[onoway]

In the IAC club on BBO we have had a majority of people with ACBL background, and the European members have put up with it. We are trying to run a middle ground (several of the tourneys allow multi & psyches, if the directors do not specify otherwise, for example) and this is beginning to cause some issues. Today in a team match N/A couple used HELLO and a European player wanted a whole lot of information as to what exactly the bids meant in terms of strength and distribution, and was not content with the alert "transfer to !c" Was he also entitled to know what the 3!C bid meant?(other than "completing transfer") ? (we never got that far actually, he started shouting about WBF and ACBL and BBO so I subbed him out..but if we had?) We are not heavilly weighted with experts who play regularly but enough advanced players are starting to get involved that this sort of question is going to come up more. I am not a "qualified" TD but trying to do the right thing anyway; so far so good but today left me deeply troubled.

I don't know if this is the right place for such a question...what would be absolutely terrific would be someone to come and give us a session on alerting. Some don't even get it right with their own system although that's getting better, but when we get international confusion it can (and did today) get a little ...difficult. Any guidelines? Anyone interested in helping us out with a session about alerts, especially for the more abstract bids, what's required and what people are entitled to, as opposed to what they might want? Barring that, how much is enough?

If this is the wrong place for the question, please punt it into wherever it should go. I really need help with this, today was ..in spite of being told I did the right things etc... highly unpleasant and if I had been surer of my ground it might not have escalated as it did.

[Vampyr]

onoway, on 2015-March-13, 15:45, said:

Was he also entitled to know what the 3!C bid meant?(other than "completing transfer") ?

Of course. He is entitled to know everything the opponents know.

[helene_t]

F2f we don't announce everything because it would cause UI, but online we announce everything which the opps might not expect because there is no UI.

So regulations like "don't alert at the 4-level" and (ACBL) "don't alert cuebids" are not relevant.

However, you probably can't expect opps to announce things like 3-card minor suit openings or weak jump overcalls if that is completely standard in their country, so it is a good idea to familiarize yourself with opps general approach and not make assumptions about unannounced calls. Other than that they are natural, of course.

Some players have the habbit of not annoucing things like for example strong artificial 2♣ openings and transfers and michaels because those things are not alertable f2f in their home country but they need to be educated.

[onoway]

helene_t, on 2015-March-13, 17:08, said:

F2f we don't announce everything because it would cause UI, but online we announce everything which the opps might not expect because there is no UI.

So regulations like "don't alert at the 4-level" and (ACBL) "don't alert cuebids" are not relevant.

However, you probably can't expect opps to announce things like 3-card minor suit openings or weak jump overcalls if that is completely standard in their country, so it is a good idea to familiarize yourself with opps general approach and not make assumptions about unannounced calls. Other than that they are natural, of course.

Some players have the habbit of not annoucing things like for example strong artificial 2♣ openings and transfers and michaels because those things are not alertable f2f in their home country but they need to be educated.

Well that's the thing, I'm hardly the one to educate them I said that 2NT alerted as a relay to 3!c was fine and subsequent bidding would clarify for both partner and opps but that's when the explosion happened. I was told later that that was right, but by an ACBL director, obviously the annoyed player, who is himself a director in WBF I understand, disagreed vehemently.

[blackshoe]

People need to understand that when they play online, two things are true: the rules on alerting are not nearly as formal as they are in f2f bridge (by which I mean there is usually no RA to publish these things), and the f2f rules with which people are familiar are not necessarily the rules that apply (by custom if nothing else) online.

[Vampyr]

onoway, on 2015-March-13, 18:10, said:

Well that's the thing, I'm hardly the one to educate them I said that 2NT alerted as a relay to 3!c was fine and subsequent bidding would clarify for both partner and opps but that's when the explosion happened. I was told later that that was right, but by an ACBL director, obviously the annoyed player, who is himself a director in WBF I understand, disagreed vehemently.

I don't really understand what happened. If the player felt that the note given with the alert was not enough information, why didn't he just ask the opponents to explain further?

