[awm]

It seems to be common that there are some calls which officially require an alert, but where no adjustment will ever be made for a failure to alert regardless of potential damage. The reasoning is that these calls are so commonly conventional that any experienced player is always expected to ask when they come up at the table, so there can never be damage from a failure to alert them.

This seems a bit weird to me, because it would be advantageous to the "offending side" to simply never alert such calls, on the off chance that the opponents forget to ask (or are afraid to ask because of the potential information asking gives to the opponents or to partner). Nonetheless this is seemingly policy in a lot of places, for example:

Alerting stayman in the EBU
Alerting splinters in ACBL
Perhaps surprisingly, alerting defenses to 1NT in ACBL

[TimG]

Which policy is the poll directed at: the alert policy, or the policy of never making adjustment for failure to alert certain calls?

[Quantumcat]

It's good for extremely common conventions to not require an alert: then if it is alerted, you know it is not the convention you expect.

For the bidders: if 2♣ is not stayman or any version of it, and you alert it, if the opponent fails to ask then it is not your fault if they think you have a hand that you don't.
For the opponents: If it must be alerted, then there isn't a way to tell if it is stayman or something else without asking (and you don't want to ask in the middle of an auction if you can help it, since that would only help the opponents).

So for both sides, having common conventions be self alerting is beneficial.

Can you get into trouble for alerting things that are self alerting? You could be having a secret agreement with your partner about when you alert and when you don't. Can you get into trouble for not explaining an alert at the end of an auction if the opponents don't ask? For instance say 1♦ opening is either strong balanced or 5+ diamonds and you have an innocent-looking auction like 1♦ 1♥ 1NT. Do you have a responsibility to tell the opponents you have 17-19 balanced, and not 12-14 balanced as they might naturally expect? And does this change if you have a convention card at the table?

[awm]

TimG, on Aug 11 2009, 07:19 PM, said:

Which policy is the poll directed at: the alert policy, or the policy of never making adjustment for failure to alert certain calls?

The claim is that these policies are inconsistent, creating a situation where certain calls are de facto not alertable even though they officially require an alert. Whether the remedy is to eliminate the requirement for alerting these calls or to provide adjustments when the call is not alerted and opponents incorrectly (and to their deteriment) assume the non-alertable meaning depends on the call. I'd say that some of these calls (stayman, maybe splinters) should not be alerts and that others (defense to notrump) should lead to adjustments when natural is incorrectly assumed.

[gordontd]

awm, on Aug 12 2009, 12:29 AM, said:

It seems to be common that there are some calls which officially require an alert, but where no adjustment will ever be made for a failure to alert regardless of potential damage.

If an alert is required and damage exists from failing to alert, then an adjustment should be given.

Quote

Nonetheless this is seemingly policy in a lot of places, for example:

Alerting stayman in the EBU

Stayman is not alertable in the EBU.

[Rossoneri]

gordontd, on Aug 12 2009, 09:07 PM, said:

Stayman is not alertable in the EBU.

Quite right, I believe Stayman is announced in the EBU instead.

Edit: Shouldn't this thread be in the Bridge Laws Forum?

[NickRW]

awm, on Aug 12 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

TimG, on Aug 11 2009, 07:19 PM, said:

Which policy is the poll directed at: the alert policy, or the policy of never making adjustment for failure to alert certain calls?

The claim is that these policies are inconsistent, creating a situation where certain calls are de facto not alertable even though they officially require an alert.....

Can't speak about the situation in ACBL territory, but there is no "de facto" situation with regard to Stayman in the EBU - it is announceable (provided that you are using the standard, 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ responses), otherwise it is alertable.

However, given that a 2♣ response (as, say, a weak take out - which I think some teach to absolute beginners initially), would actually be unexpected in most circles and therefore theoretically at least should be alerted, opps would be well advised to ask about an unalerted, unannounced 2♣ at some point. Whether a director should rule MI in such a case, given that it is probably a complete beginner and it occurred in a class, "no fear" tournament or a club session that specifically welcomed beginners - well - it would seem harsh to me.

Nick

P.S. Later edit - I see that, on reading the fine print of the Orange Book, it does clearly state that weak take outs are not alertable or announceable - which is at slight variance with another rule about natural bids with unexpected meanings are alertable - I suppose the specific rule overrides the general one.

[paulg]

gordontd, on Aug 12 2009, 02:07 PM, said:

awm, on Aug 12 2009, 12:29 AM, said:

It seems to be common that there are some calls which officially require an alert, but where no adjustment will ever be made for a failure to alert regardless of potential damage.

If an alert is required and damage exists from failing to alert, then an adjustment should be given.

Except that ...

EBU Orange Book said:

3 A 3
It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side’s interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

Which is all very reasonable until your idea of what puts your side's interests at risk (in a time-sensitive situation) is different from the Director's considered opinion.

p

[gnasher]

cardsharp, on Aug 12 2009, 07:55 PM, said:

may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled

Was somebody paid for writing that?

