BBO Discussion Forums: Always ask? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Always ask? Not very convenient

#21 User is offline   mgoetze 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,942
  • Joined: 2005-January-28
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cologne, Germany
  • Interests:Sleeping, Eating

Posted 2012-April-08, 05:54

View PostVampyr, on 2012-April-08, 03:19, said:

This is quite a good idea. This could be extended above 3NT too, so that Texas transfers are alerted. We pay these, and recognise that the opponents have a similar problem when it goes 1NT-4, not even alerted.

Incidentally in Germany there is a specific exemption to the "don't alert above 3NT" rule for the first round of bidding, so 1NT-4(TRF) is alertable, while p-1NT-4(TRF) is not.
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
    -- Bertrand Russell
0

#22 User is offline   dcrc2 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 68
  • Joined: 2010-October-20

Posted 2012-April-08, 06:57

With one partner I'm currently playing methods which I think deserve a pre-alert (our 2-level pre-empts are rather unusual). I started off announcing this at the start of each round, but I found that this elicited two to three snide comments per session about playing unusual conventions. This gets a bit wearying after a while. So I've gone back to the bare minimum of plonking my CC in front of RHO. I would say it works pretty well. The front of the EBU card is reasonably good for this purpose (apart from the fact that it contains both 1NT responses and 2-level openings, and people frequently mistake one section for the other). Perhaps we could do with slightly better guidance on what to put in the section for "other aspects which opponents should note". The OB suggests putting two-suited overcalls in there, which is not an aspect of my opponents system I care about in the slightest; whereas artificial responses to suit openings are definitely worth mentioning.
0

#23 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,570
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-April-08, 08:55

View PostAlexJonson, on 2012-April-08, 03:39, said:

I don't see that Law 16 is an issue in this case.

I may ask because I am thinking of bidding or because I may need to know to understand any bids partner may make.

I may not ask because I already know.

I can't see that I create UI.

Well, all of those are UI. However, I think your point is that the UI doesn't demonstrably suggest anything in particular. And I agree. If you ask frequently (but not always), and there are different reasons for some of them, then partner can't really take any inferences.

The only problem would be if you hardly ever ask, and on the few occasions when you do it's for the same reason (you were thinking of overcalling in ). This could establish a pattern that partner recognizes, and then he has to be careful to avoid using the UI.

#24 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2012-April-08, 09:58

View Postmgoetze, on 2012-April-08, 05:54, said:

Incidentally in Germany there is a specific exemption to the "don't alert above 3NT" rule for the first round of bidding, so 1NT-4(TRF) is alertable, while p-1NT-4(TRF) is not.

This is why the rule in the Netherlands is: "Don't alert above 3NT, except in the first round of bidding, starting with the opening bid." Here both are alertable, which I think is sensible.

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
0

#25 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2012-April-08, 10:23

View Postmgoetze, on 2012-April-08, 05:54, said:

Incidentally in Germany there is a specific exemption to the "don't alert above 3NT" rule for the first round of bidding, so 1NT-4(TRF) is alertable, while p-1NT-4(TRF) is not.

View PostTrinidad, on 2012-April-08, 09:58, said:

Here both are alertable, which I think is sensible.

Quite sensible. The first round of bidding, IMO, doesn't end until all four people have had a turn to call. If I were the person making the rules, the first round "of bidding" would include:

P (P) 1H (P)
4-something. I am not sure it doesn't.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#26 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,686
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-April-08, 10:47

View Postaguahombre, on 2012-April-08, 10:23, said:

Quite sensible. The first round of bidding, IMO, doesn't end until all four people have had a turn to call. If I were the person making the rules, the first round "of bidding" would include:

P (P) 1H (P)
4-something. I am not sure it doesn't.


It does in the ACBL where the regulation is that alerts above 3NT are delayed until the end of the auction "starting with the opener's second turn to call". Note that if the meaning of the bid is such that it requires an alert, then it will be alerted at some point (assuming people are following the rules). There are no such bids for which the requirement to alert is cancelled.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#27 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2012-April-08, 10:51

Yeh, that's where I am (ACBL). Was trying to comment from afar on the sensibility of the German and Dutch regs alluded to by Mike and Rik. Here, we have different criteria.

