course, it is your partner, not you, who alerts. A common situation is that you make an unusual bid, and the opponents ask what it means. Your partner may then say "We have not discussed this. I can guess what it means, but we have no agreement." And that's the end of the matter. No more is divulged.

Is this the situation in USA? In Europe?

I believe it is the same. Of course, if you can guess what it means then it may be the case that you have some agreements that help your guess that might be disclosed (similar situations, for example), but if it is really just general bridge knowledge then you do not need to disclose that.

Peter0000, on 2010-October-25, 03:37, said:

Most people on BBO expect EVERY artificial bid to be alerted and explained. This causes me much grief.

I sit at a table. It is immediately apparent to the opps that we have no agreements because we have not chatted much and I just arrived. Say I make a double in a complex competitive auction. Is it penalty? Takeout? Just values? Who knows? Pard does not! But the opps sometimes insist that I tell them what the X means. Or maybe I bid 2C over 1C, which I think should be the majors. Why should I tell the opponents when my partner does not know? That is so unfair. I remember a time when my pard made a psyche (I think that is bad form on BBO). The opps later complained that the psyche was not alerted! Really! I've never heard anything more absurd.

It should only be required to alert a bid WHEN YOU HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR PARTNER. That is how I would like to see the BBO aletring rules changed.

The BBO alerting rules, such as they are, do not have to be changed as they are already what you wish them to be. However that is not the same as everyone's expectations being the same

This area of alerting bids that you expect partner to understand has been debated many times over the years on this forum. Unsurprisingly there are two camps: many agree with you that you should only alert agreements that specifically exist; others believe that if you make a call that you expect partner to understand, then you should alert it.

For some, it depends on whether they are in a formal team game, a tournament, or just playing at a random table. There is no right or wrong. My personal view is that when you bid Michaels you would only do so if you expected partner to understand it, so I believe you should alert it. I also feel that 'general bridge knowledge' is a dangerous excuse, as what is general knowledge in my games is very different from those in, say, the Acol Club or BIL - unless you know your partner and opponents, I think it is best avoided.

I don't think that those who only alert specific agreements are unethical.

[akwoo]

Peter0000, on 2010-October-25, 03:37, said:

In Australia, at the table, you only have to alert agreements that you have with your partner. And of course, it is your partner, not you, who alerts. A common situation is that you make an unusual bid, and the opponents ask what it means. Your partner may then say "We have not discussed this. I can guess what it means, but we have no agreement." And that's the end of the matter. No more is divulged.

Is this the situation in USA? In Europe?

This is not quite true here.

If two US experts got together to play (say at a long tournament where both their usual partners were sick/wanted the afternoon off) and did not make an explicit agreement on something, I would still expect them to make an explanation of what the expert standard (if there is one) is if their opponents are not experts. They should say something like "We have no agreement, but current expert standard is ..."

This is magnified on BBO where people from many different countries play. There really are such things as standard North American agreements (or at least tendencies) which ought to be alerted to intermediate players from elsewhere. For example, I think it would be entirely reasonable for intermediate Italian players to request their US or Canadian opponents alert their constructive free bids even when it has not been discussed, because that will be the default agreement between two players from North America. (Beginners are not sophisticated enough to care, while advanced players should already know this kind of thing, so this example is specific to intermediates.) If I was playing with an intermediate North American partner, I would ask opponents to alert their negative free bids (and forcing continuations after a negative double canceling the implication of a 4-card major) even with no agreement if such a thing is standard in both of their countries.

[TimG]

paulg, on 2010-October-25, 04:27, said:

This area of alerting bids that you expect partner to understand has been debated many times over the years on this forum. Unsurprisingly there are two camps: many agree with you that you should only alert agreements that specifically exist; others believe that if you make a call that you expect partner to understand, then you should alert it.

I'm in the latter camp and have a rather hard time sympathizing with the other camp where pick-up games in the main bridge club are concerned. Imagine a situation where the meaning of one side's bids would be dependent upon the meaning of your bid -- after 1♣-(2♣), responder's 2M bids may mean different things depending upon whether 2♣ was natural or showed the majors. Not describing 2♣ as you intended it means that the opponents will be guessing and that's just not fun. Some will counter that your partner will be guessing too, but that doesn't make me feel any better. Bridge isn't supposed to be about guessing the meaning of opponents' bids.

