[Chainat]

I played online as sub, with an unknown partner against a Slovakian pair playing precision.

They opened 1♠, I passed - so did openers partner, and as my partner bid 1NT - opener wrote in
public chat that they were playing presicion.
Opener re-bid 2♠, and I bid 4♥. (no clue about transfer or not at this stage)

I don't know enough precision to know all details, and as I was playing the board, I was still in the
SAYC/ACOL/2over1 world.

The guy who had passed 1♠ had already shown KJ in spades, and was therefore not to be able to
hold king of hearts - which I then tried to top out. I was quite surprised when the guy passing
a 1♠ opening bid now had 7 pts.

Afterwards I asked the TD - not to change the scores - but simply to enourage an alert on the pass bid.

I do believe that 1♠ with a point range 11-15 (16) should/must be alerted as well.
(Ok - the guy informed us of the presicion system)

The TD did not really get my point. In a "normal" system, a pass to an opening bid shows 0-5 pts.
But in this case - the responder already knows that a game seems impossible - as his partner has a
maximum of 15 (16) points - and therefore passes with 7 pts.

What do you say?

Alert or not?

Btw - a funny 1NT my partner found there.....
Would you had fallen into "the trap", just as I did?

[/hv]

No alerts, but after the 1NT bid - north informed all that they were playing precision.

---

[aguahombre]

I am not speaking as a TD.

I find that people who pre-announce that they are playing a forcing club frequently do not alert a 1M opening, because they have in-effect already implied that it contains less than 16 points.

However, most of the good ones alert the pass of 1S. Their reason for the alert is that, although pass is logical in their system with as much as 7 HCP it is not an expected maximum for those unfamiliar with the style.

On-line, I appreciate the frequent self-announcements of both the opening and the Pass, but do not know if they are required and would not look for remedy since I am already aware of the ranges.

[AlexJonson]

I wouldn't expect an alert.

[ggwhiz]

A very common trap for a player not familiar with precision to fall into especially when just told "we play precision" as if YOU are required to know the nuances?

I don't think the pass requires an alert by law but if not we need something else, a "lookout y'all". Go down that road and we will soon need 30 minutes per board.

[blackshoe]

"We play Precision."
"I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that system. What do I need to know?"

Yes, it might take a while to explain all the nuances.

Alerts are a matter of regulation, not law. TOs frequently (even f2f, in clubs) do not specify what regulations are in effect ahead of time, leaving it to "everybody knows" (which they don't) and to ad hoc decisions on a case to case basis. Unfortunate, but there it is. I would ask, before making the opening lead if I'm on lead, before it is faced otherwise*, whether there is anything I need to know about the auction. If it turns out later I was not fully informed, and that caused damage (IMO), I will call the TD and tell him so - but online I wouldn't expect a lot.

*Or as early in the play as I get the chance, if not before leading/the lead is faced.

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-17, 14:48, said:

Alerts are a matter of regulation, not law. TOs frequently (even f2f, in clubs) do not specify what regulations are in effect ahead of time, leaving it to "everybody knows" (which they don't) and to ad hoc decisions on a case to case basis.

The OP said this was played online, so assuming it was on BBO the BBO Regulations (found under "Rules of this Site" in the Flash Version amongst other places) apply: "If you have any doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert".

I think the pre-alert that they are playing Precision is sufficient to cover their 1M openings and passes thereof. If they hadn't pre-alerted that they were playing Precision, 1♠ is definately alertable as the mere fact that it is being discussed here suggests that there is some doubt.

[blackshoe]

The problem with that, of course, is that it leaves it up to inexperienced players to know that the pre-alert of "Precision" implies that they need to ask questions about many (most? all?) auctions, because any (all?) of them might have implications that are different to what they are used to seeing. The first problem with that is of course that such inexperienced players aren't going to know that, and the second is that it will add an awful lot of time to the play of almost every board. And the third problem is that they're quite likely to get inadequate disclosure anyway.

Online is the "wild west" of bridge. Whether that's good or bad depends, I suppose, on the individual concerned.

[mrdct]

An actively ethical precision pair on BBO will pre-alert that they are playing precision and will alert and describe their 1♣, 1♦ and 2♣ openings together with anything else that has an unexpected meaning; but all within reason.

