[onoway]

I was surprised tonight in a tourney at the announcement that since it was an indy "artificial bids need not be alerted, in fact alerts were discouraged, and if a bid was questioned the response was to be "no partnership agreement"."

I have no quarrel with the tourney; it was well run and fun, and I was pleased with my results.

But..this policy disturbs me. If you have two expert or even advanced playing against two intermediates and they use bids any advanced should know but are likely unknown to many intermediates, isn't it just expanding the handicap already faced by the intermediates? Aside from that, it seems to me to be encouraging a - to me - VERY bad habit of secrecy and obfuscation too many on BBO already practice. Is this just to speed up the game? Does anyone else find this a questionable policy?

[Hanoi5]

That seems very wrong. I'm not sure it should be legal.

[peachy]

onoway, on Nov 27 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

I was surprised tonight in a tourney at the announcement that since it was an indy "artificial bids need not be alerted, in fact alerts were discouraged, and if a bid was questioned the response was to be "no partnership agreement"."

I am sure this means "need not be alerted if nothing was discussed with partner". It is a sensible rule in an indy where partnerships do not discuss anything or only say 2/1 Std carding, or something like that. The rule is a good protection from ignorant opponents who insist [illegally insist, to be exact] that you explain something when there truly is no agreement.

But perhaps I am reading too much to the statement. However, it is a real pain in the B-hind to deal with persistent inquiries when partner is a stranger and nothing was discussed. Any other explanation than "no agreement" is in fact illegal in the case when there IS NO AGREEMENT and two strangers are playing together for one or two hands.

[Wackojack]

There is no point in making an artificial bid unless you believe that partner will know that it is artificial. That does not mean that you have a pre-agreement. Thus with this ruling you can take advantage of your less experienced opps and not explain to them that for example your cue bid of their minor is showing 5-5 in the majors which to your expert partner you would expect to understand. Surely to restore equity it is incumbent on you to alert to your opps what this bid means. This ruling is bad.

[helene_t]

When I direct indy's, I always say in tourney chat that there is no need to alert or explain anything unless an explicit partnership agreement has been made, such as "WJ2005, p" or "your profile, p".

It is true that if two experts play against two beginners, the experts could use some gadgets such a splinters or scrambling 2NT which they would assume their expert p to understand. That would be an implicit agreement that should be alerted in principle. But in an indy, you have no way of knowing that your p is an expert, and that he knows that you are an expert.

[brianshark]

This policy is completely normal and is common sense. It would be stupid to have any alerts in individuals because alerts disclose agreements and in an individual there are none. (Assuming there are no additional agreements between partners surplus to the prescribed system - which I assume is the situation we are all talking about.)


And I'm sorry, but I don't buy the argument that two experts should have to disclose their artificial bids to their novice opponents. It's not their job to teach the other two how to play bridge, be it in their false-card techniques, psyches, or common sense bridge auctions. If they have no system then any time they make an artificial bid, they are hoping that their partner will understand but the opponents deserve no such automatic explanation just because their bridge knowledge isn't as good as the expert's.

[onoway]

Many people use their profile to indicate what they play. I use this as a guide to what my pard is doing/will understand even if there has been nothing said. I assume most other people do this as well.

It is not the place of people to teach other people how to play bridge in a tourney. However, this just seems to me to be in direct contradiction to the spirit of the game, and certainly does lead to people saying "no agreement" when they are playing as pairs as well, when there likely IS partnership understanding.

Understood that it hurries the game up. It's less certain that it doesn't diminish the enjoyment/ the quality of play. I was just surprised to see such a point made of actively discouraging alerts. In tourneys I have been in 'til now, this may have been the policy, but it hasn't been hammered home several times during the tourney. Obviously it's nice to win, but it always bewilders me that some people go into these things as though their firstborn is at risk. To win a hand because your opps had no idea what you were doing seems to me to be a very shallow sort of victory.

I thought it was one thing to say alerts were not required and another to say they were actively discouraged.

[helene_t]

onoway, on Nov 28 2008, 05:08 PM, said:

To win a hand because your opps had no idea what you were doing seems to me to be a very shallow sort of victory.

But a bid that is unclear to opps will also be unclear to partner. Therefore it is not likely to cause the bidder to win.

I think it's important to stress that full disclosure applies to agreements. Too many players, both on BBO and at clubs, will ask opponents how they interpret a bid made by partner, even in the absence of a partnership agreement, and will make guesses when opps ask about a bid which is not covered by an agreement. At BBO, where there are self-alerts and explanation is seen by opps only, this can give opps an unfair (well, in any case: illegal) advantage: If I make a jump overcall and explain it as "weak", opps know that I have a weak hand, while p has to guess if I have a weak hand or not.

