[peachy]

I started a new thread having read a comment in the "Tentative Results" thread.

My opinion is that there should be no alerting in the bidding contest. First, because alerting rules around the world vary and, second, because there are no opponents who care or want to know.

[TimG]

I don't care what the rules are, but I didn't alert any bids in the first round, it didn't really occur to me.

[Elianna]

I don't think that the contest needs alerting for the sake of alerting, but it might be nicer for the operator to understand what is going on. I agree that if partner can see alerts we shouldn't alert, but maybe PM the operator so he/she will at least be let in on the joke if necessary.

[Lobowolf]

I alerted, because I thought the operators and specs might want to know what the heck was going on, and it could be helpful in any post-mortem/thread discussion.

[jdonn]

I went even farther than alerting, I did all my thinking outloud for the whole table to see. I hope my partner didn't take advantage.

[gnasher]

My partner and I explained all of our non-natural bids, so that the operator and spectators would know what was going on. It's not very interesting to watch an auction where you don't know what any of the bids mean.

In any case, the meanings of our bids might affect the opponents' bdding, so it ought to be required to explain anything that isn't obvious.

I don't see any benefit to alerting as well as explaining.

[Elianna]

Yes, by alerting I mean explaining the bids. Just pressing the alert button seems rather pointless.

[gnasher]

It seems to me that:
- If partner can't see your explanations, you should explain everything that isn't obvious.
- If partner can see your explanations, you should find some other way to tell the operator and kibbitzers what's going on.

So, if you explain the bid but don't alert it, can partner see it?

[kayin801]

You can chat to kibitzers, which will do the job, right?

[inquiry]

If there are spectators, alerting seems a friendly thing to do. I tell the players if they ask that alerts are not necessary, but it will keep the table host interested (meaning me).

All hands in round 2 have been vetted by simulations so that there is a clear best contract (under the given condiditions). I should have done that on round 1, but I picked hands that I thought were interesting to me for one reason or the other, and got four or five not so good hands for a bidding contest.

[peachy]

inquiry, on Aug 1 2010, 06:00 PM, said:

If there are spectators, alerting seems a friendly thing to do. I tell the players if they ask that alerts are not necessary, but it will keep the table host interested (meaning me).

All hands in round 2 have been vetted by simulations so that there is a clear best contract (under the given condiditions). I should have done that on round 1, but I picked hands that I thought were interesting to me for one reason or the other, and got four or five not so good hands for a bidding contest.

I have no problem alerting but the alert regs I am familiar with are ACBL. People from other countries know their regs. This is all a fun and friendly thing so probably would be going overboard to establish which alerting regulations we should follow

[gnasher]

I think we can rely on common sense - if you think the operator or kibbitzers might be usure what a bid means, explain it. The cost of an unnecessary explanation is small.

[Ant590]

It was not so much what to alert that was my concern, more that in a bidding room partner can see our alerts. Given all the talk about system notes earlier I presumed this would be an issue!

[gnasher]

Ant590, on Aug 2 2010, 11:07 AM, said:

It was not so much what to alert that was my concern, more that in a bidding room partner can see our alerts. Given all the talk about system notes earlier I presumed this would be an issue!

Yes, that would definitely be an issue for me. I don't want to see any of my partner's explanations or alerts, or even to know that he has explained something.

Are you saying that an explanation without an alert is visible to partner?

[gnasher]

gnasher, on Aug 2 2010, 11:44 AM, said:

Are you saying that an explanation without an alert is visible to partner?

I'm not sure why I asked that instead of just testing it for myself. Anyway, I see that explanations are, in fact, visible to partner.

Now that I understand the problem, my vote would be, in order of preference:
(1) Find a way to make the explanations invisible to partner
(2) Make the explanations by private chat to the operator and any kibbitzers
(3) Go back to using teaching tables, and tell the players not to click the "movie" button

The things I wouldn't like are:
(4) Making explanations that are visible to one's partner
(5) Not providing explanations at all

[Free]

Playing MOSCITO we agreed to alert all natural bids (less work). We never alerted

[cherdanno]

gnasher, on Aug 2 2010, 05:52 AM, said:

gnasher, on Aug 2 2010, 11:44 AM, said:

Are you saying that an explanation without an alert is visible to partner?

I'm not sure why I asked that instead of just testing it for myself. Anyway, I see that explanations are, in fact, visible to partner.

Now that I understand the problem, my vote would be, in order of preference:
(1) Find a way to make the explanations invisible to partner
(2) Make the explanations by private chat to the operator and any kibbitzers
(3) Go back to using teaching tables, and tell the players not to click the "movie" button

Ctrl-K probably works well enough for (2).