If you type your explantions as or immediatley after you make each alertable call there is no slowing down of the game.

In practice, of course, alerting and disclosure on BBO is generally inadequate; but this poll was posted in the Laws & Rulings Forum so the response should be based on the prevailing regulations of the jurisdiction concerned (BBO) under which there hightened responsibilities to disclose what's going on given that a self-alerting regime is in place.

[1eyedjack]

mrdct, on 2011-September-17, 18:17, said:

The OP said this was played online, so assuming it was on BBO the BBO Regulations (found under "Rules of this Site" in the Flash Version amongst other places) apply: "If you have any doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert".

I think those are only the default rules in the absence of override by table or tourney host. Of course outside a tourney no-one would override them. But some tourneys are ACBL regulated, and others are free to impose their own regs.

For what it's worth I don't think it rates an alert under most regs including BBO default.

As an aside, there are only two reasons for NOT alerting any call, however natural
(1) To prevent UI, and
(2) To speed up the game (tied with the fact that perpetually explaining is a pain)

Item (1) is irrelevant online, and that argues for a more aggressive alerting regulation, I suppose. Even so I would draw the line here. FD convention cards help a bit.

[paulg]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-17, 18:34, said:

The problem with that, of course, is that it leaves it up to inexperienced players to know that the pre-alert of "Precision" implies that they need to ask questions about many (most? all?) auctions, because any (all?) of them might have implications that are different to what they are used to seeing. The first problem with that is of course that such inexperienced players aren't going to know that, and the second is that it will add an awful lot of time to the play of almost every board. And the third problem is that they're quite likely to get inadequate disclosure anyway.

Online is the "wild west" of bridge. Whether that's good or bad depends, I suppose, on the individual concerned.

Of course one might argue that a jurisdiction where the alert chart deems that everyone has a basic understanding of Acol, SAYC, 2/1 and Precision is west of online bridge.

[helene_t]

"Precision" doesn't necessarily imply that a a response shows more than 6 points. It is probably fair to say that a failure to respond does not deny 6-7 points but for some precision pairs the responses generally aren't much sounder than in bread&butter SA (as opposed to modern expert versions of SA where responses can be quite light). This also means that even if this player happened to pass with 7 points it may not be based on partnership understanding.

I think it is nice to pre-alert that the 1♣ opening shows 16+ (almost) any shape. Many strong club pairs use FD so that the opening ranges are automatically alerted, and I think that is very good.

It does annoy me a little that precision and WJ players are always singled out (not saying this to mourn about this thread, I think it is very reasonably of chainat to raise this issue) when in fact players of those systems tend to alert much more than players of SA and Acol. Actually, SA must be very confusing to people who are familiar with Acol only, and vice versa. But OK, that is not an excuse for Precision pairs for not paying their duties.

[blackshoe]

1eyedjack, on 2011-September-18, 01:46, said:

As an aside, there are only two reasons for NOT alerting any call, however natural
(1) To prevent UI, and
(2) To speed up the game (tied with the fact that perpetually explaining is a pain)

Item (1) is irrelevant online, and that argues for a more aggressive alerting regulation, I suppose. Even so I would draw the line here. FD convention cards help a bit.

I would say that item (1) is irrelevant in f2f bridge as well, since the imperative to avoid miss-informing opponents is stronger than the desire to avoid giving UI to partner.

paulg, on 2011-September-18, 03:35, said:

Of course one might argue that a jurisdiction where the alert chart deems that everyone has a basic understanding of Acol, SAYC, 2/1 and Precision is west of online bridge.

When I described online as the "wild west" of bridge, I wasn't just thinking of alerting.

[hrothgar]

1eyedjack, on 2011-September-18, 01:46, said:

As an aside, there are only two reasons for NOT alerting any call, however natural
(1) To prevent UI, and
(2) To speed up the game (tied with the fact that perpetually explaining is a pain)

As usual, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the concept of signal to noise ratio
A regime in which ever bid is alert is exactly equivalent to one in which no bids are alerts.

[1eyedjack]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-18, 07:33, said:

I would say that item (1) is irrelevant in f2f bridge as well, since the imperative to avoid miss-informing opponents is stronger than the desire to avoid giving UI to partner.

