[CSGibson]

straube, on 2012-May-02, 16:17, said:

Maybe alert your 1m opening, describe it including that it is almost forcing. I was thinking that would leave you free not to alert your response, but that's not likely technically true.

I'm thinking that your system has some similarity to Fantunes at least as far as 1m openings and 1M response go, and folks who played Fantunes against me were alerting both.

But its not almost forcing - we respond only on hands where we think we have a chance of getting to a better contract by responding. It just so happens that our systemic openings of 1C and 1D can both be short (which we do alert), which increases the probability of improving a contract by responding aggressively, especially since a good deal of the rest of our system is primarily designed to stay low when possible.

Edit: OK, I just looked at both the ACBL GCC and their alert chart. It appears as though our responses might be prealertable if they fall under the (undefined) category of "highly aggressive methods", but are not alertable in the auction.

This post has been edited by CSGibson: 2012-May-02, 16:43

[straube]

OK. It's an interesting alert question.

[Statto]

Couldn't the various RAs just adopt the alerting regulations of WBF instead of making up their own?

[barmar]

Statto, on 2012-May-02, 17:55, said:

Couldn't the various RAs just adopt the alerting regulations of WBF instead of making up their own?

WBF tournaments almost all involve just bridge champions. The rules that are best for these events are not necessarily best for the masses, and they don't take local habits into account.

[gnasher]

Statto, on 2012-May-02, 17:55, said:

Couldn't the various RAs just adopt the alerting regulations of WBF instead of making up their own?

They could, but why should they? The purpose of an alert is to tell the opponents that the bid has an unexpected meaning. What is expected varies around the world, so it's sensible for the alerting rules to vary too.

Many players would find the WBF alerting regulations particularly onerous, since the first rule is "Conventional bids should be alerted" That means that you have to alert Stayman, for example.

[barmar]

Also, most (all?) WBF tournaments are played with screens. This allows for much more liberal alerting than would be appropriate in typical tournament or club settings.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2012-May-03, 00:46, said:

Many players would find the WBF alerting regulations particularly onerous, since the first rule is "Conventional bids should be alerted" That means that you have to alert Stayman, for example.

And takeout doubles, but I'm willing to bet no-one does that, even under WBF regs.

[Statto]

gnasher, on 2012-May-03, 00:46, said:

They could, but why should they? The purpose of an alert is to tell the opponents that the bid has an unexpected meaning. What is expected varies around the world, so it's sensible for the alerting rules to vary too.

What is unexpected varies also from county to county, club to club, person to person, and system to system. Why not go for logical and simple rules? Who am I to say what might be expected or unexpected in your club?

[Vampyr]

Statto, on 2012-May-03, 18:34, said:

What is unexpected varies also from county to county, club to club, person to person, and system to system. Why not go for logical and simple rules? Who am I to say what might be expected or unexpected in your club?

Who indeed? This is why alerting regulations are best left in (reasonably) local hands.

[gnasher]

Statto, on 2012-May-03, 18:34, said:

What is unexpected varies also from county to county, club to club, person to person, and system to system. Why not go for logical and simple rules? Who am I to say what might be expected or unexpected in your club?

By advocating that my club use the WBF alert rules, you are saying what is expected or unexpected here.

In many clubs in England a 15-17 notrump is unexpected; in most clubs in North America 12-14 is unexpected. Which range do you think should be alerted?

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-May-04, 05:04

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-03, 11:21, said:

And takeout doubles, but I'm willing to bet no-one does that, even under WBF regs.

WBF alerting policy said:

If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following:
All doubles.

Takeout doubles are in theory alertable when using screens, but I'm sure you're right that nobody does. That isn't the only daft regulation that is routinely ignored.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2012-May-04, 05:18, said:

That isn't the only daft regulation that is routinely ignored.

Quote

Sam Adams: When the law is an ass, the best thing to do is ignore it.

Problem is, Sam was a radical revolutionary, and he wasn't playing a game. "Daft" or not, in bridge you ignore the rules at your peril. I grant you ignoring this one is unlikely to get you in much trouble. Perhaps it should.

[barmar]

Statto, on 2012-May-03, 18:34, said:

What is unexpected varies also from county to county, club to club, person to person, and system to system. Why not go for logical and simple rules? Who am I to say what might be expected or unexpected in your club?

You seem to have it backwards. If you don't know what's unexpected, you should NOT try to set the alerting rules.

I don't know about other jurisdictions, but in ACBL clubs are permitted to set their own allowed conventions and alerting rules. Most don't bother, and simply adopt the ACBL rules for simplicity. But WBF rules, which require alerting almost everything, would be inappropriate, since they were designed with a different constituency and playing environment in mind.

Your idea trades off usefulness for simplicity.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-04, 07:40, said:

"Daft" or not, in bridge you ignore the rules at your peril. I grant you ignoring this one is unlikely to get you in much trouble. Perhaps it should.

I tend to agree about obeying the rules, and I'm usually law-abiding, but I think it's reasonable to ignore a rule that not only serves no purpose but also imposes inconvenience on the players. Alerting takeout doubles of one-level openings is ridiculous.

This would be especially true if players also followed the WBF alerting procedure, which is: "The alert must be made by placing the Alert Card over the last call of the screen-mate, in his segment of the bidding tray; the alerted player must acknowledge by returning the Alert Card to his opponent." Luckily, nobody does that either.

[blackshoe]

Following that procedure would certainly avoid any claims of "I didn't see any alert".

[Cthulhu D]

gnasher, on 2012-May-04, 05:02, said:

By advocating that my club use the WBF alert rules, you are saying what is expected or unexpected here.

In many clubs in England a 15-17 notrump is unexpected; in most clubs in North America 12-14 is unexpected. Which range do you think should be alerted?

Wouldn't it be much simpler to exchange convention cards and not alert any NT bid that doesn't contain unbalanced hands, discontiguous ranges or is otherwise conventional?

[Vampyr]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-05, 01:23, said:

Wouldn't it be much simpler to exchange convention cards and not alert any NT bid that doesn't contain unbalanced hands, discontiguous ranges or is otherwise conventional?

This has the potential to bring back some of the UI problems the announcement was intended to prevent. If you look at the card to find out the range, then you cared what it was.

[nige1]

If partner almost always replies to your one opener, no matter how weak his hand, IMO, you should alert his reply. Perhaps a professional playing in a professional circle, may plead "General Bridge Knowledge and Experience" but in other contexts, it is normal to pass on very weak hands.

If the rules stipulated that you announce all partner's calls, unless opponents explicitly forbid, then most problems would disappear.

[gnasher]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-05, 01:23, said:

Wouldn't it be much simpler to exchange convention cards and not alert any NT bid that doesn't contain unbalanced hands, discontiguous ranges or is otherwise conventional?

That's another example of a regulation that would work well in some countries but not in others. Have you ever played in an ACBL event?

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2012-May-05, 06:08, said:

That's another example of a regulation that would work well in some countries but not in others. Have you ever played in an ACBL event?

I've never been to America but I'm told that the ACBL have their own strange ideas e.g. about stop-cards and enforcement of disclosure-rules. That might be OK if the WBF just let them get on with their "Fairy Bridge" variant. Unfortunately, the WBF is adopting retrograde ACBL practices such as allowing defenders to ask "having none?"