[helene_t]

It is a bit tricky to anounce Lebensohl to opps who are not familiar with it. I usually explain the weak variants and add "or some strong hand" but that may not be optimal. "Among other options weak with clubs " might be ok also. Or just say Lebensohl. Opps can always ask for clarification.

Btw many online pairs have very rudimentary agreements. If you have no particular reason to expect p to take 2nt as lebensohl other than that you hope it's gbk then imo it is fine to anounce iti as undiscussed. Not fine not to alert since that suggests an agreement to play it as natural.

[onoway]

Vampyr, on 2015-March-13, 20:43, said:

I don't really understand what happened. If the player felt that the note given with the alert was not enough information, why didn't he just ask the opponents to explain further?

That's what the crunch was.. 2nt was alerted as transfer to clubs, the opp wanted to know precisely what sort of hand it was that was doing the transfer, was it preemptive or could it show both majors or what. The bidder just gave a list of the possible bids she might have made, and what they might have meant, and said that the transfer to clubs meant she could stand playing in 3 clubs.The opp kept interrupting and saying she needed to describe exactly what her hand point count and distribution was, and nothing else would do. We never got to what the responses by partner might have meant, which would have inflamed the opp further, if that were possible. My feeling was that it's sorta like multi in that the alert for the opening bid isn't terribly helpful either, and depends on the subsequent bids to clarify, but that was insufficient for the opp and he started shouting about reporting the opps to everyone in sight so I removed him, at which point his partner said that he agreed with his booted partner and left as well.

Therein lies the question, how much information is required to be given and how, if someone is using a convention unfamiliar to the opps, do you decide? If everyone had kept their cool it could presumably have turned into a teaching session, NOT the point of a team match, and the match would have taken even longer than it did, but that would have been better than what did happen. Admittedly it got more complicated because the (unhelpful) partner of the 2nt bidder is an ACBL accredited director, and the opponent is a WBF director and I am just someone who tries to provide events for the club. We have a number of accredited ACBL directors who won't direct any more live or on web because they have had too many hassles. This is the first time in about 6 years I've ever had a dustup or had to remove anyone for this sort of thing, not something I'd care to repeat. But how to decide how much is enough in terms of alerts? And is there a difference if it is an opening hand or an overcall hand?

[Vampyr]

onoway, on 2015-March-14, 09:10, said:

Therein lies the question, how much information is required to be given and how, if someone is using a convention unfamiliar to the opps, do you decide?

The player must disclose all the information he or she has about a call. Whether the opponents are familiar with a particular convention is not relevant.

[blackshoe]

That last question is easy: it makes no difference to the disclosure requirements whether the bid was an overcall or an opening bid or any other bid. The requirement is to disclose everything you know about partner's hand from your partnership agreements and experience with this partner.

Let's talk about this shouting thing for a minute. This happened online, right? So was he typing in all caps? Did you ask him not to do that? From your description I have a vision of this guy frothing at the mouth, but you can't have known that online.

"The opp kept interrupting…" Tell him to shut up until you give him permission to speak (but be more diplomatic about it than just that).

There's a difference between a relay and a transfer. If the convention is HELLO, this was a transfer, not a relay.

Helms himself describes this bid, in his booklet, simply as "transfer overcall to clubs". He doesn't give a point range. Here's a sample hand: ♠ x ♥ xx ♦ QTxx ♣ KQJT9x. FWIW, I wouldn't give a point range either. This kind of bid isn't about HCP, it's about playing strength. Note that the sample hand has about six or six and a half playing tricks. A good description IMO is "preemptive, at least six clubs, at least six playing tricks, most of the HCP concentrated in clubs, no side four card major (if that's part of the understanding, as it is with many)". If there are agreements about side aces or kings, say so. If vulnerability is a factor, say so. If you do have an understanding about HCP range, state it. If you don't, say that. If an opp wants to ask supplementary questions, that's his right, as long as he's civil about it, and as long as he does so at his turn to call.

The ACBL director was "unhelpful", you say. I think had he jumped into this you'd have had a bigger problem on your hands. He was probably wise to stay out of it. Not his job anyway. He's a player, not a director, in this game.