The imperative to avoid miss-informing opponents is no stronger or weaker in either form, whatever its comparison with the desire to avoid UI.
While I do not disagree with your statement, I refute the notion that the desire to avoid UI has no impact in practice in f2f. Both infringements are punishable (and yes I know that UI is not of itself punishable, only the acting thereon, but in practice that is a "punishment" if not one imposed by the director).

[aguahombre]

I really do not believe that Forcing Club pairs would gain from UI caused by alerting or failure to alert first-round actions like an opening one-bid or a pass with an unexpected ceiling. Let's assume they have that much of their system down pat.

All I think about when I see such alerts is the thoughtfulness of the opponents who do so, not whether it is required or not.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-September-18, 11:12

[blackshoe]

1eyedjack, on 2011-September-18, 08:10, said:

The imperative to avoid miss-informing opponents is no stronger or weaker in either form, whatever its comparison with the desire to avoid UI.
While I do not disagree with your statement, I refute the notion that the desire to avoid UI has no impact in practice in f2f. Both infringements are punishable (and yes I know that UI is not of itself punishable, only the acting thereon, but in practice that is a "punishment" if not one imposed by the director).

Players may act on the desire to avoid UI. However, if your partner makes a call, and you know or suspect that call should be alerted, and you do not alert it, the excuse "I wanted to avoid giving UI to my partner" will not get you off the hook if MI to opponents has caused damaged. In fact, I would give an experienced player a PP for such a reason, since an experienced player ought to know better.

I disagree that "in practice that is a punishment", if you're referring to the notion that giving partner UI is punishing him. It's not.

aguahombre, on 2011-September-18, 09:49, said:

I really do not believe that Forcing Club pairs would gain UI from alerting or failure to alert first-round actions like an opening one-bid or a pass with an unexpected ceiling. Let's assume they have that much of their system down pat.

All I think about when I see such alerts is the thoughtfulness of the opponents who do so, not whether it is required or not.

An unexpected alert or failure to alert conveys UI, whether or not the bidder knows the systemic meaning of his call.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-18, 10:55, said:

An unexpected alert or failure to alert conveys UI, whether or not the bidder knows the systemic meaning of his call.

A very fine point. So fine that I have fixed my most to say "gain from UI...".

[paulg]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-18, 10:55, said:

Players may act on the desire to avoid UI. However, if your partner makes a call, and you know or suspect that call should be alerted, and you do not alert it, the excuse "I wanted to avoid giving UI to my partner" will not get you off the hook if MI to opponents has caused damaged. In fact, I would give an experienced player a PP for such a reason, since an experienced player ought to know better.

I am frequently surprised by how often experienced players, including some team mates, really did not know better. To such people a PP would be harsh but at least they'd know for next time.

[blackshoe]

And that's the purpose of the PP.

[1eyedjack]

hrothgar, on 2011-September-18, 08:02, said:

1eyedjack, on 2011-September-18, 01:46, said:

I think those are only the default rules in the absence of override by table or tourney host. Of course outside a tourney no-one would override them. But some tourneys are ACBL regulated, and others are free to impose their own regs.

For what it's worth I don't think it rates an alert under most regs including BBO default.

As an aside, there are only two reasons for NOT alerting any call, however natural
(1) To prevent UI, and
(2) To speed up the game (tied with the fact that perpetually explaining is a pain)

Item (1) is irrelevant online, and that argues for a more aggressive alerting regulation, I suppose. Even so I would draw the line here. FD convention cards help a bit.

As usual, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the concept of signal to noise ratio
A regime in which ever bid is alert is exactly equivalent to one in which no bids are alerts.

I missed this fatuous comment the first time round. The implication that I am not already familiar with the concept of signal to noise ratio is not born out by my comments in this thread.
Comment 1: I voted that the bid in the OP was not alertable
Comment 2: My post to which you responded provided two reasons why alerting of every bid is not my preference.
So, while actually I heartily agree with your comments they seem to be unrelated to the partly quoted passage to which they claim to respond.
In fact, other than in certain cases such as repeated alerts to serve as a reminder against the same opponents against whom the same sequence has earlier been alerted and explained, there is very little point in simply alerting (online) without an accompanying explanation, and when accompanied by an explanation (such as in FD) the signal to noise ratio is high.