[Chainat]

Hi

I played on BBO, a matchpoint tournament, and a board comes up. The result doesn't matter to me, but WHETHER the opponent should alert the 1♠ bid or not?

W __ N __ E __ S
pass 1♦ * pass 1♠
all pass

* 1♦ was alerted - showing 11 to 15 points - and 2 or more ♦.

Of course I know that something was going on - either north had a tricky opening - or as it was the case 1♠ had a limit of points (which of course I could imagine because of the 1♦ alert). But I don't think it is neither mine or my partner's job to know our opponents bidding system.

Before my final pass - I clicked the 1♠ bid, and got the reply - natural with spades - 2-3 times.
I then asked in private - if there was a limit on the 1♠ bid - and got the reply - 3 to 10 points.

I believe my partner should know of such information before his bid, by an alert from the opponent.
(Yes it can be cleared afterwards with the assistance of the TD)
I passed - maybe I should had bid 1NT - but I didn't. Again - it is not the result I am interested in.

I called the TD - only to get to know if the bid should had been alerted or not.
The TD lectured me that it was already alerted. (That is a problem in the BBO software - as soon as you ask for the meaning of a bid - and opponents are answering it - it becomes highlighted - as IF it had been alerted)

I don't think I need to say that the TD said it of course should not be alerted. I still disagree.

How about you?

I have posted the hand as well - though I don't really think it matters.

Looking forward to your comments. Thank You.

The TD - said that I was more than welcome to ask here - and that I should return to her with the result, to tell her that I was wrong - and I should remember to point out that 1♠ doesn't need an alert.

1 D alerted - 11-15 2+ D

---

[bluejak]

One problem with playing on BBO is that alerting regulations are not laid down in detail. The general rule is alert what you think the opponents need to know. Yes, I think this 1♠ needs an alert.

Note that the description of the 1♦ opening suggests Precision, and most Precision players do not play a 1♠ response this way.

[ArtK78]

I would go a lot further than saying "most precision players do not play a 1♠ response this way."

I would be willing to state that I never heard of ANYONE who played a nonforcing 1 of a suit response to a one-level opening bid.

Yes, it most definitely should be alerted. This is more than a highly unusual meaning for the 1♠ response. It may be unique.

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: Hard to say whether this needs to alert without knowing the alert rules for the tournament in question

Comment 2: Most places that I play bridge would require an alert for the 1♠ response. (Playing this as limited and non forcing is highly unusual)

Comment 3: Even if there was a failure to alert, you're going to have a hard time proving damage.

Even if West knew that 1♠ was non-forcing, its unclear that he has a call
East knew that the call was non forcing when he passed

[helene_t]

Of course this is alertable (unless the tournament rules explicitly say that it isn't but that is very unlikely).

The question is if NS had the agreement to play it as nonforcing. If South meant it as forcing he can't alert it, obviously.

In principle you should not ask questions for your partner's sake although in a tournament with a buzy TD I can understand it may be the most practical solution.

For the TD to make any adjustment, we first need West to say that he would have made a different call if 1♠ had been alerted. And then we need the TD to believe that

[PrecisionL]

I don't know the BBO rules well.

In ACBLand I play with several Precision partners an artificial 1♦ opening promises 10-15 hcp and one or both 4-cd majors. This is known as the Diamond Major. A response of 1♥ or 1♠ is alerted as it is less than invitational values (limit raise) and can be passed. In addition, ♠s may be longer than ♥s and occasionally ♥s may only be 3-cds.

ALERT, ALERT, ALERT!

We also play 2♣ response is weak with both minors = pass or correct.

http://www.bridgeclu...ude/Diamond.htm

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2011-August-02, 10:29, said:

Comment 3: Even if there was a failure to alert, you're going to have a hard time proving damage.

Even if West knew that 1♠ was non-forcing, its unclear that he has a call
East knew that the call was non forcing when he passed

But he also knows that West didn't know that it was non-forcing when he passed. If you know that both opponents are limited, you can bid more aggressively, so West might have a hand that could have bid, and East can no longer tell. This could affect inferences on defense.

[semeai]

I prefer a setting in which this 1♠ requires an alert. Online, though, who knows, unless this was one of the ACBL games.

