[luis]

Even if 1h was systemically showing 2 cards and 12-14 and that wasn't alerted the infraction is not enought to adjust the score. Because there was no damage. NS clearly showed that they were only interested in a partscore when south reopened with 1nt after refusing to bid 2 times. North wasn't interested in showing his suit even after knowing the opener had a weak NT and responder was weak. Over 1s North can surely bid 2h and South can either bid game invite or pass depending on judgement. Adjusting is too much a prize for NS.

Ben: You can' adjust the score if there was not damage you can impose a procedure penalty on EW and I agree that would have been correct. Maybe a 3imp pp is ok for the lack of alert (MI).

I'd have ruled the result to stand (no damage) and imposed a 3 imp PP on EW for not alerting 1h and I'd have also told them please to alert all his bids after a 1c opening to prevent future problems.

[inquiry]

Quote

Even if 1h was systemically showing 2 cards and 12-14 and that wasn't alerted the infraction is not enought to adjust the score. Because there was no damage. NS clearly showed that they were only interested in a partscore when south reopened with 1nt after refusing to bid 2 times. North wasn't interested in showing his suit even after knowing the opener had a weak NT and responder was weak. Over 1s North can surely bid 2h and South can either bid game invite or pass depending on judgement. Adjusting is too much a prize for NS.

Ben: You can' adjust the score if there was not damage you can impose a procedure penalty on EW and I agree that would have been correct. Maybe a 3imp pp is ok for the lack of alert (MI).

I'd have ruled the result to stand (no damage) and imposed a 3 imp PP on EW for not alerting 1h and I'd have also told them please to alert all his bids after a 1c opening to prevent future problems.

Luis, I am not sure I agree with much of what you said. I have passed more than twice and then endup bidding game after balancing on numerous occassions. Two initial passes does not mean game can not then be bid.

Second, I have to admit not reading all of this thread... but i did look at the hands in question and see the alerts. No were was EAST hand alerted as a weak NT. (the 1H rebid...). In fact IF THAT alert had been made, there would be no problem what so ever.... that is THE problem.

Over 1S, I seriously doubt north can bid 2H as natural if he thought opener still unlimited with hearts (1C=possible 18+, 1H not alerted as liming the hand in anyway... this is a second flaw... not only does 1H systemically not guarantee hearts, it places limits on the 1CLUB bid, AGAIN not alerted).

NS clearly were not familiar with EW methods, and EW clearly had agreements they did not disclose which caused NS additional problems. So once again, NS were damaged. Clearly south with four hearts would not have allowed EW to play 3D if he understood 2H to be long hearts and some values. It is asking a bit much that they reach game perhaps, but there was clear DAMAGE to NS in the form of NS confusion over the meaning of their own bids due to the lack of the alert (point count range and suit legnth). This is more than a procedural problem, critical information was withheld from NS that was available to EW. Geraldo's ruling while a little drastic, was not that bad. I would still go with average + and average -

Ben

[hrothgar]

Quote

not only does 1H systemically not guarantee hearts, it places limits on the 1CLUB bid, AGAIN not alerted.

First:
1H systemically promises 3+ Hearts and usggests playing there.
It is a non forcing bid.

Second:
The issue is not whether 1H should have been alerted.
Everyone agrees that it should. Most people - myself included - believe that they deserve a proceedural penalty.

However, N/S do not deserve an adjusted score.

[Gerardo]

Procedural penalties not implemented yet.

4H may be too drastic, however, 3H seems a no brainer with proper alerting, with 4H not out of the question.
Probably Ben's A+/A- best.

[McBruce]

As an experienced but casual ACBL player, I can say that the problem for ACBL players is that we have no idea when to compete and when not to when PC players can open, respond, and rebid, and all three bids are artificial and do not limit the hand in any way. You may say this is the beauty of the system. Perhaps it is, but it is also very destructive, and the only documentation on Polish Club in the BBO library simply lists the values and expected distribution for sequences; it does not suggest defences at all, and it doesn't go into what sorts of hands you should come in with.

