[helene_t]

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.

Whether 2/1 is alertable when playing face to face without screens in ACBL is irrelevant because alertability is different online than F2F. This is one very basic thing that online players really have to understand. In particular, even if you are used to not alerting at the 4-level and higher you must still alert through 7NT when playing online.

The question you should ask yourself is: is it plausible that failure to alert might damage opponents? Note that the answer probably isn't "no, because opps can protect themselves" because opps are entitled to expect that you alert much more online than F2F.

As for your specific question: pre-alert it. This is what most TDs say in the welcome message also: pre-alert your carding and general approach.

There could be issues with things like jump overcalls which are usually not pre-alerted, if you play a style which is universal in your part of the World while opps expect the style that is universal in their part of the world. Here I would personally say that people who play intermediate jump overcalls probably know that they are unusual on BBO so they should alert them. But if someone new to BBO who has never plaid outside his local club where everyone plays IJO fails to alert an IJO, tough luck.

At the end of the day, we have to rely on people's sense of sportsmanship:
- give full disclosure, sometimes beyond what you think the rules require. For example, even if you think (wrongly, as it happens) that you are entitled to not alerting Michaels', alert it anyway. Just in case that you are wrong, or that opps think that you are wrong.
- cater to opps not knowing the alert rules or having limited computer skills. So protect yourself.
- this is not serious competition and TDs are often overloaded. So if you are damaged by an infraction you will not always be compensated. Get used to that.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on 2011-August-05, 08:06, said:

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.

Maybe so but in that case you just explain what your call means. Unlike IRL bridge, when playing on BBO there is no excuse for just alerting when you know that what opps need is full disclosure.

That said, I think binary flags have their uses. If I have pre-alerted that we play some kind of SA or Acol or similar and I open 2♣ then I just alert it, meaning that it is artificial and that I expect that to be sufficient disclosure. Same with very common conventions like blackwood, FSF, Jacoby transfers.

[barmar]

mrdct, on 2011-August-05, 17:06, said:

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.

But I also have some doubt that they'd understand my natural 1♣ opening -- they might be from Poland, where I assume most players play some form of Polish Club. So should I also alert my 1♣?

In ACBL tourneys I enter my 15-17 NT range when bidding 1NT, because ACBL requires it. Do I have to do this in non-ACBL tourneys as well, in case the opponents are from places where weak NT is the norm?

[mrdct]

barmar, on 2011-August-06, 14:47, said:

But I also have some doubt that they'd understand my natural 1♣ opening -- they might be from Poland, where I assume most players play some form of Polish Club. So should I also alert my 1♣?

If you are in genuine doubt you need to alert, but I'd suggest it's highly unlikely that anyone would misunderstand a natural 1♣ opening so I wouldn't hold such doubt. As a common courtesy, however, I would tell my opponents what my general system is at the start of the match or round.

barmar, on 2011-August-06, 14:47, said:

In ACBL tourneys I enter my 15-17 NT range when bidding 1NT, because ACBL requires it. Do I have to do this in non-ACBL tourneys as well, in case the opponents are from places where weak NT is the norm?

It wouldn't hurt.

[helene_t]

barmar, on 2011-August-06, 14:47, said:

But I also have some doubt that they'd understand my natural 1♣ opening -- they might be from Poland, where I assume most players play some form of Polish Club. So should I also alert my 1♣?

In ACBL tourneys I enter my 15-17 NT range when bidding 1NT, because ACBL requires it. Do I have to do this in non-ACBL tourneys as well, in case the opponents are from places where weak NT is the norm?

You state your general approach when you come to the table. If you are confident that the opponents then understand what your NT range is and that your minor suit opening are non-forcing 3+, then you don't need to alert them.

If you are not confident in that then you alert and give spontaneous explanation. Alerting a 1♣ opening without giving spontaneous explanation would do more harm than good since an alert suggests that it is artificial.

[mrdct]

helene_t, on 2011-August-07, 06:27, said:

You state your general approach when you come to the table. If you are confident that the opponents then understand what your NT range is and that your minor suit opening are non-forcing 3+, then you don't need to alert them.

If you are not confident in that then you alert and give spontaneous explanation. Alerting a 1♣ opening without giving spontaneous explanation would do more harm than good since an alert suggests that it is artificial.

Totally agree with all of that, although I would suggest that whilst it's not stated in the BBO rules, best practice is to type in your explanations as you alert which is what I always do.

[helene_t]

mrdct, on 2011-August-07, 07:27, said:

Totally agree with all of that, although I would suggest that whilst it's not stated in the BBO rules, best practice is to type in your explanations as you alert which is what I always do.