In indys there is (usually) no special partnership understanding and therefore nothing to alert. Players who successfully get opps to explain how their bids are intended would create an illegal advantage for themselves. I think it makes sense to discourage players from honoring unwarranted explanation requests. By giving information to which opps are not entitled, they would damage themselves and the field.

[peachy]

Wackojack, on Nov 28 2008, 07:38 AM, said:

There is no point in making an artificial bid unless you believe that partner will know that it is artificial. That does not mean that you have a pre-agreement. Thus with this ruling you can take advantage of your less experienced opps and not explain to them that for example your cue bid of their minor is showing 5-5 in the majors which to your expert partner you would expect to understand. Surely to restore equity it is incumbent on you to alert to your opps what this bid means. This ruling is bad.

There is no way of knowing what level player your partner is. The self-ratings in profiles are notoriously poor source of information. When you make an undiscussed artificial , or any, bid, you make it in the hope partner understands it. If you make it having agreed, say, 2/1, you hope your unknown partner plays the same style as you do, having discussed nothing further. Any decent human being will disclose to the opponents what the bid means if they have had any discussion about it! Only a cheat would hide it.

As to advantage of expert players over less experienced or less skilled ones - that exists in every aspect of the game. Should experts stop executing squeezes or stop counting the hands or stop using their judgment because their opponents might not have these skills? And how does one assess the skill or bridge knowledge level of unknown opponents?
The tourney organizer is free to make any rules he/she wants to make, on BBO. If a player does not like those rules, he will vote with his feet and play elsewhere where there may be different rules (such as no psyches, ugh).

[kenberg]

Rule 1 is that online indys are not to be taken seriously and rule 2 is that rule 1 trumps all other rules. Some indy players are quite good, others haven't a clue. The other day my partner, at trick one, with no particular reason for deception, led the 9 from JT9xx. Who knows why. 0 or 2 higher maybe? Ugh.

My preferences:

I hope my partner opts for natural bids whenever possible.

I prefer to alert quite a bit but within reason. Thus: 2D is alerted as weak. I refuse to say what suit quality it promises. At best I might say that I am not given to ultra weak action.

With very few exceptions, I accept the authority of the director as absolute even when I regard it as bizarre.

I favor keeping a sense of humor when playing an indy. I usually succeed.

If a director tells me I cannot alert I won't. I prefer otherwise though, and would probably seek a different tourney in the future. It's not so much a fairness issue with me as just thinking that it is not much fun playing against artificial unalerted bids.

[onoway]

I was pleased with my results in the tourney and none of the opps did anything weird to me, in case anyone misunderstands.
My (unknown) pard at one point, however, bid something that one of the opps did NOT understand and it really messed him around. He bid something that clearly demonstrated he had no idea what my pard's bid was indicating, and which would have led to a massive penalty for them. His pard tried to clarify/save. On his next turn he was taking forever to bid and obviously considering doing something more which would make things much worse for them, based on the misunderstanding of an artificial bid. I private messaged him as to what I THOUGHT the original bid meant ( I was right) so the game could continue, (probably breaking 45 rules by doing so). It was clear we could stomp them severely by taking advantage but what is the point? It seemed to me to continue to take advantage would be closer to cheating than I am comfortable in being. We still stomped them, as by then the damage was done, but at least we didn't leave someone with a bad feeling about the game. This is the scenario which makes me uncomfortable to have been given the official seal of approval

[TylerE]

More info needed.

Are we talking about something like 1NT-(p)-4♥-(4♠)?

[kenberg]

As long as the rules are announced I think you should just play them as they are. If the opponents stumble, they need to accept this. I just finished an indy. Usually in 12 bds there are few if any issues but I had a couple.

A. 1N-(2H)-?. I'm holding a seven card spade suit and wish to play in game. I am also holding two small hearts, unfortunately. What would partner make of 4H? I've seen him before, he is a fully capable player, but I just bid 4S anyway. He will take that as spades, I trust. A heart is led and Kxx hits. Oops. Well, I still made it. Made 6 actually. Don't ask.

B. 1C by pard-(pass) -1N by me -(2S) -X by pard-(pass)- ?

OK imo this should be a penalty double. I hold six points and six clubs. Maybe the pull is right anyway. Maybe partner means it as TO (I have three spades). I got it wrong. Pard indeed meant it as penalty. I apologized.