It may be easy for PC players to say North or South should have come in over 1C or 1D or 1H, but that is expecting more than a basic knowledge of PC from standard players. We don't often face bids that could be 11 and could be 24 HCP, so the system puts us at an extreme disadvantage from the start. Based on this, and on the fact that it is clearly spelled out in the Laws that the offending side gets the worst result of those possible without the infraction, the adjustment to 4H= seems a no-brainer to me.

To those who suggest that a procedural penalty should be applied, I ask why the offending side should get (top minus 1/4 board) 75%? What incentive will that be for them to alert next time? However elegant the PC system may be, without proper and complete alerting, it is destructive, and there were several rounds for the 1H bidder (or his partner) to make sure that the opponents knew the nature of 1H. They apparently did not do so. If you play an artificial system, you need to take extra care that the opponents explicitly understand: claiming later that "general bridge logic" should have led them to a certain conclusion is insufficient.

It doesn't matter how many hearts the 1H bidder actually holds. It doesn't matter that the auction would be the same in standard. What matters is that N-S waded into a (they thought) live auction where both opponents were unlimited. Had they known that 1H was non-forcing they might well have bid more than they did.

--McBruce

[the hog]

As an experienced but casual ACBL player, I can say that the problem for ACBL players is that we have no idea when to compete and when not to when PC players can open, respond, and rebid, and all three bids are artificial and do not limit the hand in any way

Here we go again.

Polish Club is NOT an artificial system

1C 1D 1H:
Note the 1H bid is NOT artificial; it shows 3 to 5 H and not the ability to make a forcing bid.

Note that the hand is NOT unlimited; quite the contrary.
To use your argument above: is 1C artificial and unlimited in sayc? According to your argument it is.

We don't often face bids that could be 11 and could be 24 HCP

The bid DOES NOT have a range of 11-24 HCP. Firstly PC believes in sound initial action, secondly see my comment above regarding your upper limit of 24HCP

However elegant the PC system may be, without proper and complete alerting, it is destructive

The above comment is TOTALLY incorrect. The sequence you describe as "destructive" is as destructive as an sayc 1C opening. (3+C, 12-19 pts)Please!!!!

I am not saying - as is anybody in this thread - that 1H should not be alerted, but it is a suggestion for a contract. Look the best way of learning about this stuff is to read a little bit about it.

[hrothgar]

As an experienced but casual ACBL player, I can say that the problem for ACBL players is that we have no idea when to compete and when not to when PC players can open, respond, and rebid, and all three bids are artificial and do not limit the hand in any way

What is that old saying ...

Oh yes ...

Failure to prepare on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.

[fred]

Quote

As an experienced but casual ACBL player, I can say that the problem for ACBL players is that we have no idea when to compete and when not to when PC players can open, respond, and rebid, and all three bids are artificial and do not limit the hand in any way. You may say this is the beauty of the system. Perhaps it is, but it is also very destructive, and the only documentation on Polish Club in the BBO library simply lists the values and expected distribution for sequences; it does not suggest defences at all, and it doesn't go into what sorts of hands you should come in with.

Here is a very simple and effective defense to
the Polish Club:

- I suggest you treat the 1C opening like a natural
1C, but use the 2C overcall to be natural (instead
of Michaels or whatever you play).

- Maybe use the 2D overcall to show both majors
(a la Francais).

- It is reasonable to play that double of 1C does not
guarantee support for diamonds.

- Do not be afraid to overcall 1NT after a Polish Club.
Here is a secret: If you are not vul and have a nice
14 HCP, overcalling 1NT over a Polish Club tends to
work well.

Hope this helps.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[McBruce]

The_Hog wrote:

Polish Club is NOT an artificial system

1C 1D 1H:
Note the 1H bid is NOT artificial; it shows 3 to 5 H and not the ability to make a forcing bid.

