[aisha759]

Hi everyone;
I played in a turney on bbo a few nights ago, and someone, whom I assume was TD, told me that a transfer to majors after 1nt opening is alertable by me.... my reply was, that I hadn't realized that.
The next evening that same TD commented to kibbers that "a player" didnt KNOW that transfers were alertable.
First of all, there is a big difference between "i didnt realize"and "i didnt know"; but thats besides the point....
I always alert minor transfers, as everyone plays them differently, and some don't play them at all...
I asked a few friends who said they were NOT alertable.Someone checked ACBL rules, and YES they are alertable.... the TD was from the US, so I can undertand why he expected me to alert my transfer.. but I was not playing an ACBL turney.
What I want to know, is what are BBO rules in regards to major suit transfers... are they alertable? If they are, then many of us are in the dark about this, if they are not, then TD's should be informed about BBO rules.

Thank you and Regards,
Aisha

[awm]

The nice thing about online play is that partner never gets any unauthorized information from your alerts. So it's generally best to alert any bid that might be construed as artificial, including transfers.

There are no formal rules about what's alertable on bridge base, and different directors will surely have their own ideas (often based on what the regulations are in their part of the world). Transfers are alertable in many places though, since they certainly aren't "natural bidding" despite being a common convention. It would seem weird if a natural nonforcing two of a major bid was alertable, and to have neither 2♥ "to play" nor 2♥ "transfer to spades" alertable seems to create a problem.

Anyways, I can't really imagine adjusting the result of a board based on an unalerted transfer, because this treatment is so common that it can hardly be unexpected and opponents should really protect themselves by asking.

[Walddk]

The BBO management is not going to get involved as to what is alertable or not. Read for yourself:

Explore Bridge ---> Bridge Library ---> English ---> The Rules of this Site, page 5.

Roland

[inquiry]

Hi Aisha,

Try not to take the comments from any director personally. They each try the best they can I think. The BBO actually has alerting rules that are "user" friendly.

That is, any of the international rules on alerts might be considered irrelevant for BBO, because this is what the "RULES OF THIS SITE" has to say about alerts (log on, choose Explore Bridge, then bridge library, then english, then article "Rules of this site" this is excerpted from page five of that document.... (itemized).

• BBO Staff will not make rules on alerts
  
• Members should try their best to provide information useful to their opponents
  
• Software allows "Self-alerts" which is opposite to live bridge
  
• If you have any DOUBT if a bid should be alerted, alert it.

Clearly if BBO staff wanted WBF or ACBL or some other organizations alert rules to apply, they would have said so. Second, with self-alerts, no harm is done by using it, it follows the spirit of the second and fourth bullet from above.

Of course, the rules of the site go on to say that it inappropriate to use CHAT to explain your bids to your partner unless you ask your opponents first. That is clearly obvious.

So while most people play jacoby transfer (or texas or whatever), not all, and no harm or UI is caused by clicking the alert button. Of course if you used FD (hopefully someday we all will), it will handle the alerts for you,

Ben

[Echognome]

To dovetail this discussion with the laws, I mention that alerting rules are determined by the sponsoring organizations. It is far from clear who the sponsoring organization is for bridge played online. There are some exceptions to this like the ACBL tournaments where this is clear. I believe BBOs policy on this is quite sensible. They want to allow for players to play as they are accustomed. The directors that run a tourney should really state their alerting rules in their conditions of contest and state them at the start of a tourney. I prefer simple alerting rules that state that any non-natural bid is alertable.

[csdenmark]

Echognome, on Mar 2 2006, 08:01 PM, said:

To dovetail this discussion with the laws, I mention that alerting rules are determined by the sponsoring organizations.  It is far from clear who the sponsoring organization is for bridge played online.  There are some exceptions to this like the ACBL tournaments where this is clear.  I believe BBOs policy on this is quite sensible.  They want to allow for players to play as they are accustomed.  The directors that run a tourney should really state their alerting rules in their conditions of contest and state them at the start of a tourney.  I prefer simple alerting rules that state that any non-natural bid is alertable.

It is far from clear who the sponsoring organization is for bridge played online.
For tournament organizers I think it is clear - but else you are completely right.

It is in fact a grey zone. What constitutes the laws from off-line bridge to be the rules for on-line bridge? I think it will be worth giving an explorative discussion. Much stuff in off-line laws are completely obsolete on-line, just think of checking the number of cards or play of cards out of correct suit.

Then what I think of is why those parts not obsolete will be those to apply to? Simply because we have nothing else?