[nige1]

awm, on Aug 12 2009, 12:29 AM, said:

It seems to be common that there are some calls which officially require an alert, but where no adjustment will ever be made for a failure to alert regardless of potential damage. If an alert is required and damage exists from failing to alert, then an adjustment should be given.

gordontd, on Aug 12 2009, 02:07 PM, said:

Except that ...

EBU Orange Book said:

3 A 3. It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side’s interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

cardsharp, on Aug 12 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

Which is all very reasonable until your idea of what puts your side's interests at risk (in a time-sensitive situation) is different from the Director's considered opinion.

I agree with Paul: IMO, according to Bridge Law,

• You may be denied redress if you don't protect yourself, by asking, in such situations
  
• If you ask about a non-alerted call then that is unauthorised information to partner.
  
• The law mandates that your partner avoid choosing an action suggested by your question, if there is a logical alternative.
  
• If the forbidden action would work well and it is the one partner would normally have taken, then you, the innocent side, are damaged.
  
• Although the director may not be able to provide redress to the victims, he may still penalise the law-breaker who failed to alert. But the law-breaker is quite likely to benefit, because a victim who realises he cannot gain, has little incentive to call the director.
  
• This is one of several unnecessary rules that create director problems and player resentment but add zero value.

[barmar]

It seems to me that the groups that make the alert rules are very conservative, so alert charts tend to lag behind common bidding by close to a decade. For instance, when I started playing bridge in the late 80's, negative doubles were practically universal among ACBL players, but I don't think they were made non-alertable until around 1995. And we still announce Jacoby transfers, despite the fact that almost all strong notrumpers have been using them for at least 20 years.

It's probably appropriate for changes to alerts to be infrequent. Most players have a hard time remembering what's alertable, and this gets even harder if they change every couple of years. But since bidding trends tend to evolve more frequently, this results in the lag.

[jeffford76]

awm, on Aug 11 2009, 04:29 PM, said:

Perhaps surprisingly, alerting defenses to 1NT in ACBL

I haven't found this one to be true. I've gotten an adjustment at least once when I played 4M down on the bad break when I'd have played 3NT with a correct alert of 2D/majors. In fact I'd find it very strange if there weren't an adjustment in a situation like this. Plenty of people still play natural overcalls here.

[nige1]

gordontd, on Aug 12 2009, 09:07 PM, said:

Stayman is not alertable in the EBU.

Rossoneri, on Aug 12 2009, 12:32 PM, said:

Quite right, I believe Stayman is announced in the EBU instead. Shouldn't this thread be in the Bridge Laws Forum?

The bit about Stayman could go there but

bluejak, on Jul 14 2009, 07:27 AM, said:

This (IBLF forum) is not really a forum to ask what the Laws should be, more to find the answers to problems, though perhaps towards the end of a Law book we might start considering what we should like to see in the next one.

Maybe, there should be a separate forum dedicated to suggestions for Bridge rule simplification, clarification, and improvement.

[FrancesHinden]

nige1, on Aug 12 2009, 09:49 PM, said:

awm, on Aug 12 2009, 12:29 AM, said:

It seems to be common that there are some calls which officially require an alert, but where no adjustment will ever be made for a failure to alert regardless of potential damage. If an alert is required and damage exists from failing to alert, then an adjustment should be given.

gordontd, on Aug 12 2009, 02:07 PM, said:

Except that ...

EBU Orange Book said:

3 A 3. It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side’s interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

cardsharp, on Aug 12 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

Which is all very reasonable until your idea of what puts your side's interests at risk (in a time-sensitive situation) is different from the Director's considered opinion.

I agree with Paul: IMO, according to Bridge Law,

• You may be denied redress if you don't protect yourself, by asking, in such situations
  
• If you ask about a non-alerted call then that is unauthorised information to partner.
  
• The law mandates that your partner avoid choosing an action suggested by your question, if there is a logical alternative.
  
• If the forbidden action would work well and it is the one partner would normally have taken, then you, the innocent side, are damaged.
  
• Although the director may not be able to provide redress to the victims, he may still penalise the law-breaker who failed to alert. But the law-breaker is quite likely to benefit, because a victim who realises he cannot gain, has little incentive to call the director.
  
• This is one of several unnecessary rules that create director problems and player resentment but add zero value.

The part you have quoted specifically says that you may be denied redress if you could have asked without transmitting unauthorised information. For example, when you are declarer you can ask without transmitting unauthorised information.

The EBU approach is to be extremely conservative, i.e. if you show you were damaged from a non-alerted but alertable call you will nearly always get a ruling in your favour. If you look at published rulings you will see that virtually always if there is no adjustment it is because it is decided that either there was no damage, or that the other side had no agreement about the meaning of the call in question.

The purpose of the caveat is to avoid giving what could be virtually a cheat's charter e.g. 1C (alerted, asked, explained as strong) Pass 1D (not alerted) Pass 1NT pass 3NT "Oh, if I knew that 1D should have been alerted I would have led a diamond against 3NT rather than my 5-card spade suit"

[paulg]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 13 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

nige1, on Aug 12 2009, 09:49 PM, said:

awm, on Aug 12 2009, 12:29 AM, said:

It seems to be common that there are some calls which officially require an alert, but where no adjustment will ever be made for a failure to alert regardless of potential damage. If an alert is required and damage exists from failing to alert, then an adjustment should be given.

gordontd, on Aug 12 2009, 02:07 PM, said:

Except that ...