(McB): I was less clear than I should have been. When I wrote "If you play an artificial system, you need to take extra care that the opponents explicitly understand," I should have written sequence instead of system. You cannot seriously argue that 1C 1D 1H in PC is not an artificial sequence. 1C promises zero clubs. A 1D response promises zero diamonds. A 1H rebid promises three hearts. The opener and the response are both unlimited. I have no idea what the upper limit of "not the ability to make a forcing bid" might be, but I suspect I will often pay dearly, in numbers ending in 00, to find out. Please understand: I am not trying to crticize the system at all. I am simply saying that it is not unreasonable in a pairs game to expect players to know how to deal with the hundreds of different systems of this type when they are not alerted reasonably well. If I read up on Polish Club to protect me from mis-alerts, what do I do when a Precision player forgets to alert? Etc.

Note that the hand is NOT unlimited; quite the contrary.
To use your argument above: is 1C artificial and unlimited in sayc? According to your argument it is.

(McB): I understand (now) that 1H is not artificial. That is not the point here. If the 1H bidder had alerted 1H and said 12-14 HCP or 12-15 or 12-16 or whatever it is and said NOTHING about hearts, I would not have adjusted the score. The problem is that he failed to disclose the vital point, that 1H limited the hand in some way. What keeps players out of PC 1C-1D auctions is the possibility of finding one or both opponents with the strong version of their first calls. It is important to alert the opponents when the possibility of a rock crusher is gone.

We don't often face bids that could be 11 and could be 24 HCP

The bid DOES NOT have a range of 11-24 HCP. Firstly PC believes in sound initial action, secondly see my comment above regarding your upper limit of 24HCP

(McB): The 1C opener and 1D responses are what I was referring to here, not the 1H bid. If they cannot be 24 then the description shouldn't be 18+ or 17+ or whatever. Wherever did I mention an upper limit of 24?

However elegant the PC system may be, without proper and complete alerting, it is destructive

The above comment is TOTALLY incorrect. The sequence you describe as "destructive" is as destructive as an sayc 1C opening. (3+C, 12-19 pts)Please!!!!

(McB): I am having trouble believing that PC players quake in fear of that destructive sayc 1C opener, which may have only three clubs and has a range of about 11-20! Of course, the PC 1C opener, which could have as few as zero clubs and has a range of 12 (if you insist) to goodness knows what, is far easier to improvise a defense against. I think you need to read my comment again. Without the alert of 1H, the sequence is destructive. This does not imply in any way that the player who forgot to alert 1H did so deliberately. All I mean is that the forgotten alert makes it impossible for North-South to figure out what their best strategy is.

I am not saying - as is anybody in this thread - that 1H should not be alerted, but it is a suggestion for a contract. Look the best way of learning about this stuff is to read a little bit about it.

(McB): I am doing so. This is an interesting thread. Don't forget that I began this by writing that I was not happy with the way many ACBL club players, and some online, automatically react to opponents playing Polish Club. And I suspect that we both agree that the great majority of complaints against Polish Club by standard players are bogus, just as we agree that this one deserved some sort of adjustment. It's not surprising to me that PC veterans are claiming NS should eat their poor score because they bid poorly after the non-alert. This sort of thing happens often in standard auctions as well, and the offenders virtually always claim that the infraction changed little and that the non-offenders could have gotten to the right spot. But the Laws say that when there is damage, the offending side gets the least favourable result possible without the damage. There are some directors who will refuse to adjust if the non-offenders do anything that looks silly when the full hand record is examined. They fail to realize that players see only 13 cards and damage can easily contribute to strange-looking decisions. I think it has to be abundantly clear that a non-offender is trying for a "double-shot" before making them eat their bad score, and I didn't see any evidence of that on this deal. OK?

--McBruce

[the hog]

I really don't think 1C 1D 1H is an artificial bid if it suggests a contract. The upper limit is about 19, as with a bal 20 or so you would rebid 1NT. So had he alerted it, he would have had to have said 12-20 or so.