Whatever the jurisdiction, I would think first responses and the first rebid by opener should be expected to be understood by the bidding side thoroughly enough that banning alerts of those bids is not necessary. I even think it has been codified in some general conditions to that effect (requiring a partnership to know what their early bids mean).
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#28 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,686
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-April-08, 11:46

There are regs to that effect (the ACBL has one) but the ones I've seen don't account for the "class of player" problem. Some beginners/novices are just not going to know what their bids mean, even on the first round (especially if there's interference). Telling them they must know, or adjusting scores in their opponents' favor, or whatever, because they don't is simply telling them they're not permitted to play bridge. Not a good idea, IMO. :ph34r:
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#29 User is offline   AlexJonson 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 496
  • Joined: 2010-November-03

Posted 2012-April-08, 12:40

View Postbarmar, on 2012-April-08, 08:55, said:

Well, all of those are UI. However, I think your point is that the UI doesn't demonstrably suggest anything in particular. And I agree. If you ask frequently (but not always), and there are different reasons for some of them, then partner can't really take any inferences.

The only problem would be if you hardly ever ask, and on the few occasions when you do it's for the same reason (you were thinking of overcalling in ). This could establish a pattern that partner recognizes, and then he has to be careful to avoid using the UI.


Thanks for your clarification.

I know that in a bridge 'philosophical' sense alerts and questions are not often AI, although the rules and regulations of the game require them.

On a forum it would be a bit tedious to say ' non AI that doesn't normally create a law 16 problem for partner' .

If I can read my partner in the auction (or they me) in the way you indicate, it is time to extend the use of screens IMO.
0

#30 User is offline   IanPayn 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 2005-November-13

Posted 2012-April-08, 14:56

[quote name='gnasher' timestamp='1333815553' post='628342']
You're under no obligation. You have a free choice: ask (or look at the card) every time and avoid giving UI; or save your breath and tell your partner to live with the UI problems.

++++Quite so. Just get on with it. You can tie yourself up in knots worrying about fatuous or irrelevant UI issues. Bid your hand, and leave the rest to providence. Try to do the right thing and you usually will. Sometimes you won't, sometimes a problem will arise, but you will never be able to avoid this, and wasting your life trying to second guess this sort of thing is not being a paragon of virtue. It's wasting your mental energy, which could be probably be better directed. Lord knows, mine could.
0

#31 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,570
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-April-08, 16:07

Thank you, Ian.

The only time I spend much mental energy trying to work out what I can and can't do because of UI is when my partner goes into the tank for a very long time, or when there's an issue related to an alert/non-alert or explanation that partner has given (e.g. what must I do after partner's explanation wakes me up to a misbid?). It's too hard to worry about whether I can safely ask a question when I think I need to know, and I'm not going to waste everyone's time asking always. If the director thinks that it caused a UI problem, I may grumble annoyance, but that's the way it goes.

#32 User is offline   jallerton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,796
  • Joined: 2008-September-12
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-April-08, 16:17

View Postblackshoe, on 2012-April-08, 02:28, said:

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but the law says that the RA gets to define the proper way to disclose, and the EBU has done that.


Not quite. The Law says that the RA gets to specify the manner in which partnership understandings are to be disclosed. That doesn't necessarily mean that the manner specified by the RA is "proper" or adequate.
0

#33 User is offline   jallerton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,796
  • Joined: 2008-September-12
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-April-08, 16:24

View PostVampyr, on 2012-April-08, 03:19, said:

This is quite a good idea. This could be extended above 3NT too, so that Texas transfers are alerted. We pay these, and recognise that the opponents have a similar problem when it goes 1NT-4, not even alerted.


Don't worry, I suggested that to the L&EC at the same time, but that idea was rejected as well. It's good to read that this is alertable in Germany, The Netherlands, USA and Canada.
0

#34 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,570
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-April-08, 16:27

In ACBL, Texas is announced.

#35 User is offline   jallerton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,796
  • Joined: 2008-September-12
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-April-08, 16:51

View Postbarmar, on 2012-April-08, 16:27, said:

In ACBL, Texas is announced.