At the time 2NT is bid, opps are entitled to know what 2NT shows. They are not entitled to know what responses or rebids would show until those bids are actually made. A preempt says, among other things, that "my hand is basically useless unless my suit is trumps". So I would expect that advancer will almost always just complete the transfer (the basis of the idea to use transfers here is to put the 1NT bidder on lead; that might not happen if advancer bids something else).

"we have had a majority of people with ACBL background, and the European members have put up with it."

Put up with what? The fact that the majority of players are from North America? What's wrong with that? If you mean that these NA players tend to assume that ACBL regulations apply, even if they don't, well, IME in this respect everyone is a barbarian — they think, as Shaw put it, that "the customs of their tribe and island are the laws of nature".

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-14, 10:35, said:

They are not entitled to know what responses or rebids would show until those bids are actually made.

Not quite. The majority position on these forums is that they are not allowed to ask, but they can read the information off the convention card if it is listed there.

[blackshoe]

Sure. I should have said "ask" not "know".

[Trinidad]

There is a little bit of a cultural problem here.

In Europe, more conventions and systems are allowed than within the ACBL. That means that European players not only play more exotic conventions, but it also means that they encounter more conventions that they don't know. That means that there is a culture to ask and explain. As a result, Europeans are generally better at explaining exotic conventions and, hence, their expectations of explanations will be higher.

When a European player explains his 2♦ opening, he will typically say "Multi". When the opponents then indicate that they are not fully satisfied with with that explanation, or that they don't understand, he will rattle off something like: "Either a weak two in a major, a 24-25 balanced hand, or a strong two in a minor". And he might add something like: "The weak two could be based on a five card suit at favorable vulnerability". While he talks, he might point out on the convention card where all this information can be found.

ACBL players have very little experience in explaining conventions. To start with convention cards are rarely available to the opponents (and the opponents don't want to see that nonsense). And since everybody essentially plays the same system, there is little need for extensive explanations. When a convention comes up, it is generally accepted by the players (not the TDs or regulators) to just give the name of the convention. There are so few conventions that seasoned tournament players will know them all. After Pass-1♠; 2♣ most players will explain "Drury". If someone would ask for more information (like that is going to happen in real life, LOL), they would perhaps say: "Just Drury, well technically, Reverse Drury.". A European player would say: "He has a good raise to 2♠, a hand worth at least a good 8 points with (at least/precisely) 3 card support."

It is not a miracle that there is some friction when these two cultures meet. Having said that, it is clear that this time the Europeans are right. They are entitled to everything you know about partner's bid. "Transfer to clubs" is not sufficient and that is particularly true since experience has shown that the term "transfer" is not always used correctly (and not everybody speaks perfect English, despite the fact that everybody thinks they do). Simply state: "He has 6+ clubs, a decent suit, typically ~8-14 HCP." or whatever the agreement is.

To the American this explanation may seem blatantly obvious, but he is not aware of the fact that the Europeans are used to defending against 2NT bids that ask partner to bid 3♣, but could, e.g., show clubs or the red suits or a big hand with both majors.

So, humor those Europeans and simply explain -in terms of suit length and an approximate high card strength- what a bid shows.

Rik

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-14, 11:52, said:

Sure. I should have said "ask" not "know".

Well, it is a bonkers position. Probably it is OK in practice, though, because polite opponents would tell you anyway.

[onoway]

Trinidad, on 2015-March-14, 13:05, said:

There is a little bit of a cultural problem here.

In Europe, more conventions and systems are allowed than within the ACBL. That means that European players not only play more exotic conventions, but it also means that they encounter more conventions that they don't know. That means that there is a culture to ask and explain. As a result, Europeans are generally better at explaining exotic conventions and, hence, their expectations of explanations will be higher.

When a European player explains his 2♦ opening, he will typically say "Multi". When the opponents then indicate that they are not fully satisfied with with that explanation, or that they don't understand, he will rattle off something like: "Either a weak two in a major, a 24-25 balanced hand, or a strong two in a minor". And he might add something like: "The weak two could be based on a five card suit at favorable vulnerability". While he talks, he might point out on the convention card where all this information can be found.

