[barmar]

hrothgar, on Mar 22 2006, 04:19 PM, said:

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...

Except that in most online bridge games, you can enter the explanation as you're making the bid and alerting it. This is considered preferable over waiting for the opponent to request an explanation. Unlike f2f bridge, there's no UI problem from unsolicited explanations.

Some systems, like the OKplus interface to OKbridge, don't even have a separate alert button, you type an explanation with the bid and the system automatically alerts.

[FrancesHinden]

The rules are not very helpful for pick-up partnerships. I agree that if you make an artificial bid that you haven't discussed with partner but that you are frantically hoping he/she will understand a particular way then it is very tough on the opponents not to say more than "no agreement".

A good way to explain this sort of call is something like

"We haven't discussed this, but it's common in our country to play this as 10-12 balanced" (or whatever)

Or, if you've got no further than agreeing to play "SAYC" and you believe the bid is defined within SAYC, you say

"We haven't discussed this, but in SAYC it is supposed to mean..."

This ensures that the opponents have the same level of knowledge as you, as well as meaning they won't necessarily be surprised if partner screws up.

[jillybean]

Having no clear agreements is equally tough on the player with a pickup partner or playing with a sub.

I agree that if you have said ‘sayc p’ you should explain your bid according to your understanding of sayc, you have an agreement with your partner. If you are playing sayc with a sub who flies the USA flag and has sayc on their profile when your opps query 1nt:2C you need to explain your bid as asking for 4 card major, you have an implied agreement.

There are times when ‘no agreement’ IMHO is the correct response. Playing with pick up partners or subs, often the players are from different countries, likely not speaking the same language. In this example Wayne plays the bid as a good ♠ raise,had no idea of how his partner would understand it but hoped it would be forcing. It looks like his partner understood the bid as a NT game try. Explaining the bid as anything other than ‘no agreement’ IMHO is wrong.

Next the opps will be calling because of misinformation

jb

[helene_t]

I sometimes explain a call as "minors (I hope)". By this I mean that we have some vague implicit agreement about this. Partner may not understand my bid correctly but my alert is based on the idea that partner is more likely to guess correctly than are opps (agreed on some general approach from which it hopefully follows what this bid means, posted something on the forum that suggests he would interpret this call in that way, etc).

[Codo]

I like the way Frances and Helene handle it and have just one more thought:
If I play at BBO and explain my bids correct (f.e "minors I hope"):
What will I loose? Maybe a board or two while playing for fun.
What will I win? My opps. will play better, because they know, what I have and they will act better, bid better and defend better, so it will be much more challenging for me. Great advantage in my view.
If I just say: No discussion, they may find some silly bids and play in the wrong contracts. Sorry, this is not my goal here.

Playing for money or in an important event, things are different.
There, I would tell them as few as allowed and requested by the law. But even tehn, Frances explanations are correct: "We agreed Acol, so this is 11-12 balanced."