[EdoWell]

Pls, it is possible that some player / players banned Alert at his table?

[Vampyr]

EdoWell, on 2012-July-21, 23:55, said:

Pls, it is possible that some player / players banned Alert at his table?

What is your jurisdiction? This is not permitted in the EBU. It is probably possible to hide alerts in online play, but perhaps there you wouldn't need to, since I doubt one can see partner's alerts in any online environment.

[1eyedjack]

I don't think that it is possible to disable the software's capacity to allow alerts.

But there is nothing to prevent the table host (or tourney host) imposing whatever policy he likes, provided that the event is not regulated by some greater power such as ACBL.

So the table host could insist that each player picks his nose before bidding, which must be a psych if Vulnerable, sitting North, third in hand after two passes.


[EDIT] - sorry - possibly wrong forum, I am only referring to BBO context. More generally, the power to insist on, or to ban alerts is devolved to the sponsoring organisation. In the UK there used at one time to be rule by the EBU that allowed players to insist that their opponents do not alert. But that has long since I think been abolished. It may still be alive elsewhere. Mind you, not every bridge game in the UK is regulated by the EBU.

[EdoWell]

Vampyr, on 2012-July-22, 00:04, said:

What is your jurisdiction?

I mean in standard live tournaments (but including big tournamenst as Spingold or World Mind
Sports Games), not online play.

[blackshoe]

AFAIK, both the WBF and the ACBL have the same rule as the EBU: you cannot ask that alerts not be given.

[EdoWell]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-22, 07:06, said:

AFAIK, both the WBF and the ACBL have the same rule as the EBU: you cannot ask that alerts not be given.

EBU Orange book:

5 B 2 Alerting and announcing are compulsory; a player may not ask opponents not to alert
or announce.

Anyone know the exact same WBF and EBL rule? I worried that such rule do not exist, this is the competence of the national associations.

[RMB1]

EdoWell, on 2012-July-22, 09:51, said:

Anyone know the exact same WBFand EBL rule? I worried that such rule do not exist, this is the competence of the national associations.

If WBF and EBL have a rule that would only apply to their competitions.

The competence (or otherwise) of the national associations would allow them to have a different rule for banning alerts in their own competitions.

[TimG]

I believe that the ACBL rule making alerts and announcements compulsory is relatively new (last decade or so).

[Mbodell]

What about a pair who tell you at the start of a match, please don't bother just alerting, always explain because we always want to ask what an alert means. So rather than alerting a bit please just announce it. Is that a legal request? I had a pro tell us that (nicely) at the start of a swiss match a couple of nationals ago who was playing with a client. It seems like a way to get around the "don't ask for partner's benefit" if we alert something that is obvious to him but wouldn't be obvious to the client, and if the client has a habit of not asking about alerts when they should.

[Vampyr]

Mbodell, on 2012-July-22, 20:56, said:

It seems like a way to get around the "don't ask for partner's benefit"

Yes it does. I am sure that most jurisdictions do not allow this kind of latitude -- you alert when the regulations say to alert, you announce when the regulations say to announce, and that is the end of it.

[Phil]

I mentioned on here a number of years ago I requested 'no alerts please' before a match and nearly got hit with a ZT penalty.

[blackshoe]

Mbodell, on 2012-July-22, 20:56, said:

What about a pair who tell you at the start of a match, please don't bother just alerting, always explain because we always want to ask what an alert means. So rather than alerting a bit please just announce it. Is that a legal request? I had a pro tell us that (nicely) at the start of a swiss match a couple of nationals ago who was playing with a client. It seems like a way to get around the "don't ask for partner's benefit" if we alert something that is obvious to him but wouldn't be obvious to the client, and if the client has a habit of not asking about alerts when they should.

"I don't think we're allowed to do that. Let's ask the TD."

Phil, on 2012-July-22, 21:17, said:

I mentioned on here a number of years ago I requested 'no alerts please' before a match and nearly got hit with a ZT penalty.

That seems bizarre, if you just made a simple request.

[gnasher]

Phil, on 2012-July-22, 21:17, said:

I mentioned on here a number of years ago I requested 'no alerts please' before a match and nearly got hit with a ZT penalty.

Perhaps they misunderstood the reason for your request. I'm sure you meant "No alerts please, because I don't want you to have to face UI problems", but maybe it was misinterpeted as "No alerts please, because I don't trust you not to cheat."

[joostb1]

EdoWell, on 2012-July-21, 23:55, said:

Pls, it is possible that some player / players banned Alert at his table?

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

[Zelandakh]

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.

[blackshoe]

I missed that Zel; thanks for the correction.

I have WBF General CoC from 2010 and 2011. Haven't found any from 2012.

[Phil]

gnasher, on 2012-July-23, 01:42, said:

Perhaps they misunderstood the reason for your request. I'm sure you meant "No alerts please, because I don't want you to have to face UI problems", but maybe it was misinterpeted as "No alerts please, because I don't trust you not to cheat."

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

[mycroft]

In the ACBL at least, the "can't request no Alerts" came in because:

• there was a strong implication in the request that the opponents were, in fact, using the UI from the Alerts to help themselves along (*), and that's a violation of the Laws.
  
• 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.)
  
• of course, there would be one call in an auction, which might have been a crazy relay auction and might have been natural (we're not Alerting, so how do they know?) that gets asked about at the time. There was no UI generated from that...
  
• there were many cases of "oops, we actually did need that Alert, and if we had been told..." TD calls. It was easier to stop this tactic than it was to repeatedly hand out "You caused this problem all on your own, you have no recourse from us." TD rulings, and deal with the obvious above "I need to know what *this* call means" problems that became even more prevalent after a couple of "well, it's your fault for refusing the information you're entitled to" rulings.

I wouldn't mind being asked to not Alert, provided the request and the inevitable occasional lapses were treated with the same courtesy that they were expecting from us. It almost never was.

And as a small side note, it was one of those "recent changes" that is at *least* 20 years old, just like the "have to Announce all natural 1 NT openings." It just feels like a recent change because it wasn't publicised, and people "know" they can ask for no Alerts, and they tell others that they can ask, but they never actually *do* it, so don't get the TD called and this old regulation debunked - for them.

(*) There were people, and are people, who do that - well, not "helping themselves along", but it's just that much more comfortable when partner keeps Alerting bids you intend to be Alertable. They certainly feel more comfortable if people ask about all the Alerts and they can ensure that they're still on the same page. But that's a issue for the TDs to resolve (granted, a very difficult one), not the players.
This is one of the many reasons Delayed Alerts in the ACBL are actually useful, not that anybody knows about it; but "Don't Alert any more" wasn't the right answer.

[barmar]

The only times I've been tempted to ask for no alerts is when playing against a pair with a complex relay system. Nearly every bid is going to be alerted, so there's not much benefit from the alerts. I've never felt they were helping the alerting side, though -- they know all their bids are alertable; they sometimes forget what the replies mean, but as long as you don't ask for unnecessary explanations you don't have to worry about them revealing to each other.

I think novice players also find these kinds of systems intimidating, and all those alerts simply scare them.

[jh51]

I find it interesting that you cannot request "no alerts" in the ACBL, because an expert player that I know recently ecnountered such a request during a team event (a regional KO, I think). He and his partner were playing a complex variation of Precision, which they had just started to play together. After they had stumbled into a slam, one of their opponents (another expert) asked them to not alert.

Of course, on the very next hand, an bid with an unusual (normally alertable) meaning came up, and because of the request not to alert the opponents did not know that it was not in fact a natural bid. As a result they either did not get into the bidding or competed in the wrong suit. They could hardly complain about the failure to alert, as they had requested no alerts.