EBU Orange Book said:

3 A 3. It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side’s interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

cardsharp, on Aug 12 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

Which is all very reasonable until your idea of what puts your side's interests at risk (in a time-sensitive situation) is different from the Director's considered opinion.

I agree with Paul: IMO, according to Bridge Law,

• You may be denied redress if you don't protect yourself, by asking, in such situations
  
  
• If you ask about a non-alerted call then that is unauthorised information to partner.
  
  
• The law mandates that your partner avoid choosing an action suggested by your question, if there is a logical alternative.
  
  
• If the forbidden action would work well and it is the one partner would normally have taken, then you, the innocent side, are damaged.
  
  
• Although the director may not be able to provide redress to the victims, he may still penalise the law-breaker who failed to alert. But the law-breaker is quite likely to benefit, because a victim who realises he cannot gain, has little incentive to call the director.
  
  
• This is one of several unnecessary rules that create director problems and player resentment but add zero value.

The part you have quoted specifically says that you may be denied redress if you could have asked without transmitting unauthorised information.

The part quoted specifically says that you may be denied redress if you could have asked for further clarification without transmitting unauthorised information.

As written, the Orange Book says you must ask to protect yourself initially even though you may be damaging your side's interests and/or transmitting UI. I have always presumed that this is a drafting error.

Paul

[awm]

Perhaps ACBL is worse in this respect than EBU, although the same policy seems to be there in both places. Here are a few examples of this which have occurred at my table in the past few years:

1NT-2♦(1)-4♥(2)-Pass-4♠-All Pass

(1) Not alerted. Agreement (marked on the CC) was diamonds and a higher suit.
(2) Transfer to spades.

Declarer did not ask about the unalerted 2♦ bid or look at the opponents card. He won the opening lead and pulled trumps (which divided 2-2). Then he took a line of play which relied on hearts dividing 3-3. If he had realized that the 2♦ call promised a four-card major in addition, he would have likely selected a different, more successful line. The directors ruled no adjustment, because "everyone plays conventional defenses to notrump" and "declarer should've protected himself by asking and/or looking at the card." Declarer in this case was relatively inexperienced, playing in his first regional-level tournament.

1♦-1♠-2♦-3♠-4♣(1)-4♠-5♦-All pass

(1) Neither alerted nor a delayed alert. Agreement was shortness (which requires a delayed alert since the auction is past 3NT).

The defending side assumed that 4♣ was a suit and dropped a trick on defense by not cashing their club early, allowing declarer to eventually discard his only club on one of the dummy's hearts. The defense would have been substantially easier if the defenders knew that 4♣ was shortness. The directors ruled that while there was a failure to deliver a delayed alert, people play 4♣ in this auction as many things (including natural, lead directional, ace asking, etc) and the defenders should've protected themselves by asking the meaning of 4♣. No adjustment. In this case both sides were playing in a national-level event (so presumably experienced).

1♥-2♣-Pass-4♦(1)-X-Pass-Pass-4♠-Pass-Pass-X-5♣-All pass

(1) Not alerted. Agreement was a splinter raise of clubs (which requires an alert since it is the first round of bidding).

The defending side assumed that 4♦ was some sort of natural (possibly fit-showing) call, and did not bid their diamonds at the five-level. The director was called at the end of the auction, and opener stated (before the play) that she would've bid 5♦ rather than double if she had known that 4♦ was totally artificial. The directors ruled that while there was a failure to alert, it is common to play 4♦ in this auction as a splinter and opener should've asked the meaning of the call. No adjustment (5♦ is making, 5♣ is one off). This was in a masterpoint-limited event at a national tournament.

------

In all cases the directors do obviously have a point that "many people play conventions here" and the other side "could've asked." But it seems like the de facto policy is that a failure to alert a common treatment or convention will never lead to an adjusted score, which seems to undermine the alert policy and provide incentive to cheaters (or just forgetful players) who routinely fail to alert (unless of course they are playing something really weird).

[matmat]

how inappropriate would it be every time you defend to just ask the declaring side to fully explain their auction?

[awm]

matmat, on Aug 13 2009, 02:46 PM, said:

how inappropriate would it be every time you defend to just ask the declaring side to fully explain their auction?

Of course one can try this. Sometimes people do. However, it carries with it a number of issues:

(1) It doesn't help you when you need to know the meaning of a call during the bidding.
(2) It annoys the opponents.
(3) Most opponents will not give anything resembling a complete explanation, requiring you to ask about specific calls if you want good information.
(4) If opponents call the director and claim that your questions gave UI to partner, the director will not believe that you "always ask about the bidding" and may adjust the board.

[cherdanno]

Did you ever have a director rule against you because you asked for an explanation of the auction? Also, at a serious event I have never seen opponents annoyed by asking for it.

[matmat]

awm, on Aug 13 2009, 02:55 PM, said:

(2) It annoys the opponents.

This is an issue?