[sceptic]

On a previous post I stated (good spade raise) when in reality (it was a pick up p) I wanted to force his hand for more desription (but unsure what)

would forcing pard to bid again be an adequate Alert or should I just say Undiscussed


this is previous post

http://forums.bridge...topic=13157&hl=

[JohnnyH7]

If you have not discussed it and have no implicit agreement, then undiscussed is the proper answer. In fact, any other statement would be misinformation.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

playing on BBO you self alert, i.e. you
explain the meaning of your bid.

You assume, that partner understands
the bid, if you think, he does not, why
make the bid?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[JohnnyH7]

P_Marlowe, on Mar 22 2006, 10:54 AM, said:

Hi,

playing on BBO you self alert, i.e. you
explain the meaning of your bid.

You assume, that partner understands
the bid, if you think, he does not, why
make the bid?

With kind regards
Marlowe

Hoping that partner will work out the meaning of your bid based on bridge logic does not make it alertable. The same bridge logic is available to the opponents. You ARE damaging the opponents if you give the opponents an explanation of your bid as if it is an agreement and your partner then takes it as something else and bids according to how he takes it. The opponents could draw incorrect conclusions from this. Here is an example...

1C (p) 1S (2H)
3H* (p) 3N**

3H alerted: good spade raise (what you actually have, not your agreement but you are trying to be helpful).

3N: bid on the assumption partner had long solid clubs with no heart stopper, OR a good spade raise (will correct 3N to 4S).

If the opponents believe, as they should, that you were alerting what your agreement was then the 3N bid would show something like weak trumps and a double stopper in hearts, not prime values (to suggest 3N with an 8 card major suit fit). However, the 3N bid is actually ANY hand that has a stopper. The opponents may now draw incorrect inferences and make a wrong lead or defense as a direct result.

Had you said "undiscussed" the opponents would obviously realize 3H is not natural. When you later raise spades, it's clear you had a good spade raise. This can be figured out by bridge logic which is available to both your partner and your opponents. No incorrect inferences will be drawn.

[jillybean]

Explain your PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, as required by the laws of bridge.
If you dont have one, 'no agreement' is correct, dont make one up and you dont have to tell the opps what you have in your hand.

The fact that we self alert on BBO does not change the laws.


jb

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean2, on Mar 22 2006, 11:26 AM, said:

<snip>
The fact that we self alert on BBO does not change the laws.
<snip>

Right, but the fact that we do not play face to face,
but online, changes the fact.

How will you ever know, that those two
guys, are no pick up but a regular partnership.

I remember all to well the discussions about
cheating.

The things said in this thread are relevant for face to
face, but I would strongly disagree that this things
are relevant as well for online.

Just look at the discussion about full disclosure, should
full disclosure (a convention card?) be known to the
user? No.
Now you make the bid, Full Disclosure says stopper ask,
but you claim, that you have no partnership agreement.

No.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hrothgar]

Couple comments here:

From my perspective, the appropriate question is NOT whether the game in question is online or face-to-face, but rather the formality of the event. I hate to bring anything as silly as "practicality" into this discussion, but most games on BBO are pickup in nature without any well established rule set. The issue is not what is right and proper, but rather what are the random expectations of the table server / tournament director. (In some ways there is an interesting parallel between partnership agreement and rule set agreement)

Lets assume for the moment that this is a "formal" game being run by a club like Homebase that is making an active effort to play by the rules of bridge. In this case, the appropriate action is to explain that you and your partner have no special agreement about the bid in question.

[luis]

P_Marlowe, on Mar 22 2006, 03:54 PM, said:

Hi,

playing on BBO you self alert, i.e. you
explain the meaning of your bid.

You assume, that partner understands
the bid, if you think, he does not, why
make the bid?

With kind regards
Marlowe

This is the root of all evils.

People think that playing online you have to alert what you have in your hand for your bids when they are not natural.

Absurd!

As some posters have said you only have to alert what a bid means when you have an agreement with your pd, the agreement can be either implicit or explicit. An example of an implicit agreement is when you repeat a bid that was made in your partnership before expecting pd to remember what the bid showed the first time, then you can alert and say what the bid is supossed to mean since you do have an agreement about it.