Playing in an indy means you guess a bit about partner's intentions. You have to be ok with that or you don't play in an indy. There is some point to saying that if I and my partner have to guess then so do the opponents. I just prefer it otherwise.

[H_KARLUK]

During the auction period, a player is entitled to have all previous calls
restated* when it is his turn to call, unless he is required by law to
pass. Alerts should be included when responding to the request. A player
may not ask for a partial review of previous calls and may not halt the
review before it is completed.
Inappropriate Communication between Partners :
Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in
which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures,
questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and
explanations given or not given to them.

[JoAnneM]

brianshark, on Nov 28 2008, 01:47 PM, said:

This policy is completely normal and is common sense. It would be stupid to have any alerts in individuals because alerts disclose agreements and in an individual there are none. (Assuming there are no additional agreements between partners surplus to the prescribed system - which I assume is the situation we are all talking about.)

This is simply not true. Even basic SAYC includes transfers which are alertable online, and 2/1 includes basic bids which are alertable like nmf and 4sf.

Also, to the post previous to mine (too bad they are not numbered) this thread is about online Individual tournaments, so I think quoting Bridge Law, which many of us do quite frequently, is useless.

[H_KARLUK]

Well, I think bridge tournament formats and whether online or live really immaterial.
The idea of alerts is to warn the opponents of a bid (or double or pass) which has an unexpected agreed meaning. It is always the duty of the partner of the bidder to alert the bid when required. (In Online here we use self alerts). If using bidding boxes, this is done by displaying the "alert" card. Otherwise the alert is given by saying "alert" or (in Britain but not in North America) by knocking the table. The definition of what bids require alerts varies from place to place - it is determined by the bridge organisation under whose aegis the tournament is being held. In Britain, most artificial bids must be alerted; in North America, alerts are required for bids which diverge from a defined standard set of meanings.

I do not see anything wrong using alerts to inform opponents about special agreements and methods not usual for others.

[peachy]

H_KARLUK, on Nov 28 2008, 11:05 PM, said:

Well, I think bridge tournament formats and whether online or live really immaterial.
The idea of alerts is to warn the opponents of a bid (or double or pass) which has an unexpected agreed meaning. It is always the duty of the partner of the bidder to alert the bid when required. If using bidding boxes, this is done by displaying the "alert" card. Otherwise the alert is given by saying "alert" or (in Britain but not in North America) by knocking the table. The definition of what bids require alerts varies from place to place - it is determined by the bridge organisation under whose aegis the tournament is being held. In Britain, most artificial bids must be alerted; in North America, alerts are required for bids which diverge from a defined standard set of meanings.

I do not see anything wrong using alerts to inform opponents about special agreements and methods not usual for others.

When the BBO tourney rules say "no alerts", you are breaking the rules in that tourney by alerting The unknown stranger who is sitting as partner is typically as much at a guess as the opponents are.

I don't see anything wrong in alerting either when there is an agreement/prior discussion with partner, implicit agreement, the sequence had happened before in this partnership, and so on. It is a core concept of the whole alert regulation to call opponents' attention to a bid they might want to inquire about, EXCEPT when the tourney rules say "no alerting" !!!

[barmar]

H_KARLUK, on Nov 29 2008, 12:05 AM, said:

I do not see anything wrong using alerts to inform opponents about special agreements and methods not usual for others.

But in an indy, you generally don't have any "special agreements". If you do, then of course you alert them.

[H_KARLUK]

Is Bridge game still supposed to be a partnership game? Or all of that is out the window?
Each player had to change partners after every round. Do not they try to agree abt a sys and carding and defence gadgets?
I saw $70 per participant Individual Contract Bridge Tournament Registration advertise somewhere. This can also be done online. So, when it's free or cheap "pastime" but when serious amounts "hey!" ?
Maybe I am a loyal member of old school that everytime thinking "if i donate my time it must worth to see sound reasonings".
Really, what's the object of the game?

[jikl]

Quote

Also, to the post previous to mine (too bad they are not numbered) this thread is about online Individual tournaments, so I think quoting Bridge Law, which many of us do quite frequently, is useless.

It is best to ignore his posts, he lives in his own little world where every bridge law is obeyed, the directors are gods and have room service while they wait to be never called since the game is run so well that noone can make a mistake.

Then when you bring into question the difference between offline and online bridge, you better hide. He only has one response, there IS no difference when it comes to the rules. This is despite the fact that you now cannot lead out of turn, you can't revoke, you can't make an insufficient bid, you can't make a scoring mistake; you get the picture.

But all the rules are exactly the same, leave him to his own little world, it saves aggravation.

Sean