[bluejak]

mrdct, on 2011-August-02, 19:10, said:

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:

I do not have the Windows version, but I did the following:

Click to Play or Watch Bridge!

I now clicked:

All Tournaments

I could find nothing saying "Tournament Rules", just lots of tornaments.

[shintaro]

bluejak, on 2011-August-03, 06:40, said:

I do not have the Windows version, but I did the following:

Click to Play or Watch Bridge!

I now clicked:

All Tournaments

I could find nothing saying "Tournament Rules", just lots of tornaments.

You could always download the Windows version David

[bluejak]

I am getting confused. I wrote:

Quote

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

The reply was:

Quote

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.

Now, obviously, this is not a reply to what I wrote, since while it is clear, if it is all the alerting rules, then it supports my view that

Quote

alerting regulations are not laid down in detail

So, is there any more? As you gather I cannot find the regulations anyway. But the important thing is whether there are any detailed regulations?

When this reply came I assumed I was wrong, and there were detailed regulations: if so, perhaps we could see the one that deals with the position in this thread. If not, then I merely return to my first comment:

Quote

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

Please can I have MultiQuote back!

[jillybean]

shintaro, on 2011-August-03, 01:02, said:

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

When called to the table because of non alert or late alert and upon arriving at the table the TD notices that the bid has been alerted the first thing that should cross the TD's mind is 1. we have a late alert here or 2. the player making the td call is lying. Obviously the first question to ask is when was the alert made? The only thing 'poor' about this TD is their level of skill.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-August-03, 06:49, said:

So, is there any more? As you gather I cannot find the regulations anyway. But the important thing is whether there are any detailed regulations?

How much more "detail" do you think is required? I think the BBO rules are perfectly adequate in describing the approach one should take to alerting.

Navigating to BBO's alerting regulations is even easier in the flash version. Simply click "Help", select "The Rules of this Site" and then scroll down to "Guidelines for Alerts". The wording is slightly different to what is contained in the windows version, but still comes down to the unambiguous rule of "if in doubt - alert" (paraphrased) which is a pretty easy rule to apply and the rule one would generally apply when playing with screens.

[gnasher]

No, there are no detailed regulations in the form of "Alert X, don't alert Y", and in fact the rules (below) explicitly say that BBO isn't interested in making such rules.

BBO's position is apparently to rely on people using their common sense. That works fine until you come across someone who lacks any.

Quote

All members should understand that, due to the fact that we have members from all over the world as well as members of all levels of ability and experience, not all players will agree on which bids should be alerted and which bids should be considered "standard". The management of BBO is not going to get involved with trying to make rules in this area. It is up to our members to try their best to provide their opponents with information that may be helpful to them. Always remember that it is against the laws and spirit of the game of bridge to conceal information about your partnership agreements from your opponents.

The BBO software is designed so that players alert their own bids. This is called "self-alerting" and it is opposite to the approach that is used in live bridge clubs and tournaments. If you have any doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert.

[mrdct]

gnasher, on 2011-August-04, 01:49, said:

No, there are no detailed regulations in the form of "Alert X, don't alert Y", and in fact the rules (below) explicitly say that BBO isn't interested in making such rules.

BBO's position is apparently to rely on people using their common sense. That works fine until you come across someone who lacks any.

"Alert X, don't alert Y" type regulations are a recipe for disaster as the SBs out there will argue, "bid Z isn't listed in the regulations as alertable so I'm not going to alert it". The BBO rule is very clear, simple to apply and well backed-up by the general disclosure requirements in the laws.

[bluejak]

Vague rules like the BBO ones are a recipe for disaster because different people have completely different ideas as to what constitutes doubt and commonsense. All alert rules started out that way: the reason why authorities like the ACBL and EBU started making more complex regulations is because the simpler ones do not work.

Incidentally, I suggested BBO regs were not detailed and you disagreed. You made me waste a lot of time. There is no doubt they are not detailed. You seem to think clear means the same as detailed: it does not. BBO regs are perfectly clear, not at all detailed, very difficult to work with, and no doubt lead to lots of MI.

[helene_t]

bluejak, on 2011-August-04, 04:33, said:

Vague rules like the BBO ones are a recipe for disaster because different people have completely different ideas as to what constitutes doubt and commonsense. All alert rules started out that way: the reason why authorities like the ACBL and EBU started making more complex regulations is because the simpler ones do not work.

Maybe the BBO rules would be a recipe for disaster if applied to serious, f2f2, non-screen tournaments. But the situation is different on BBO and I think for BBO's purpose there is no alternative.

2/1 GF is explicitly alertable in EBU and explicitly not in NBB. Both organizations made reasonable decisions in this respect based on the local culture. But we can't have such detailed rules at bbo:
1) very few people will read and recall such detailed rules so they will only work if most people would follow them intuitively without knowing them.
2) the cultural differences here are too big for assumptions about which rules people would intuitively follow
3) it is not necessary to have detailed rules since the simple rule "alert everything unless it is obvious that it will serve no purpose to alert it" is adequate online (and behind screens).