Wherever did I mention an upper limit of 24?
You actually DID mention 24 HCP
To quote from one of your earlier posts:
It may be easy for PC players to say North or South should have come in over 1C or 1D or 1H, but that is expecting more than a basic knowledge of PC from standard players. We don't often face bids that could be 11 and could be 24 HCP, so the system puts us at an extreme disadvantage from the start.
The analogy between an sayc 1C opening and the PC sequence described still holds true. Granted the sayc sequence is a lot lower, but the principles in the auction are the same.

Also what is alertable in one country may not be so in another. Here sayc 1C/D openings are alertable because they are not natural. Would you adjust the scoring if opps opened 1C and I failed to bid a cold 5C? Play 15 -17 NT and I would expect a pre alert - most here play 12-14. What about 4th suit forcing? That is certainly alertable here and also in the US from what I can gatehr. What is someone bids 4sf unalerted and I think its natural and don't lead that suit to shoot a contract?Stayman is alertable here; again would you adjust if it was not alerted and I failed to find a C partial or game? We are treading a very thin line here. I have no idea whether PC 1C is alertable in Poland but I guess you can see the point I am trying to make. Don't forget bbo is an international site.

I believe that many US players feel they are hard one by when they encounter something that THEY see as different. (I am not having a go at you here McBruce). This is due to many reasons I won't go into here. In the given hand I don't think there was damage, that is the point, neither do a number of other experienced players eg Hrothgar, Luis etc

[luis]

Quote

As an experienced but casual ACBL player, I can say that the problem for ACBL players is that we have no idea when to compete and when not to when PC players can open, respond, and rebid, and all three bids are artificial and do not limit the hand in any way.

If you don't know when to compete you should study the contested auction with a professional coach or by yourself if you feel confident or you can't afford a teacher.

Quote

To those who suggest that a procedural penalty should be applied, I ask why the offending side should get (top minus 1/4 board) 75%? What incentive will that be for them to alert next time? However elegant the PC system may be, without proper and complete alerting, it is destructive, and there were several rounds for the 1H bidder (or his partner) to make sure that the opponents knew the nature of 1H.

First of all if you think that they don't alert on purpose to confuse you then you are accusing them of cheating please don't do that without clear evidence. Second a PP of 3 imps or a 1% is enough to make them aware they should be alerting their bids, why would they want to lose 1% or 3 imps each time they miss an alert? Adjusting the score is a complete nonsense because there was no damage, it is against the rules to adjust the rules just because you don't like what happened there must be miss information AND damage.

Finally if you think that Polish club is a destructive system you are very wrong you have no idea of what a destructive system can do to your poor approach to competetitive bidding. PC is one of the less agressive systems in play today, what will you do against Moscito or TOSR or T-Rex ? Call a lawyer?

[hrothgar]

If I read up on Polish Club to protect me from mis-alerts, what do I do when a Precision player forgets to alert? Etc.



I don't think it unreasonable to expect that players are familiar with "the basics" of the most common bidding systems. From my perspective, there are four main approaches in common use.

5 card majors (2/1 game force, SAYC, French Standard, KS)
Polish Club (Close to the above, with a nebulous club
Precision (5 card majors, forcing NT, strong Club)
Acol (4 card majors, weak NT)

Different systems are considered standard in different parts of the world.
In Britain, Acol is considered standard and 5 card majors is a highly artificial and scientific approach.


If you play an artificial system, you need to take extra care that the opponents explicitly understand: claiming later that "general bridge logic" should have led them to a certain conclusion is insufficient.


Natural versus artificial does not enter into this at all.

Players who are familar with given system need to be able to protect themselves against the other common approaches. The Chinese start by learning Precision. they then need to learn SAYC to play against North Americans and Polish Club to play against the Poles.

[I am going to assume that your North American]

The fact that you happen to live within the ACBL and are accustomed to a set of highly restrictive systems policies should not require that everyone else needs to bend over backwards to spare you the need to do what is expected of everyone else.