BTW, I'd be happy to let your partner also know how you intended your bid.

Peter0000, on 2010-October-25, 03:37, said:

Why should I tell the opponents when my partner does not know? That is so unfair.

I think it makes for a more pleasant game when you disclose what you hope partner to understand rather than just what you know you have an explicit agreement about. There's no "fairness" issues for me since the scoring matters little. The reward is not in the score but rather in the experience.

[mgoetze]

akwoo, on 2010-November-21, 19:47, said:

This is not quite true here.

If two US experts got together to play (say at a long tournament where both their usual partners were sick/wanted the afternoon off) and did not make an explicit agreement on something, I would still expect them to make an explanation of what the expert standard (if there is one) is if their opponents are not experts. They should say something like "We have no agreement, but current expert standard is ..."

This is magnified on BBO where people from many different countries play. There really are such things as standard North American agreements (or at least tendencies) which ought to be alerted to intermediate players from elsewhere. For example, I think it would be entirely reasonable for intermediate Italian players to request their US or Canadian opponents alert their constructive free bids even when it has not been discussed, because that will be the default agreement between two players from North America. (Beginners are not sophisticated enough to care, while advanced players should already know this kind of thing, so this example is specific to intermediates.) If I was playing with an intermediate North American partner, I would ask opponents to alert their negative free bids (and forcing continuations after a negative double canceling the implication of a 4-card major) even with no agreement if such a thing is standard in both of their countries.

Very good post, and welcome to the forum!

[hotShot]

Every game has it's rules and usually you expect the players to be familiar with those rules.
I find it odd that a of lot bridge player don't know the rules or don't care about them.

But when it comes to alerting the problems are caused by design.
The WBF rules are clear, but national organizations and local clubs are allowed to modify them.
Even if someone thinks he is familiar with the rules, he might be familiar with the alerting rules of his local club or national organization but unaware of the international regulations.

Basically the rules say that you have to alert:
a] agreements
b] implicit agreements
c] partnership experience

BBO's alerting procedure is the same that would apply if you play a big national/international tourney that uses screens.
In both cases you alert your own bids.

A big problem with BBO is that more than 90% of the pairs you will meet, are first time partnerships that have made very little agreements or even none and that they don't have any partnership experience at all.

Those who have read the site rules of BBO will remember that they say that everyone should assume BBO basic (something very similar to SAYC)if nothing is agreed, but you can't expect people to know that even if they were familiar enough with the English language.

Many are unaware that by agreeing to play "name a system here" they made agreements about a lot of conventions and sometimes even about signaling and leads.

If you really think you have no agreement, than you should disclose just that.

[pooltuna]

I have no problem alerting MY CALLS when I have an agreement or an implicit agreement. I do have problems alerting an "expert standard" when I make a call. I think I am more inclined to give my version of what "expert standard" is and it may be in diagreement with partner's version. Consequently when an "expert standard" needs to be explained it needs to come from the partner of the person who made the call. That way everyone is on the same page not necessarily on same page with me. IMO this does NOT constitute misinformation as there is no firm agreement in place.

[helene_t]

Quote

BTW, I'd be happy to let your partner also know how you intended your bid.

That's fine, I would have no problems with rules stipulating that pick-up partnerships discuss in table chat whenever an elementary undiscussed situation comes up.

But if partner is not entitled to know what agreements I am assuming then I really think opps should not be either.

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2010-November-22, 09:09, said:

That's fine, I would have no problems with rules stipulating that pick-up partnerships discuss in table chat whenever an elementary undiscussed situation comes up.

If you ever watch well-known players playing pick-up with each other in the MBC or a friendly team game, that's pretty much how they do it. They'll sit down and start playing, and the first time one of them decides to bid Blackwood, one will ask the other "1430?" or something that. And when they get on defense, one of them will ask "std or udca". When you're playing an informal game, the opponents don't want to sit for 10 minutes waiting for you to discuss your agreements before anyone can start bidding.