[Fluffy]

Today happened twice. I alerted my 3 club response to 2NT, and I was writing puppet, then they clicked the bid, and then I wrote stayman. The new window that popped when they clicked got rid of the first word, so I alerted as only "t stayman"

On the next round I alerted my 3 spade bid, and when I was trying to type 4 hearts, they clicked and it got erased midway, so had to start from scartch.

[smerriman]

Agree that's annoying, but if you were planning to alert it anyway, why not type the description before you make the bid so that it shows up instantly? Saves the opponents from having to click in the first place.

I find it pretty frustrating when my opponent makes a bid and then makes a delayed alert, rather than doing them both together as you're meant to.

[pilowsky]

I understand that some players believe that differences in time before a bid is made conveys special information about a bid.
How does this affect the principle of filling in the alert prior to making the bid?
FWIW - kibitzing the game over the past few days I've seen multiple alerts with no description.

[mycroft]

With the opponents passing throughout:

1 "12-14" NT
2 "to play 2!D, or various INV+ hands" ♣
2 "forced" ♦
3 "GF, 4!H + 5+!D" ♥
4 ♥

Now, some of these calls will, barring cut/paste, chatbot, or other assistance, take some time to bid. The opponents, seeing the explanation, will be able to judge how much time was typing and how much was thinking. The director, if called, can also work this out. Partner - who knows the system, and knows what partner is typing, even though he can't see the words - also knows how much time was typing and how much was thinking. And knows when there's actionable UI from the pause, and when the UI is "takes time to type 20 characters".

Yes, there's a style of "Alert the bid, everyone knows what it is, so if they want to ask they can" - which is disruptable as in the OP when both opponents click on the call for explanation, at slightly staggered time. It certainly flows better when everyone does know what it is, though, so swings and roundabouts.

There's also the people who will see the grey squircle and click on it, without noticing the explanation on the screen. Then the person who explained before bidding has to work out if it's an auto-ask or if they need a different explanation than they gave. Which I'm about 70% on guessing right (and about 20% "oh, yeah, their confusion makes sense. I should make a more clear first explanation for this call.")

And then, at least in ACBL games, there's the "3 HCP/s" defence to an announced weak NT, which works about as well online as IRL. Which is occasionally disrupted/mimicked by the "partner doesn't think they have to announce their 1NT range" or "partner doesn't announce or alert transfers or conventional defences to 1NT" and the question needs to be answered before the next call happens.

Perthing's nofect. And you can't play bridge without passing UI.

[barmar]

The Laws only define "unexpected" alerts as being extraneous information. So if partner's bid takes a little longer because they're typing an expected alert explanation, it shouldn't be a problem.

There could potentially be a problem if partner takes a long time to make a bid that you don't think requires an alert. But you don't know that the delay was due to typing an explanation.

And online bridge is subject to lots of delays unrelated to the current bridge action at all -- household distractions, looking at previous results, checking email. While the Laws technically justify treating these all as breaks in tempo subject to adjudication, I'd be loathe to do so outside very formal tournaments.