[bluejak]

Phil, on 2012-July-23, 10:30, said:

Its a tacit accusation of cheating, regardless of what your true motives are.

Of no, it isn't, and your presumption is an extremely unfair one. I strongly suggest you change your attitude to allowing some tolerance for other people's views.

Alerts in England used to be by knocking the table. Mrs Chadwick, who was still playing tournament bridge at 101, always asked for no alerts because the actual knocking upset her physically.

I have played against people who never ever under any circumstances ask what I am playing. Some of them would prefer no alerts because they find them distracting and they are clearly of no help whatever.

Lesser players, as mentioned by another poster, sometimes find alerts intimidating, and some would much prefer no alerts.

So there are three sets of people, some of whom would prefer their opponents not to alert, and are making no accusation whatever about their opponents' ethics.

I am also somewhat worried about the word cheating.

Of course, there is no doubt some people who would ask their opponents not to alert do so because they feel their opponents might use the information from the alerts illegally - and in some cases there is no doubt they would be correct. But it is only cheating if they do so deliberately and knowledgeably - and there are a lot of people who use UI but not deliberately and not knowledgeably.

So even if a player wants his opponents not to alert because he does not trust their ethics, that is not necessarily a tacit accusation of cheating. It may be an accusation of bad ethics, certainly, but rarely would it go further and presume they might actually cheat.

[Alibar10]

In local play, opponent alerted 4 clubs, which was obviously Gerber. Our games are ACBL and I wonder if alerting a simple bib is acceptable?

[aguahombre]

Phil, on 2012-July-23, 10:30, said:

Its a tacit accusation of cheating, regardless of what your true motives are.

OR

mycroft, on 2012-July-23, 10:32, said:

it was being used as an intimidation tactic against the "odd-system" pairs to throw them off (whether because of the above implication, or because Alerting is so ingrained it's almost automatic, and not doing it takes a LOT of extra effort. You knew that it was being used as an intimidation tactic by the truly offensive response you got when, 5 boards in, you forgot once.)

For either reason, it is poor gamesmanship. If we have reason to believe UI is being used, we should man-up and articulate such to the TD. Please penalize me for forgetting to cater to an opponent's whims by accidentally adhering to the alert procedures.

[kevperk]

Alibar10, on 2012-July-29, 14:24, said:

In local play, opponent alerted 4 clubs, which was obviously Gerber. Our games are ACBL and I wonder if alerting a simple bib is acceptable?

Opponent alerted because they thought they thought they were supposed to. Without knowing the auction, it is unknown whether it is alertable. If not, it is wrong, but no more unacceptable than doing anything against the rules and regulations, unless it was intentional. Acceptable has nothing to do with it.

[blackshoe]

Alibar10, on 2012-July-29, 14:24, said:

In local play, opponent alerted 4 clubs, which was obviously Gerber. Our games are ACBL and I wonder if alerting a simple bib is acceptable?

It's not illegal, if that's what you mean. Gerber is one of the conventions exempted from "most conventions require an alert", however.

[nige1]

joostb1, on 2012-July-23, 05:46, said:

In contrast with EBU andd ACBL the Dutch bridge union rules still make it possible for you to forbid the opponents to alert.

Zelandakh, on 2012-July-23, 05:55, said:

The WBF rule appears to be (my bold/emphasis): 15. Alerts and Explanations
An alertable call is defined in the WBF Alerting Policy (see Appendix 3: WBF Alerting Policy)
Subject to the provisions of the regulations with regard to the use of screens (see Section 25) the partner of a player who has made an alertable call must immediately alert his opponents unless they have stated, before the auction started on the first board of the set, that they do not wish to be alerted. It is the responsibility of the alerting player to alert clearly. No explanation of the meaning of the alertable call should be made unless requested by an opponent. Request for explanation of an alertable call may be deferred until later in the auction, or until after the auction has closed in accordance with Law 20.
So it is not compulsory at WBF events if the opponents specify otherwise. This is part of the General CoC document.

• Before the alert-rule was introduced, in every session you could expect a couple of cricket-scores when an auction spiraled out of control, neither opponent knowing what calls were artificial or what they meant.
• When alerts were first introduced in Scotland, you could ask opponents not to alert. We used to carry a card with a such a request. Hence we would still benefit from a few catastrophic misunderstandings by opponents, in every tournament. (Incidentally, our card also said "Compulsory pause over pre-empts" -- that was before the modern "STOP" regulations).
• Opponents who relied on their own alerts and explanations were unaware of the advantage that they were taking -- if they understood the law at all. They were just like most players today..
• A new problem arose. Unfortunately. as players become accustomed to alerting, when you asked them not to alert, they couldn't help "half-alerting". Understandably, directors didn't want to treat the alert itself as an infraction. Hence alerting became compulsory, in most jurisdictions.
• Nevertheless, The WBF and the Dutch deserve congratulations for their efforts to improve alert-rules.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-July-29, 15:17, said:

For either reason, it is poor gamesmanship. If we have reason to believe UI is being used, we should man-up and articulate such to the TD. Please penalize me for forgetting to cater to an opponent's whims by accidentally adhering to the alert procedures.

