[otangu]

In live games at the clubs bids over 3NT are usually not alerted unless the opponents inquire.

In BBO games, should the player alert her bid over 3NT?

[hrothgar]

Depends on who is running the event

[Douglas43]

If it is an EBU event self-alerting on BBO is required even when it does not apply in face to face bridge: extract follows from the EBU's Sky Blue Book 2021 Sky-Blue Book (ebu.co.uk)

["BB" refers to the "Blue Book" which covers face to face bridge]

"1.2 Alerting and announcing (BB 4, WB 1.3)

EBU online games on BBO use ‘self-alerting’ – players alert their own calls, not their partner’s.This section assumes that alerting and explaining is using ‘self-alerting’ and the chat facilities,as provided by BBO and RealBridge. EBU events on RealBridge with ‘partner-alerting’ followthe face-to-face alerting and announcing procedures in the EBU Blue Book.

1.2.1 What to alertA player should alert any call that would be alerted or announced (by partner), as defined inBB 4 – so that includes NT opening ranges, transfers, Stayman and opening two-bids, as well asmore obviously conventional calls. Opening bids which are unexpected are alerted – including(potential) canapé and ‘always unbalanced’.Above 3NT, the rules in BB 4.B.4 do not apply for alerting bids and passes: bids and passesabove 3NT should continue to be alerted if artificial or unexpected...." [emphasis added]

It seems only fair and sporting to self-alert, I'd be surprised if other governing bodies ruled differently

[mycroft]

While everyone is right ("it depends"), and from posting history, you are in Turkey, so I don't know their regulations, I don't know of an organization that doesn't say "when self-alerts are in play, Alert all Alertable calls, even those that wouldn't be Alerted FtF". Frequently, they go farther than that - "even if it's not Alertable, if it's unusual enough that the opponents should know, go ahead and tell them".

The point is that there comes a point in every auction where the Alerts (and explanations, if asked) help the bidding side more than the opponents. Having played a crazy artificial Precision system, I can assure you that even though we were very practised and had it down, it was still comforting to know that partner got it from the Alert. I also can assure you that there are many who play similarly complicated systems who are *not* practised as well as we were, and while they didn't deliberately rely on that crutch, were much better if the opponents asked and they were able to explain to partner what they thought the auction went. Even if you're not playing a crazy artificial system, this happens to a greater or lesser extent in higher auctions.

So, at the table, many regulators have put in "these are not Alertable" - arbitrarily, but hoping to catch 95% of the "help partner more" auctions while minimizing "but we really needed that Alert" auctions. Frequently, it's "don't alert past 3NT" (sometimes, 'except for initial action') and "don't Alert some doubles" (of various sorts, again, possibly 'except for initial action'), because those are the calls where not being on the same page can really damage the bidders, so we don't want to help them stay on track through unauthorized information.

Online, where your self-alerts don't show up to partner (sure, you can frequently tell she wrote *something* because it took too long to bid, but not necessarily what), the danger of "keeping us on track with the Alerts" is minimized. So the same regulators also say "online (and behind screens), Always."

That's the theory. If you're playing ACBL or EBU, that's the practise as well. If you're playing TBF, you'll have to check.

[Tramticket]

Why wouldn't you alert? Your opponents are entitled to know your methods.

[AL78]

Tramticket, on 2021-January-18, 17:06, said:

Why wouldn't you alert? Your opponents are entitled to know your methods.

There is an argument that we could do away with alerting completely, everyone has fully completed system cards, and the opponents can ask if they need to know the meaning of a bid.

[mycroft]

didn't work when it was tried before (granted, that was 60 years ago, before Alerts at all), won't work now.

Why would you even look at 1NT-2♣; 2♦-3NT; for instance (you're going to be shocked when the next call is 6♦, though)? or 1♦-1NT-X-2♠; p-p-p (you have a 9 card diamond fit to 150 honours)? Or 2♥-2♠ (note; opener's going to pass)?

[barmar]

Most of the regulations about not alerting certain calls are predicated on the idea that it's more likely to help partner than help the opponents (even though there are Laws that say that partner's alerts are UI to you, it's hard to unhear them and difficult for the TD to tell that they took advantage of it).

This reasoning goes away when partner doesn't see your alerts, as in playing online or with screens. Therefore, it's generally considered acceptable to over-alert, and this is often enshrined in screen and online regulations where they exist as adjuncts to traditional alerting regulations. Even if it's not explicitly stated in regulations, it's hard to imagine being punished for going beyond what they require in these contexts.

[blackshoe]

Hm. Is "it's hard to imagine being punished for violating the rules" a good excuse for violating the rules?

[mycroft]

What barmar said and your paraphrase are different. Critically so, here.

"going beyond what they require" can be legal, and in many cases, "no more than absolutely required" can be illegal, or at least improper. The entire "Active Ethics" campaign "goes beyond what is required" in ways encouraged by the ACBL.

With the new ACBL Alert Procedure, there are a list of Natural bids that must be Alerted. It does not say "do not Alert Natural bids not in this list". I asked, and that is very deliberate. If you play a Natural call that is not in that list, but is unusual enough that the opponents are likely to be damaged if they just assume it's "natural" (no capital), you are not violating the regulations if you Alert it.

It's not violating the regulation if you don't either, but there's a name for people who deliberately try to minimize disclosure given to the opponents.

Obviously, the ACBL's appendix O specifically states to (paraphrased) "explain all Alertable calls and anything else you feel the opponents should know". But where your regulator is even less organized than the ACBL for online play, "it doesn't say that I must, but it doesn't say that I shouldn't, and bridge is a game of full disclosure, after all" - it is in fact hard to imagine being punished for that.

[johnu]

AL78, on 2021-January-19, 03:41, said:

There is an argument that we could do away with alerting completely, everyone has fully completed system cards, and the opponents can ask if they need to know the meaning of a bid.

Everybody is entitled to one crappy idea.

[blackshoe]

Nice passive-aggressive put-down, Mycroft.

[mycroft]

Heh, that could refer to several parts of that response. I hope it was one of the ones that didn't reference you - that wasn't intended.

But I'm the first to admit that passive-aggressiveness is one of my traits...to my detriment sometimes. I need to work on that. Apologies, if needed.

[AL78]

johnu, on 2021-January-20, 15:20, said:

Everybody is entitled to one crappy idea.

It wasn't actually my idea, it was suggested to me over 20 years ago by my student housemate/bridge partner. I personally don't think it is a good idea.

[barmar]

AL78, on 2021-January-23, 11:02, said:

It wasn't actually my idea, it was suggested to me over 20 years ago by my student housemate/bridge partner. I personally don't think it is a good idea.

Many years ago a friend of mine suggested that full disclosure itself should be discarded. He thought it would be interesting if bridge were more of a code-breaking challenge.

But he also wasn't an active bridge player AFAIK.