Even better!
0

#36 User is online   paulg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,082
  • Joined: 2003-April-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scottish Borders

Posted 2012-April-09, 01:32

View PostVampyr, on 2012-April-08, 03:19, said:

This is quite a good idea. This could be extended above 3NT too, so that Texas transfers are alerted. We pay these, and recognise that the opponents have a similar problem when it goes 1NT-4, not even alerted.

View Postjallerton, on 2012-April-08, 16:24, said:

Don't worry, I suggested that to the L&EC at the same time, but that idea was rejected as well. It's good to read that this is alertable in Germany, The Netherlands, USA and Canada.


And Scotland :)
The Beer Card

I don't work for BBO and any advice is based on my BBO experience over the decades
0

#37 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

Posted 2012-April-09, 09:02

View Postmgoetze, on 2012-April-07, 14:34, said:

In Germany, we have a format which does not require any unfolding, and I prefer to use that.

Actually, I am surprised by Steffie's remarks, because we do in England as well. The SC has things people need to know on the front, no unfolding required. Glancing at it is quicker and more effective than the useless exchange of system we had at one time because opponents tell you things you do not need to know and not what you do.

View Postjallerton, on 2012-April-08, 02:13, said:

Before August 2006, there was a requirement in England for the pairs to tell each other their basic systems at the start of each round. This normally took about five seconds.

Since August 2006, this requirement has been abolished. Yes, the only requirement now is to exchange convention cards but I do not consider this to be a "proper way to disclose".

As explained above the previous method did not get you the required information so you needed to look at the SC as well.

View Postjallerton, on 2012-April-08, 16:24, said:

Don't worry, I suggested that to the L&EC at the same time, but that idea was rejected as well. It's good to read that this is alertable in Germany, The Netherlands, USA and Canada.

You make it sound as thought the EBU thought it a bad idea. The reason given at the time was that it was probably correct, but unfortunately had been suggested too late, and the L&EC did not want to fiddle with a new alerting system that had recently been put in place. In general it takes twelve years after any change for people to stop bleating "Why do they change the alerting every year?" so changing it a year later seemed a very poor idea even if the change was a good one.
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

#38 User is offline   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,408
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16

Posted 2012-April-09, 11:13

Heh, just got the opportunity last weekend to Alert my 1NT-4 call (Spades, South African Texas). Unfortunately, the opponents weren't the type to freak out about it and tell us that we just Announce Texas Transfers. Oh well, it will come up.

We had one again this weekend where it went 1NT-(2) Alerted and explained as "forces 2, could be long diamonds, or a major-minor two-suiter". I was hoping for double from partner, so I could Alert (and, hopefully, explain) as "forces 2, either a hand that wants to play 2 or various INV+ hands" (usually I skip the "forces 2" bit, because I feel it's incorrect explanation, but after that explanation of the overcall, I wouldn't have been able to resist). Unfortunately, partner decided to transfer instead.

On the original, unless I know the opponents are the type to use their explanations to keep on track, I always ask about weird stuff - and a 1-non-club Alert is "weird". I just can't imagine any hand other than "balanced crap" that wouldn't be considering some action if I knew what this Alert was, for any reasonable meaning of the call.

Transfer responses to 1 - well, I'm lucky, it's a pre-Alert here; I can usually remember :-)
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
0

#39 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2012-April-09, 14:30

View Postbluejak, on 2012-April-09, 09:02, said:

Actually, I am surprised by Steffie's remarks, because we do in England as well. The SC has things people need to know on the front, no unfolding required.


But it's always folded and kept under the bidding box, to save room on the table. So if you are looking at the "front", you can either unfold it or look at each half separately.

View Postmycroft, on 2012-April-09, 11:13, said:


Transfer responses to 1 - well, I'm lucky, it's a pre-Alert here.


Yes, you are.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#40 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,444
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2012-April-09, 14:32

View Postbluejak, on 2012-April-09, 09:02, said:

The SC has things people need to know on the front, no unfolding required.

Well, I have never seen four-level transfers on the front; perhaps they should be, as more than once an opponent would have assumed 1NT-(pass)-4H (unalerted) is natural. Fortunately, my partner and I regard the Law as an Ass, as Lord Denning would have said, and alert this, contrary to EBU advice. I am quite happy to accept the potential PP for doing so, as I regard it as active ethics.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users