[Gerardo]

Hrothgar:
I kinda agree with you, with two important differences.
Opponent may be new to online bridge from a monosystem land, and never exposed to your (main approach) system, or (s)he may not be new, but refused to learn the basics of your system. When this happens and opp ley you know about it, the burden is put on you to alert!
I'd like to have a BBO-Polish, BBO-Acol, and BBO-Prec cards available in official BBO CC facility (current, yours [personally like it,is flexible], or any other which could come in the future), and also any basic approach which become considered main by consensus [critical mass playing it].
This would serve to cover basic bids, like Polish 1C, and 1D, subsequent bids to these too, Precision 1D (which is long to alert ), etc.
I like Polish Club, read summaries, hope to start practising it the sooner the better (that helps me to be flexible, goal is to adapt to p's system, also helps me to learn to defend against such systems), however I ask PC opps to alert properly, and ask further clarifications, providing them myself as questions [meaning is this?] in extremem cases, in the (too often) case explanations are incomplete and my doesn't know PC, for his/her info [this is not a requirement, I asked them to alert properly and they should do so. Whatever my reasons are, they should comply].
I never met (online, yet; my weekly live [very closed for my taste] 8-11 person group plays mainly a 4-card M, 16-18 NT, better minor, 1C with min (4-3)=3=3, which I would say it vaguely resembles Acol if I had an idea what Acol is) an opp who said "I don't know your system", where said system is SAYC (2/1 included, with proper alerts).
Being there, I'd alert 1m as "12-21, fewer complying with rule of 20, 3+", all 1-level bids as "non-suitable for NT openings with 5+ losers". Am I missing something here? Now, if they want to know why this is so, or want to make best use of this info, then learn the system . Would alert rebids as NT as balanced, and reversing as "longer first suit, extra HCP or distribution". All rules may be broken in 3rd , Cansino in 4th. Conventional bids after that are alerted, of course, against any opp.
If you think this set of alerts is perfectible (which it is, with probability 1), pls tell how to make it better.

[luis]

Gerardo,

Being BBO an international site I think that it is wise to adopt WBF regulations more than ACBL regulations unless BBO as an organization wants to take a different point of view (just my opinion).
Based on this I'd really like to emphasize that is not fair to ask players playing non-american systems to alert more than players playing standard systems. There's a lot of MI due to the lack of an alert by SAYC players that is not being discussed just because most players don't bother if a pair playing SAYC doesn't alert their bids. In general all systemic bids should be alerted and failure to alert a systemic bid should result in a procedural penalty of some kind. Adjusting the score is only appropiate if the MI caused damage to the NO pair as the rules say.
A campaign to teach and instruct BBO players how and when to alert would be more effective than trying to regularize what bids must be laerted in PC or precision or other systems. Remember SAYC players fail to alert as much as other players and they are not under the hood.

Example:
Playing weak NT
1c-1h;2h
Now this 2h bid is alertable since it is either 15-17 or an unbalanced hand, can't be balanced 12-14. Who alerts? Absolutely nobody. Can this inflict damage? Yes, a lot. How many times were you asked to rule about this bid not being alerted? How many times were you asked to rule about a polish auction?
Either we stablish rules for all players to alert what they have to or we learn to be tolerant and call the director when there is damage due to MI not when they fail to alert and you get a bad result.

[inquiry]

Quote

Example:
Playing weak NT
1c-1h;2h
Now this 2h bid is alertable since it is either 15-17 or an unbalanced hand, can't be balanced 12-14. Who alerts? Absolutely nobody.

Absolutely wrong. I play KS and I alert this 2H bid everytime, and I alert a 1NT rebid over 1H on 1c-1H-1NT everytime.

I have seen malucy and kleek play weak notrump and they alert this 2H "raise" everytime. And it should be alerted. And, if it had gone 1C=1H-2H and the opponent stuck in a 3D and got killed without an alert, I would have tend to rule in the favor of the 3D bidder.

Ben

[McBruce]

McBruce: As an experienced but casual ACBL player, I can say that the problem for ACBL players is that we have no idea when to compete and when not to when PC players can open, respond, and rebid, and all three bids are artificial and do not limit the hand in any way. (I've since been educated that 1H is not artificial since it shows at least 3, but opener could still have a 19 count...)