I think players like this make the request to all opponents (or all opponents playing systems with frequent alerts), so it shouldn't be viewed as an accusation against anyone in specific. It's probably more of a general paranoia that someone will take advantage of the alert system.

Think of it like screens. They were introduced in reaction to cheating, but if you make everyone in an event play with screens you shouldn't be accused of calling any of them cheaters.

[mycroft]

Alibar10, on 2012-July-29, 14:24, said:

In local play, opponent alerted 4 clubs, which was obviously Gerber. Our games are ACBL and I wonder if alerting a simple bid is acceptable?

The other answers are all reasonable (in particular, the one about "it depends"), but specifically:

Quote

4♣ Gerber (any variety over notrump) and expected responses thereto do not require an Alert of any kind.

However 4♣ Gerber not over NT, does require an Alert. It might be a delayed Alert:

Quote

Once the auction has progressed to the point that the opening bidder has had the opportunity to make a second call, conventional calls at the four level or higher are not Alerted until the auction is over.

So, specifically, if the auction went 1♠-4♣, and 4♣ was Gerber, it would have to be immediately Alerted. The responses would be Alertable, as well, but would be Delayed.

Quotes from the ACBL Alert Procedure.

Of course, if this was ACBL on BBO, with self-Alerts, it's encouraged to Alert anything necessary, because partner won't see it. So, I'd be Alerting Gerber if I was playing it (but I'd be Alerting by immediate self-explanation)...

[aguahombre]

PART X: DELAYED (or POST) ALERTS
ALERTABLE CALLS ABOVE THE LEVEL OF 3NT STARTING WITH OPENER'S SECOND TURN TO CALL
Once the auction has progressed to the point that the opening bidder has had the opportunity to make a second call, conventional calls at the four level or higher are not Alerted until the auction is over.

EXAMPLES:

1-P-1-P 4 (splinter)
There is no Alert at the time for the 4 bid.

The above quote from the ACBL Alert Procedures linked by Mycroft is strange.

The example is of opener's second call, yet the procedure refers to AFTER that second call. The past-perfect tense used makes it clear that the second call opportunity has gone by, and the example is wrong.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-July-30, 11:59, said:

PART X: DELAYED (or POST) ALERTS
ALERTABLE CALLS ABOVE THE LEVEL OF 3NT STARTING WITH OPENER'S SECOND TURN TO CALL
Once the auction has progressed to the point that the opening bidder has had the opportunity to make a second call, conventional calls at the four level or higher are not Alerted until the auction is over.

EXAMPLES:

1-P-1-P 4 (splinter)
There is no Alert at the time for the 4 bid.

The above quote from the ACBL Alert Procedures linked by Mycroft is strange.

The example is of opener's second call, yet the procedure refers to AFTER that second call. The past-perfect tense used makes it clear that the second call opportunity has gone by, and the example is wrong.

Read the heading: "above the level of 3NT starting with opener's second turn to call". Clearly this makes the opener's second round splinter alertable, and the example is correct, whatever the grammar police have to say.

Besides, we already know the ACBL can't write regulations in plain English.

[aguahombre]

....

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-July-30, 13:40, said:

Yes opener's second round splinter is alertable, as you say. The example says it is not. If that is not strange to you, o.k.

No, the example does not say that. It says it's not alertable at the time the bid is made. That's the whole point — the alert is delayed until after the final pass.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-30, 13:42, said:

No, the example does not say that. It says it's not alertable at the time the bid is made. That's the whole point — the alert is delayed until after the final pass.

O.K. I just have a problem with opener's second call coming after he has had the opportunity for his second call. I would think his second call occurs while he has that opportunity, which would make the splinter bid alertable at the time it was made.

[blackshoe]

You're still reading it wrongly.

[barmar]

Where is the word "after" in the quoted section? It says "once the opening bidder has had the opportunity to make a second call". That includes the time of the second call itself. Maybe it's poorly worded, but the examples make it clear that this is how it was intended.

I've always restated it as "starting with opener's second bid".

[jeffford76]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-30, 15:22, said:

You're still reading it wrongly.

I don't think he's reading it wrongly - I think it doesn't say what they meant for it to say. But the example makes clear what you're supposed to do regardless of whether it's written correctly in the actual rule.

[barmar]

Not only does the example make it clear, but so does the title of the section. It says "starting with", not "starting after".

[FrancesHinden]

The WBF regulation quoted is almost pointless, because
- it doesn't apply when screens are in use
- all* WBF events are played with screens


*AFAIK

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

Mind you, not every bridge game in the UK is regulated by the EBU.

All the ones in Wales and Scotland, for example!

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

Alerts in England used to be by knocking the table. Mrs Chadwick, who was still playing tournament bridge at 101, always asked for no alerts because the actual knocking upset her physically.

I think it was her partner Miss Lancaster, a spritely 91 year old who had damaged ear drums who objected. They even carried a wooden sign with a brass plate which said "No alerting, please"