A comment on the bidding: I don't think West has a bid over 1S, but as East you might balance 1NT, which should be the same 11-15 range that it is over 1S P P.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-August-02, 08:45, said:

One problem with playing on BBO is that alerting regulations are not laid down in detail.

The alerting regulations are clearly set out in the BBO Tournament Guidelines:

Quote

All tournament players should make a strong effort to properly alert and explain the bids that they make. We have people from all over the world playing on this site and language problems are inevitable. Keep in mind that what is "standard" for you may not be "standard" in other parts of the world. If you have any doubt as to whether or not you should alert a bid, you should alert it.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, I'm not aware of any bridge jurisdiction where this 1♠ bid would not be alertable.

[bluejak]

I have just searched the site and failed to find such guidelines. Where are they?

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-August-02, 17:24, said:

I have just searched the site and failed to find such guidelines. Where are they?

Using the Windows version:

Click to Play or Watch Bridge!
All Tournaments
Tournament Rules
Page 2 "Tournament Guidelines"

These regulations certainly apply to all tournaments and teams matches unless there are specific "Tournament Rules" uploaded to a particular tournament. In the case of ACBL-sanctioned tournaments, the alerting rules are slightly different, but would still clearly make the OP's 1♠ bid alertable:

Quote

"Self-alerting" is used in all ACBL-sanctioned tournaments on this site. That means you must alert your own bids - not your partner's bids as you would in a "real life" club or tournament. We have one guideline as to whether or not a bid should be alerted: If you have any doubt at all as to whether or not you should alert, then you should always alert. There is no harm is (sic) over-alerting, but under-alerting can cause problems.

Even very common conventions (like negative and support doubles, Jacoby transfers, 1NT forcing, game-forcing 2/1 responses, weak jump raises in competition, etc.) should be alerted.

I would love to hear from some of the "no" voters as to the rationale for reaching such a conclusion.

[aguahombre]

There actually were some "no" votes. Awsome, but perhaps misclicks.

[ggwhiz]

A weak 2, say ♥ followed by 2♠ by an unpassed hand needs an alert if it's non-forcing.

Same thing here just 1 level lower due to weirdness of system. Don't be too tough on the Director though. They deal with weird players much more often than weird systems.

[peachy]

You can go back to the TD, as he/she suggested you do, and tell the TD it is alertable by virtually any alerting rules or regulations. If it was ACBL, is is specifically regulated alertable. If it was some other tourney, a non-forcing one-level suit response to a one-level opening is extremely unexpected and therefore alertable.

[jillybean]

ggwhiz, on 2011-August-02, 22:08, said:

A weak 2, say ♥ followed by 2♠ by an unpassed hand needs an alert if it's non-forcing.

Same thing here just 1 level lower due to weirdness of system. Don't be too tough on the Director though. They deal with weird players much more often than weird systems.

What have weird players got to do with it? It seems clear that 1♠ should have been alerted and the "TD" should know this.

[shintaro]

jillybean, on 2011-August-03, 00:05, said:

What have weird players got to do with it? It seems clear that 1♠ should have been alerted and the "TD" should know this.

yes jilly i think we all agree

however it seems that when the poor old TD was called all he/she could see was that it HAD in fact been Alerted (albeit late) but TD does not know that

[Vampyr]

mrdct, on 2011-August-02, 16:17, said:

The alerting regulations are clearly set out in the BBO Tournament Guidelines:

Quote

All tournament players should make a strong effort to properly alert and explain the bids that they make. We have people from all over the world playing on this site and language problems are inevitable. Keep in mind that what is "standard" for you may not be "standard" in other parts of the world. If you have any doubt as to whether or not you should alert a bid, you should alert it.

LOL

[helene_t]

ArtK78, on 2011-August-02, 10:13, said:

I would be willing to state that I never heard of ANYONE who played a nonforcing 1 of a suit response to a one-level opening bid.

I have encountered such systems even in serious tournaments. More often in very weak fields. Mostly home-grown systems but also well-known systems like Vienna.

[AlexJonson]

I voted no, clearly not understanding these methods well enough.

I don't usually expect opponents to alert apparently natural bids albeit with a defined range. And I'm not sure what I would do with the fact that oppo has up to 10 points opposite an opening bid.

However the concensus is clear!

[gwnn]

I played non-forcing 1 level responses, but the few times I actually passed such a response, I got very bad results. We changed the system in a short time.