[Helmer]

Hi Aisha759

I can only agree with you, as one TD says should be alerted, another says that it must be alerted and a third says that it could be alerted and so on....

As there are people from all over the world, playing on different levels and with different rules from country to country, its easy to blame someone for not knowing or realising what is the right way.

I saw another reply mentioning alert what is not natural.

I alert the transfer and also the transfer-bid itself.

1nt - 2 ♥    as 2♥ doesnt promise any ♥-suit - I alert it
reply 2 ♠    as 2♠ doesnt show any ♠-suit - I alert it

Everything that is a "conventional bid" - I alert.
Everything that I think might be a surprise for my opps - I alert.

I sure like your topic - my next topic is actually about same.

See you online

Helmer

[kenberg]

I alert. That's not the same as saying "The call is alertable". Helmer metions in his companion thread that he was criticized for not alerting 1C-(1NT)-2D as non-forcing. I responded that I do not alert that one but I send a provate message saying "intended as non-forcing". I regard these things as public relations actions.

I think there is more of a reason to alert the transfer than to alert Helmer's call. Playing his 2D bid as forcing is crazy. Playing 1NT-pass-2D as diamonds is rare but not completely crazy. I have played it that way and I can tell you, sometimes 2D is the right spot and if it is, you get a top. No I am not advocating it.

You don't have to move far from your auction, however, to get to a gray area. 1S-(1NT)-pass-2D. In SAYC, this shows diamonds. Maybe most play it as a transfer, but if you read the description of SAYC at the acbl website, it shows diamonds. It is not self-evident what the meaning is. So clearly this should be alerted if it is a transfer. If this much is agreed, you may as well alert 1N-pass-2D as well.

Some years back, I and a partner agreed that after 1NT-X, all calls were natural. At that time, the acbl regarded this as standard. We had the auction 1N-X-2C -all pass for a top. Opponents would have acted, but they expected to have a chance later. Legal it was, but I wasn't so enthusuastic about it. Somewhere along the way the powers that be changed this. (It has more or less always been the case that 1N-pass-2C must be alerted if it is not Stayman, but it is only more recently that this applied over X). Anyway, I decided to alert since I am not seeking cheap tops. I know you aren't either.

I don't complain if a transfer into the majors is non-alerted, but I alert.

Ken

[aisha759]

OK i'll alert!
I suppose I got into a bad habit of not doing so, since most play it as Jacoby transfers!
it's good info to know for future bidding, i sure wouldnt want to be punished for not alerting!
Does this mean that if opponents don't alert tranfers I can ummmm complain, ask for adustment?
I have not seen a Jacoby transfer alerted for ages!
Good to know though.. for future bids
And i apologyze to TD for doubting him/her... he/she was doing his/her job, i just dont like to be picked on, as i know I am not the only player on BBO who doesn't alert these sorts of transfers.. and i am not " a player" ............. to be discussed in kibb gallery!
Aisha

[csdenmark]

aisha759, on Mar 3 2006, 01:40 AM, said:

OK i'll alert! 
I suppose I got into a bad habit of not doing so, since most play it as Jacoby transfers!
it's good info to know for future bidding, i sure wouldnt want to be punished for not alerting!
Does this mean that if opponents don't alert tranfers I can ummmm complain, ask for adustment?
I have not seen a Jacoby transfer alerted for ages!
Good to know though.. for future bids 
And i apologyze to TD for doubting him/her... he/she was doing his/her job, i just dont like to be picked on, as i know I am not the only player on BBO who doesn't alert these sorts of transfers.. and i am not " a player" .............  to be discussed in kibb gallery!
Aisha

Handling is in fact very simple.

Whenever in doubt - press the alert button.

So the other way around.

Whenever in doubt of the meaning of bids by yours opps. - press the alert button asking for explanation.

[boris3161]

I was recently told off by an opponent for alerting Stayman. Under English Bridge Union rules, I understand that it is alertable. You can never please all the people all the time!

[joker_gib]

boris3161, on Mar 3 2006, 10:57 AM, said:

I was recently told off by an opponent for alerting Stayman. Under English Bridge Union rules, I understand that it is alertable. You can never please all the people all the time!

Stayman is usually alerted when it can be weak (garbage Stayman) (at least where I play)

Alain

[Walddk]

The alert procedure varies from country to country. In some places (Denmark is one) you are not allowed to alert artificial bids beyond 3NT. It's a jungle of different branches, so it's quite understandable that the BBO management doesn't want to get involved.