ACBL players have very little experience in explaining conventions. To start with convention cards are rarely available to the opponents (and the opponents don't want to see that nonsense). And since everybody essentially plays the same system, there is little need for extensive explanations. When a convention comes up, it is generally accepted by the players (not the TDs or regulators) to just give the name of the convention. There are so few conventions that seasoned tournament players will know them all. After Pass-1♠; 2♣ most players will explain "Drury". If someone would ask for more information (like that is going to happen in real life, LOL), they would perhaps say: "Just Drury, well technically, Reverse Drury.". A European player would say: "He has a good raise to 2♠, a hand worth at least a good 8 points with (at least/precisely) 3 card support."

It is not a miracle that there is some friction when these two cultures meet. Having said that, it is clear that this time the Europeans are right. They are entitled to everything you know about partner's bid. "Transfer to clubs" is not sufficient and that is particularly true since experience has shown that the term "transfer" is not always used correctly (and not everybody speaks perfect English, despite the fact that everybody thinks they do). Simply state: "He has 6+ clubs, a decent suit, typically ~8-14 HCP." or whatever the agreement is.

To the American this explanation may seem blatantly obvious, but he is not aware of the fact that the Europeans are used to defending against 2NT bids that ask partner to bid 3♣, but could, e.g., show clubs or the red suits or a big hand with both majors.

So, humor those Europeans and simply explain -in terms of suit length and an approximate high card strength- what a bid shows.

Rik

Rik you have clarified precisely what the problem was. Can I take some of your post and post it in the IAC website?

[Trinidad]

onoway, on 2015-March-17, 18:44, said:

Rik you have clarified precisely what the problem was. Can I take some of your post and post it in the IAC website?

Sure, I would be honored.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

onoway, on 2015-March-14, 09:10, said:

That's what the crunch was.. 2nt was alerted as transfer to clubs, the opp wanted to know precisely what sort of hand it was that was doing the transfer

He is not entitled to know this, only the possible hand types that might be held. To my mind, you should be throwing out the pair that cannot explain their conventions rather than someone asking questions to try to understand them. The other points have largely been handled except to say that, as a European, I find the issue of a lack of full disclosure is also present all too often from European players so it would be wrong to leave the impression that it is only a cultural (American) thing.

[onoway]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-18, 05:41, said:

He is not entitled to know this, only the possible hand types that might be held. To my mind, you should be throwing out the pair that cannot explain their conventions rather than someone asking questions to try to understand them. The other points have largely been handled except to say that, as a European, I find the issue of a lack of full disclosure is also present all too often from European players so it would be wrong to leave the impression that it is only a cultural (American) thing.

The reason I threw out the one I did was that he wouldn't shut up long enough for me to deal with the issue, but was overriding and interrupting everything I was trying to say with more and more vehement comments, he wasn't listening at ALL. He wasn't even listening to anything the opps were saying, when the bidder did try to clarify somewhat what the HELLO convention bids were, but kept talking more and more excitedly over everything anyone said. It was in fact, a tantrum, and so I dealt with it like I would any other tantrum, removed the person from the situation until they decided to behave in a reasonable manner.

He made himself into the problem rather than letting me deal with the real issue. It got to the point of removing him or cancelling the match altogether, which I was on the verge of doing, but thought it unfair to penalize the other table of players, who were quietly getting on with and apparently enjoying their game.

[whereagles]

when will people start alerting 1NT an' say...

"15-17 H, balanced shape, may occasionally have a good 14 or bad 18. 5-card major is possible but not expected; 54m possible as well as 6m322 or, in extreme cases, 7222; 4441 also possible, but in that case the singleton must be A, K or Q; may eventually have 5m4M if doubletons are Jx or better, with at least one Qx or better."

There. Adjust time per hand to 15 mins and you'd have a perfect world.

[Zelandakh]

whereagles, on 2015-March-19, 04:30, said:

when will people start alerting 1NT an' say...

When I last played in a club I was alerting our 1NT and describing it along the lines of: "Good 11 to 14, 5 card major or singleton in a minor possible, occasionally a 6 card minor." That is quite a mouthful once translated to German...