Luis: If you don't know when to compete you should study the contested auction with a professional coach or by yourself if you feel confident or you can't afford a teacher.

Luis, your point seems to be that either North or South should have come in, vul vs not, at some earlier point:

Q J 10
J 10 9 4 3 2
A
6 4 3
9 7 4 2 A 6 3
----------- K 8 5
K 8 7 5 4 2 Q J 9 3
Q 10 2 A 8 5
K 8 5
A Q 7 6
10 6
K J 9 7

E dealer, NS vul

W N E S (Gerardo had N and S swapped)
1C* P 1C=12-15 bal, 15+ nat or any 18+
1D* P 1H P 1D=0-7, 7-10 with 6+m or 17+
1S* P P 1NT 1S=0-7, 4+S
2D 2H 3D All pass

What I am saying is that it is not clear to me that North should bid hearts over 1D when both opponents are still unlimited. I doubt South has a bid over 1H, whether it is alerted or not. After 1S limits the West hand (and by inference I imagine denies heart support?) North still hasn't been told that the East hand is limited and may contain only three hearts, so bidding hearts would seem very rash. South balances with 1NT and West bids 2D. North finally comes in with his hearts and East raises diamonds. There is still the possibility that South has a very good hand, so North and South sell out to 3D. None of this is extremely unreasonable because they have not been told that 1H limits the hand and may show only 3--bidding at the three level red vs white with a strong hand with as many as five trumps out there is risking a lot.

It's clear to me that there is enough damage for any committee to decide that with a proper alert of 1H, N-S would get to 3H. I don't see E-W letting them play 3H with a 10 card fit in diamonds at favourable, so it is conceivable that after 4D is bid, N-S might take the push to 4H. The Laws say that when there is doubt, you favour the non-offenders. It does not say that you can decide to switch to avg+/avg- when giving the non-offenders their best possible result appears to give them too much: that's what ACBL Directors looking for a way out do. I've had a second look at the hand and I think the Laws call for 4H= but I recognize it is a subjective decision, and 3H+1 is a possible result as well, one that some might agree is the best possible result for N-S. OK?

What I don't get is how you can claim there was NO damage. N-S have 21 HCP and a strong ten card heart fit and they sold out to 3D despite one player holding the singleton AD. The opponents forgot to alert 1H, showing 12-19 (I imagine far more likely 12-14 when East passes 1S) and 3-5 hearts. There's a lot of inference that gets lost in the shuffle here, since most hands with 5 hearts and 12-17 will be opened 1H, so what does that leave as the probability for 3, or 4, or 5 hearts after 1C 1D 1H? Seems to me that 5 hearts is far less likely than four or three. (By contrast, it has been shown that a sayc or 2/1 1C opener will have seven clubs more often than three, the fourth most likely club length. So which bid is "more artificial", the one that will have only three cards less than 10% of the time, or the one that will have only three cards, I'm guessing, about 35-40% of the time?) There is far too much coincidence here; I would say that N-S's unfamiliarity with the methods was clearly less of a factor than the failure to alert 1H.

McBruce: To those who suggest that a procedural penalty should be applied, I ask why the offending side should get (top minus 1/4 board) 75%? What incentive will that be for them to alert next time? However elegant the PC system may be, without proper and complete alerting, it is destructive, and there were several rounds for the 1H bidder (or his partner) to make sure that the opponents knew the nature of 1H.

Luis: First of all if you think that they don't alert on purpose to confuse you then you are accusing them of cheating please don't do that without clear evidence. Second a PP of 3 imps or a 1% is enough to make them aware they should be alerting their bids, why would they want to lose 1% or 3 imps each time they miss an alert? Adjusting the score is a complete nonsense because there was no damage, it is against the rules to adjust the rules just because you don't like what happened there must be miss information AND damage.

See above paragraph: also, please read what I have written before you suggest that I am accusing the E-W pair of cheating. There was damage. It was unintentional, but there was damage. Adjusting the score is proper.