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-August-04, 04:33, said:

Vague rules like the BBO ones are a recipe for disaster because different people have completely different ideas as to what constitutes doubt and commonsense. All alert rules started out that way: the reason why authorities like the ACBL and EBU started making more complex regulations is because the simpler ones do not work.

Incidentally, I suggested BBO regs were not detailed and you disagreed. You made me waste a lot of time. There is no doubt they are not detailed. You seem to think clear means the same as detailed: it does not. BBO regs are perfectly clear, not at all detailed, very difficult to work with, and no doubt lead to lots of MI.

I can't begin to express how remorseful I am that I caused you to waste so much of your valuable time trying to locate the "help" button in the flash version. I fully understand why that would be the last place one would look.

Complicated alert regulations with pre-alerts, self-alerts, delayed-alerts and announcements may well have merit for bridge played without screens as alerting does create a lot of UI issues, but when playing online or with screens you just alert anything remotely alertable and you can't go wrong - particularly if you type your explanations in as you alert. But in my experience, most players don't have the time or inclination to wade through a 10 page document (that's how long the ABF Alerting Regulations are inclusive of a one and a half page executive summary) and we would all get a far better outcome if they just used the "if in doubt - alert' approach. The BBO regulations contain precisely the right amount of detail to describe that regime.

[Free]

When playing online you generally need to alert everything that might surprise opponents. Obviously this is very vague, because for some people something artificial is completely normal (for example a Polish 1♣ opening is standard in Poland, while it's not even played in some other countries), while something natural may be very strange (for example not playing transfers over a strong 1NT).

Here however, I don't think it's a difficult case. I expect most people to interprete 1♦-1♠ as forcing for one round, so when it's limited and NF it requires an alert.

[bluejak]

Of course I used the Help button. It did not help.

I really do not see why everything I post something I am assumed to have posted something completely different.

When did I suggest BBO have complicated alerting rules? Never.

When did I suggest this particular case has any problem? Never.

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2011-August-04, 05:37, said:

Maybe the BBO rules would be a recipe for disaster if applied to serious, f2f2, non-screen tournaments. But the situation is different on BBO and I think for BBO's purpose there is no alternative.

2/1 GF is explicitly alertable in EBU and explicitly not in NBB. Both organizations made reasonable decisions in this respect based on the local culture. But we can't have such detailed rules at bbo:
1) very few people will read and recall such detailed rules so they will only work if most people would follow them intuitively without knowing them.
2) the cultural differences here are too big for assumptions about which rules people would intuitively follow
3) it is not necessary to have detailed rules since the simple rule "alert everything unless it is obvious that it will serve no purpose to alert it" is adequate online (and behind screens).

OK, so I'm playing 2/1 GF. Am I expected to alert it?

I come from ACBL territory, where it's not alertable. I've never played in England, or any other area where 2/1 GF is alertable. So I have no reason to be "in doubt", and I don't alert it. Then my English opponent calls the TD, complaining about the lack of alert.

How should the TD rule? I followed the rule to the letter, yet my opponent's feeling of damage seems reasonable.

[ArtK78]

barmar, on 2011-August-04, 20:00, said:

OK, so I'm playing 2/1 GF. Am I expected to alert it?

I come from ACBL territory, where it's not alertable. I've never played in England, or any other area where 2/1 GF is alertable. So I have no reason to be "in doubt", and I don't alert it. Then my English opponent calls the TD, complaining about the lack of alert.

How should the TD rule? I followed the rule to the letter, yet my opponent's feeling of damage seems reasonable.

No, your opponent's feeling of damage is not reasonable. If the rules of the venue in which you are playing state that 2/1 GF is not alertable, then it is not alertable. Your English opponent must adapt to the venue in which he is playing, just as you would have to adapt if you were playing in England.

[hrothgar]

bluejak, on 2011-August-04, 04:33, said:

Vague rules like the BBO ones are a recipe for disaster because different people have completely different ideas as to what constitutes doubt and commonsense. All alert rules started out that way: the reason why authorities like the ACBL and EBU started making more complex regulations is because the simpler ones do not work.

I'd like to focus on your use of the phrase "authorities like the ACBL and EBU".

I would suggest that BBO is nothing like either of these organization.
BBO has neither the interest nor the core competencies to serve as a regulatory body.

The analogy that I have seen most often is that BBO is a landlord who rents space to a large number of bridge clubs.
We don't expect our landloard to render rulings at a physical club.
Why would you ever expect Fred and Co to do the same on BBO?

It's true that there are some (very broad) guidelines, however, I'd argue that its a mistake to confuse these with a formal regulatory structure.