In an ideal world you have the same alert procedure everywhere. That would make it so much easier when you travel, and you would also know what to when it comes to bridge on the internet. The world is not ideal.

Roland

[cherdano]

joker_gib, on Mar 3 2006, 12:36 PM, said:

boris3161, on Mar 3 2006, 10:57 AM, said:

I was recently told off by an opponent for alerting Stayman.  Under English Bridge Union rules, I understand that it is alertable.  You can never please all the people all the time! 

Stayman is usually alerted when it can be weak (garbage Stayman) (at least where I play)

Alain

Stayman is usually alerted when it doesn't promise a 4-card major (at least where I play).

[joker_gib]

cherdano, on Mar 3 2006, 12:05 PM, said:

joker_gib, on Mar 3 2006, 12:36 PM, said:

boris3161, on Mar 3 2006, 10:57 AM, said:

I was recently told off by an opponent for alerting Stayman.  Under English Bridge Union rules, I understand that it is alertable.  You can never please all the people all the time! 

Stayman is usually alerted when it can be weak (garbage Stayman) (at least where I play)

Alain

Stayman is usually alerted when it doesn't promise a 4-card major (at least where I play).

True too, Arend

[helene_t]

I have no idea what kinds of Stayman are alertable where I play (the rules are written in such bad Dutch as to be unreadable). On BBO, it's simple: alert, of course, since it's an artificial call. How to explain it is another story (will opps assume some specific kind of Stayman if you just say "Stayman"?). But often you will have no specific agreement with p about what kind of Stayman you play, in which case "Stayman" is correct explanation.

I don't usually alert t/o doubles, although they are artificial too. The reason is that I have not discussed any doubles with p, just hope he will do something intelligent when I double. But maybe, in such a situation the most correct thing is to alert and explain as "undiscussed". I know that it's undiscussed, p knows, so opps should know as well.

[csdenmark]

helene_t, on Mar 3 2006, 02:08 PM, said:

I have no idea what kinds of Stayman are alertable where I play (the rules are written in such bad Dutch as to be unreadable). On BBO, it's simple: alert, of course, since it's an artificial call. How to explain it is another story (will opps assume some specific kind of Stayman if you just say "Stayman"?). But often you will have no specific agreement with p about what kind of Stayman you play, in which case "Stayman" is correct explanation.

I don't usually alert t/o doubles, although they are artificial too. The reason is that I have not discussed any doubles with p, just hope he will do something intelligent when I double. But maybe, in such a situation the most correct thing is to alert and explain as "undiscussed". I know that it's undiscussed, p knows, so opps should know as well.

I don't usually alert t/o doubles, although they are artificial too. The reason is that I have not discussed any doubles with p, just hope he will do something intelligent when I double. But maybe, in such a situation the most correct thing is to alert and explain as "undiscussed". I know that it's undiscussed, p knows, so opps should know as well.
I think you are touching a bit of a nerve here Helene. To me it often looks like ALERT rules is a topic which all have failed in or often meet opps. failing in. Then all have a stake in the matter.

In fact is is mostly so.

50% of all openings by opps. it matters very little whether you know the exact meaning or not. You either have a solid feature yourself or you have nothing to say.

25% opps. don't know themselves.

25% is the part you need to concentrate about. As most just play KISS you know yourself else press the alert-button asking for explanation.

----------------------------------

Please be sure you have done your homework properly yourself. FD is the tool to help all aleviating most of your problems.

[barmar]

cherdano, on Mar 3 2006, 06:05 AM, said:

Stayman is usually alerted when it doesn't promise a 4-card major (at least where I play).

In ACBL territory, you don't alert the 2♣ bid, you alert the later 2NT bid and explain that in this case he might not have a 4-card major (assuming that a 3NT response *does* imply a 4-card major).

[Al_U_Card]

This is getting interesting. Ideally, and where FD is going, is that online you should reveal what your agreement states about your call. It is not important what you actually HAVE for your call, not what pard may THINK that you have for your call, just what your agreement says you are to have.

The beauty of online bridge is that the opps are in the light and only pard is in the dark (as is often the case...lol)

FD will make for quite the paradigm shift should it become mandatory.

[Echognome]

Interestingly enough, in the EBU stayman is alertable (as it is a conventional bid), but the 2NT in non-promissory is not alertable as it is an offer to play at that level in NTs. Of course whether it is promissory or not is required to be on the front of your convention card and opponents are welcome to ask if it is before the opening lead.