That is what I mean by "spontaneous explanation"

[Zelandakh]

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 play 1D - 1S as natural and non-forcing (with 1H as an invitational or better relay). It most certainly does require an alert.

[bluejak]

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.

Exactly: and the very simple BBO alerting rules do not tell you whether 2/1 is alertable or not. So, how on earth do you "adapt to the venue in which you are playing" on BBO?

hrothgar, on 2011-August-05, 07:26, said:

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?

No, why should we? We are providing a service which does not include doing something totally different. I don't suppose either of us have considered running a golf club either.

[ggwhiz]

I had a different off-beat alerting problem in an ACBL speedball.

Partner opened 1♥ white in 3rd chair, I then mis-clicked on pass instead of 1nt having alerted said pass as semi-forcing!

Luckily, pard had a much better hand than they might have had in our style but this could easily job them out of a balancing bid and I might have felt the need to request an adjustment against myself.

I don't see any practical answer beyond treating these games as largely self policing where Director calls are rare and appeals don't exist as a Condition of Contest. State that upfront and you can always vote with your feet.

[hrothgar]

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

bluejak, on 2011-August-08, 11:08, said:

No, why should we? We are providing a service which does not include doing something totally different. I don't suppose either of us have considered running a golf club either.

I question whether directing online bridge games is "totally different" than advising people how to direct online bridge games.

As I mentioned in my original post

1. I think that quality of your advice would improve if you had practical experience with the venue
2. If you want to have any real impact you need to lead by example in addition to posting

[hrothgar]

bluejak, on 2011-August-08, 11:08, said:

Exactly: and the very simple BBO alerting rules do not tell you whether 2/1 is alertable or not. So, how on earth do you "adapt to the venue in which you are playing" on BBO?

By looking at the more detailed alerting requirements established by the ACBL, the EBU, the Italians, Unibridge, and other organizations who provide directors and sponsor tournaments.

In many, less formal occasions the rule set arises spontaneously based on the set of players at the table. For example, suppose that Tim, Justin, Han, decided that we needed practice for Spingold and decided to play 32 baords against one another.

I'm guessing that, even without prior discussion, everyone would assume that ACBL alert and system regulations were in effect REGARDLESS of what BBO's official policy might be.

[aguahombre]

hrothgar, on 2011-August-08, 12:25, said:

1. I think that quality of your advice would improve if you had practical experience with the venue
2. If you want to have any real impact you need to lead by example rather than posting

Not speaking for Bluejack, but perhaps directing one or two would be sufficient to gain practical experience useful to future posts; but "rather than post"? Why would we want him to not post?

[helene_t]

bluejak, on 2011-August-08, 11:08, said:

the very simple BBO alerting rules do not tell you whether 2/1 is alertable or not. So, how on earth do you "adapt to the venue in which you are playing" on BBO?

Just use your judgment. You think opps already expect an unalerted 2/1 to be gf or, alternatively, that their expectation is something sufficiently similar that it won't matter? Fine. Then you don't alert. If in doubt then you alert and explain.

The rules are extremely easy to adhere to. What is less easy is to enforce them. If you decide against alerting a 2/1 and opps claim they are damaged, then the TD may have an awkward decision to make.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on 2011-August-08, 12:27, said:

For example, suppose that Tim, Justin, Han, decided that we needed practice for Spingold and decided to play 32 baords against one another.

I'm guessing that, even without prior discussion, everyone would assume that ACBL alert and system regulations were in effect REGARDLESS of what BBO's official policy might be.

I would certainly hope not. Playing online, I would expect opps to alert at the 4-level, alert bids in our suit etc regardless of what some IRL regulations say.

[hrothgar]

> Not speaking for Bluejack, but perhaps directing one or two would be
> sufficient to gain practical experience useful to future posts; but
> "rather than post"? Why would we want him to not post?

Thanks. The original post has been corrected

[blackshoe]

If four people set up a table to practice for the Spingold, then presumably they would all agree that the regulations governing the Spingold would also govern their practice.

I've avoided playing online because I absolutely hated my experience on OKBridge back when it first got started. Still, I may start at some point. But even without it I think I have a pretty good general idea how things go, just from reading and posting in the BBO forums. I remember when I first started answering questions on the laws here — I said what the laws require, and many people responded "this is online bridge, the f2f laws are irrelevant" or some such. Many of them were pretty rude as well. So I continue to do what I always said I would do — answer those questions in the context of the laws, and if some people on line want to do something different, that's up to them. But if someone asks "what's the law?" I'm not going to start my answer with "it's online, the law is irrelevant", because for one thing I don't believe that's true.