Let's say you get x, xx, Axxxx, KJxx. You pass as dealer and after 3 passes your RHO opens 1♠ in 4th position, you bid 1NT as minors since you are a passed hand, do you have to alert and say "minors" not at all unless this has happened before with your pd OR you have discussed what NT bids by passed hands would mean.

I see a LOT of confused players alerting things they shouldn't and I see a lot of (****) players demanding explanations about bids that don't need any explanation.

Luis

[cherdano]

Here are two examples I have seen recently where IMO "no agreement" was totally inappropriate:

1. Playing vs two British players, when I asked about 1S-3S, the answer was "you have seen our complete system discussion, so you know as much as I do", which had been "ok, lets play ACOL". Of course, British players have a much better chance at guessing whether this is a weak raise or invitational in ACOL, than I do.

(Well, actually they had a misunderstanding here, but I hope my point is clear.)

2. Two BBF regulars had the auction (1H)-P-(1N)-X. Common experience of many BBF discussions of course makes it clear to both that this double is takeout of hearts, and answering "no agreement" here is almost ridiculous.

If I were TD and I saw any of those bids understood correctly by partner, you might have a hard time convincing me there was no implicit partnership agreement.

Arend

[david_c]

cherdano, on Mar 22 2006, 06:58 PM, said:

2. Two BBF regulars had the auction (1H)-P-(1N)-X. Common experience of many BBF discussions of course makes it clear to both that this double is takeout of hearts, and answering "no agreement" here is almost ridiculous.

I hope you're right, but it seems almost impossible to distinguish this from Luis' example (1NT overcall by a passed hand, playing with an unknown pick-up), at least from a TD's point of view.

IMO the Laws (even in their "online" version) do not deal satisfactorily with self-alerting.

[csdenmark]

luis, on Mar 22 2006, 07:56 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Mar 22 2006, 03:54 PM, said:

Hi,

playing on BBO you self alert, i.e. you
explain the meaning of your bid.

You assume, that partner understands
the bid, if you think, he does not, why
make the bid?

With kind regards
Marlowe

This is the root of all evils.

People think that playing online you have to alert what you have in your hand for your bids when they are not natural.

Absurd!

As some posters have said you only have to alert what a bid means when you have an agreement with your pd, the agreement can be either implicit or explicit. An example of an implicit agreement is when you repeat a bid that was made in your partnership before expecting pd to remember what the bid showed the first time, then you can alert and say what the bid is supossed to mean since you do have an agreement about it.

Let's say you get x, xx, Axxxx, KJxx. You pass as dealer and after 3 passes your RHO opens 1♠ in 4th position, you bid 1NT as minors since you are a passed hand, do you have to alert and say "minors" not at all unless this has happened before with your pd OR you have discussed what NT bids by passed hands would mean.

I see a LOT of confused players alerting things they shouldn't and I see a lot of (****) players demanding explanations about bids that don't need any explanation.

Luis

You are on safe ground here Luis?

[han]

It seems to me that the BBO policies and what Luis wrote are in complete agreement with eachother. You don't need to alert what you have in your hand or even how you intend your bid, you only need to alert your explicit and implicit agreements.

Of course, Arend is right that many people do a lousy job in disclosing their agreements.

[paulg]

Hannie, on Mar 22 2006, 08:27 PM, said:

It seems to me that the BBO policies and what Luis wrote are in complete agreement with eachother. You don't need to alert what you have in your hand or even how you intend your bid, you only need to alert your explicit and implicit agreements.

Of course, Arend is right that many people do a lousy job in disclosing their agreements.

Although the BBO rules are clear, and Luis's example is understandable by many players, this still does not really deal with the issue of 'general bridge experience' being different from country to country.

Suppose two American players sit down and play with no discussion of system. The auction goes 1♥-(P)-2NT ... this will be unalerted as they have not discussed it, but all Americans know this is Jacoby. If it was two UK players then 2NT would be 10-12 balanced without agreement (natural).

So it may be following the rules, but do you want to win this way?

Paul

[JohnnyH7]

cardsharp, on Mar 22 2006, 03:44 PM, said:

The auction goes 1♥-(P)-2NT ... this will be unalerted as they have not discussed it, but all Americans know this is Jacoby.

That would constitute an implicit agreement.