I also think that its a mistake to get overly concerned with rules (or lack there of) on the site as a whole. In my experience, top down regulatory structures don't work too well on the internet. If/when a working regulatory structure does emerge I think that it will record/describe a set of norms that have evolved over time rather than trying to impose something new. Moreover, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a fractured regulatory system with multiple competing standards.

I don't want to knock the work that Bluejak and Blackshoe are doing on this forum. I think that they provide a valuable service. At the same time, I often feel that these discussions might be a distractor.

Have either of you considered running one or more online games?

If you really want to influence the evolution of the game you need to leave the ivory tower and get your hands dirty. The best way to exert influence is to lead by example and demonstrate that you can walk the walk... (I also think that you would both benefit from some practical experience in the realities of directing online games)

I would welcome having a serious online club with qualified directors and would pay a premium sum for the opportunity to play in such a club.

[mjj29]

ArtK78, on 2011-August-05, 07:02, said:

No, your opponent's feeling of damage is not reasonable. If the rules of the venue in which you are playing state that 2/1 GF is not alertable, then it is not alertable. Your English opponent must adapt to the venue in which he is playing, just as you would have to adapt if you were playing in England.

The venue is BBO. The rules of the venue are:

BBO Rules said:

All members should understand that, due to the fact that we have members from all over the world as well as members of all levels of ability and experience, not all players will agree on which bids should be alerted and which bids should be considered "standard". The management of BBO is not going to get involved with trying to make rules in this area. It is up to our members to try their best to provide their opponents with information that may be helpful to them. Always remember that it is against the laws and spirit of the game of bridge to conceal information about your partnership agreements from your opponents.

The BBO software is designed so that players alert their own bids. This is called "self-alerting" and it is opposite to the approach that is used in live bridge clubs and tournaments. If you have any doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert.

So, should one alert 2/1 GF under those rules? That's the question.

[hrothgar]

mjj29, on 2011-August-05, 07:55, said:

So, should one alert 2/1 GF under those rules? That's the question.

One should ALWAYS alert EACH AND EVERY one of your bids...
This is the only way that one can be sure that no one is damaged by a failure to alert

On a more serious note...

Trying to use a binary flag - in this case an alert - to convey any kind of useful information on a site like BBO is nonsensical.

Consider the case that I just described in which individuals alert all of their bids.
From a practical perspective, there is no difference between this and a regime in which there are zero alerts.

We don't have an alert system because it gives folks a chance to say alert alot.
Nor is it a cudgel that we can wield to try to win events at appeals committees that we can't wun at the table.

The point of an alert system is to provide the opponent's with useful, actionable information.
I'd argue that this is an near impossible goal.

I suspect that all the problems that we have with alerts on BBO (primarily) reflect the inherent difficulty with turning screws when all you have available is a hammer...

[blackshoe]

There is a section of the Help area in the web client titled "Alert guidelines". It has this to say:

Quote

All members should understand that, due to the fact that we have members from all over the world as well as members of all levels of ability and experience, not all players will agree on which bids should be alerted and which bids should be considered "standard".

The management of BBO is not going to get involved with trying to make rules in this area. It is up to our members to try their best to provide their opponents with information that may be helpful to them. Always remember that it is against the laws and spirit of the game of bridge to conceal information about your partnership agreements from your opponents.

The BBO software is designed so that players alert their own bids. This is called "self-alerting" and it is opposite to the approach that is used in live bridge clubs and tournaments. If you have any doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert.

If an opponent asks you for the meaning of one of your bids, you are expected to answer them politely, even if you think the answer is obvious. An appropriate answer can be "I have never discussed this with my partner". You do not have to tell the opponents how you intend your bid - only what you have agreed with your partner. It is innapropriate to use chat to explain your bids to your partner unless you get permission from the opponents first.

Note the second paragraph. BTW, it took me a while to find this.

[mrdct]

barmar, on 2011-August-04, 20:00, said:

OK, so I'm playing 2/1 GF. Am I expected to alert it?

I come from ACBL territory, where it's not alertable. I've never played in England, or any other area where 2/1 GF is alertable. So I have no reason to be "in doubt", and I don't alert it. Then my English opponent calls the TD, complaining about the lack of alert.

How should the TD rule? I followed the rule to the letter, yet my opponent's feeling of damage seems reasonable.

Unless you were playing against people who you were absolutely certain knew you were playing 2/1 and understood the system, it would be clearly alertable under BBO rules as some doubt would surely exist about whether or not your opponents would understand what your 2/1 response or 1NT response meant. Simple rule: if in doubt you alert.

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2011-August-05, 07:02, said:

No, your opponent's feeling of damage is not reasonable. If the rules of the venue in which you are playing state that 2/1 GF is not alertable, then it is not alertable.

Right, so the BBO rules say nothing about it; is this comment relevant?