Luis: Finally if you think that Polish club is a destructive system you are very wrong you have no idea of what a destructive system can do to your poor approach to competetitive bidding. PC is one of the less agressive systems in play today, what will you do against Moscito or TOSR or T-Rex ? Call a lawyer?

What I was trying to get across was that to players in ACBL land, a system like Polish Club seems destructive because no other system we see uses so many early calls that may be minimum openers but may be rock crushers. I'm sorry I offended you; I hope you will understand that I am trying to learn in order to be a fair director on BBO. I must say though, the uneccesary crack about "my poor approach to competitive bidding" echoes the chortles I sometimes hear locally when Polish Club auctions succeed in keeping opponents from bidding what they have. When I open 2S on J9763 in third seat favourable, and the opponents don't find their heart game, I keep quiet as I enter my +110.

--McBruce

[Gerardo]

Quote

Gerardo,

Being BBO an international site I think that it is wise to adopt WBF regulations more than ACBL regulations unless BBO as an organization wants to take a different point of view (just my opinion).

Agree. THe idea, I think, is people can create clubs and hosts tourneys and establish their own rules there, but yours is perfect for Main Club and *my* tourneys.

Quote

Based on this I'd really like to emphasize that is not fair to ask players playing non-american systems to alert more than players playing standard systems.

Most systems are IMO, more precisely defined than SAYC. So, to obtain the same level of info ("What does that bid/sequence mean?"), you have to explain quantitavely more. Certainly true in PC case.

Quote

There's a lot of MI due to the lack of an alert by SAYC players that is not being discussed just because most players don't bother if a pair playing SAYC doesn't alert their bids.

As I put in previous post, I assume SAYC knowledge by opps. Should alert if requested to do so. Please see that post to see how I would alert, any improvement will be welcome.

Quote

In general all systemic bids should be alerted and failure to alert a systemic bid should result in a procedural penalty of some kind. Adjusting the score is only appropiate if the MI caused damage to the NO pair as the rules say.
A campaign to teach and instruct BBO players how and when to alert would be more effective than trying to regularize what bids must be laerted in PC or precision or other systems.

Agree 100%

Quote

Remember SAYC players fail to alert as much as other players and they are not under the hood.

Example:
Playing weak NT

Eeeeeeeeeek! If you say "SAYC", 15-17 NT is assumed by definition
You have to inform you play "SAYC with 12-14 NT".

Quote

1c-1h;2h
Now this 2h bid is alertable since it is either 15-17 or an unbalanced hand, can't be balanced 12-14.

I think the 1m opening ought to be alerted as "15+ balanced or unbalanced 12+", not 2H

Quote

Who alerts? Absolutely nobody. Can this inflict damage? Yes, a lot. How many times were you asked to rule about this bid not being alerted? How many times were you asked to rule about a polish auction?

Hand before the one I brought to this thread. Bidding was:
1NT : 2S* : 2NT : 3NT 2S=invit in NT or xfer to C

2NT and 3NT should be alerted too, as "minimum" (had to reject a natural 1NT:2NT invit) and "Slam try with Clubs", but wasn't.
Responder's hand was (54)=2=2, 9 HCP, said 2S was a misclick(?) after the hand.
Opps said they missed the C lead, but here, there was no misalerting, so result stood. There was a gross mirespresentation of the hand, but that is allowed. Here you have to look if opener has an LA to pass after 3NT. But I realized what 3NT was couple of days after

Quote

Either we stablish rules for all players to alert what they have to or we learn to be tolerant and call the director when there is damage due to MI not when they fail to alert and you get a bad result.

As Codo asks in a side thread, "Does fail to alert 1H make harder to NS to reach game?" I agree with McBruce recent post, there was damage. You say that they should reach it anyway, so no damage. I don't think it matters what they should do, opp is lying minimum length in their suit, it's relevant, damaging

I have a preformatted message to shout in tourneys when I direct, it says clearly damage is a prerequisite for adjustment.