[P_Marlowe]

JohnnyH7, on Mar 22 2006, 03:50 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Mar 22 2006, 03:44 PM, said:

The auction goes 1♥-(P)-2NT ... this will be unalerted as they have not discussed it, but all Americans know this is Jacoby.

That would constitute an implicit agreement.

Right.

The point is, that implicit agreement covers a whole
lot of ground, and you will make a bridge logic dictating
"art." call, you hope partner understands, because ...
In other words: alert the call, and be done with it.
This means sometimes you will tell the opponents what
you hold, but that is the price you have to pay sometimes
you ensure, that they are not damaged.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[luis]

JohnnyH7, on Mar 22 2006, 08:50 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Mar 22 2006, 03:44 PM, said:

The auction goes 1♥-(P)-2NT ... this will be unalerted as they have not discussed it, but all Americans know this is Jacoby.

That would constitute an implicit agreement.

Exactly.

[csdenmark]

Hannie, on Mar 22 2006, 10:27 PM, said:

It seems to me that the BBO policies and what Luis wrote are in complete agreement with eachother. You don't need to alert what you have in your hand or even how you intend your bid, you only need to alert your explicit and implicit agreements.

Of course, Arend is right that many people do a lousy job in disclosing their agreements.

What I question in Luis' statement is this: I see a LOT of confused players alerting things they shouldn't and I see a lot of (****) players demanding explanations about bids that don't need any explanation.

BBO rules:

Quote

If you have any doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert.

I know Luis is teaching beginners. I think a sentence like this: People think that playing online you have to alert what you have in your hand for your bids when they are not natural. is not to come up with. Luis knows that it is very difficult, even correct of course, deliberately to lie about your holdings you look at yourself. I have had problems with that too. Deliberately lies are not what you have in mind if you think you need to alert in order to explain a bid. I would have been pleased for a statement like this: Try to make solid agreements before you accept a partnership. Use a default convention card. For continuations outside specific agreements try to agree on pure natural.

For clarification - I don't have the problem myself - I let FD handle according to rules.

[hrothgar]

Can we drop the entire subject of Alerts?

Alerts are not the same as explanations...
Very different set of rules

I think that Sceptic made a mistake to reference the word Alert in his orginal posting...

[luis]

csdenmark, on Mar 22 2006, 09:12 PM, said:

Hannie, on Mar 22 2006, 10:27 PM, said:

It seems to me that the BBO policies and what Luis wrote are in complete agreement with eachother. You don't need to alert what you have in your hand or even how you intend your bid, you only need to alert your explicit and implicit agreements.

Of course, Arend is right that many people do a lousy job in disclosing their agreements.

What I question in Luis' statement is this: I see a LOT of confused players alerting things they shouldn't and I see a lot of (****) players demanding explanations about bids that don't need any explanation.

BBO rules:

Quote

If you have any doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert.

I know Luis is teaching beginners. I think a sentence like this: People think that playing online you have to alert what you have in your hand for your bids when they are not natural. is not to come up with. Luis knows that it is very difficult, even correct of course, deliberately to lie about your holdings you look at yourself. I have had problems with that too. Deliberately lies are not what you have in mind if you think you need to alert in order to explain a bid. I would have been pleased for a statement like this: Try to make solid agreements before you accept a partnership. Use a default convention card. For continuations outside specific agreements try to agree on pure natural.

For clarification - I don't have the problem myself - I let FD handle according to rules.

What is the problem? Both what I wrote and the alerting policy of BBO say the same.
Many many beginners are forced to say what they have or say what they have because they are afraid when playing with more experienced players.
So I'm going to defend them and tell them to follow the rules!

Luis

[blackshoe]

cardsharp, on Mar 22 2006, 03:44 PM, said:

Suppose two American players sit down and play with no discussion of system. The auction goes 1♥-(P)-2NT ... this will be unalerted as they have not discussed it, but all Americans know this is Jacoby.

Do they?

Some years ago, I was introduced to a prospective partner, who proudly announced "I play SAYC!" I said "Good, then you play Jacoby 2NT". She replied "What's that?"

Two and a half years later, we were still playing together - and she still didn't know (and we weren't playing) Jacoby 2NT.

We are, of course, both Americans.