BBO Discussion Forums: alerted but not in range - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

alerted but not in range is this OK?

#1 User is offline   kiwinacol 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 79
  • Joined: 2014-July-02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 2020-May-26, 00:58

Person playing with another member of same club in a tournament. Unknown what agreements they have but I'm sure the partner would not expect this hand. Person self alerts bid, 2S but has little like described. Is this just tough luck to those who read (N/S) the alert? Of course the partner doesn't see it, only opener and responder. Can you physic (if that's what the bid is) and give alert bid to opponents knowing description is out of range?


Only EW Vul. North deals and opens 1

1 2 2NT pass; .... The 2S overcall was alerted as "6-10 6+ suit".

Overcallers hand:

J 10 9 8 5 3 2

9 6

6

8 4 3






0

#2 User is offline   P_Marlowe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,451
  • Joined: 2005-March-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-May-26, 02:21

View Postkiwinacol, on 2020-May-26, 00:58, said:

Person playing with another member of same club in a tournament. Unknown what agreements they have but I'm sure the partner would not expect this hand. Person self alerts bid, 2S but has little like described. Is this just tough luck to those who read (N/S) the alert? Of course the partner doesn't see it, only opener and responder. Can you physic (if that's what the bid is) and give alert bid to opponents knowing description is out of range?


Only EW Vul. North deals and opens 1

1 2 2NT pass; .... The 2S overcall was alerted as "6-10 6+ suit".

Overcallers hand:

J 10 9 8 5 3 2

9 6

6

8 4 3

Selfalert but misdisribing the hand, is problematic.
If you play with screens, you get 2 meanings of the bid, and you have the chance to crosscheck, if they are in sync,
if yes, all is fine, you only have the right to know, what the corresponding p knowes, without this cross check, ...
I never would do this, it is pretty close to cheating.
Playing on BBO, I only would do it, if I am known to the opponents, knowing, that they trust me, against strangers,
again, it would look too much like cheating.
With kind regards
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
0

#3 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,154
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2020-May-26, 02:45

It's entirely legal as long as it's as much a surprise to his partner as it is to you. If they have a system card, you can check. The worry with this sort of bid is that they may have done it before, so if there's any decent possibility of his partner raising or doubling your final contract, then they may be in trouble.
0

#4 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 19,962
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-May-26, 08:33

Why is someone self-alerting a bid in offline bridge? If they're using screens, only the screenmate will read the explanation, not both opponents.

#5 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 19,962
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-May-26, 08:35

View PostP_Marlowe, on 2020-May-26, 02:21, said:

Selfalert but misdisribing the hand, is problematic.

Not really. You're allowed to deviate from your agreement, but you should still explain the agreement.

#6 User is offline   P_Marlowe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,451
  • Joined: 2005-March-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-May-26, 10:43

View Postbarmar, on 2020-May-26, 08:35, said:

Not really. You're allowed to deviate from your agreement, but you should still explain the agreement.

But how to verify the partnership agreement? This is my reason, claiming it problematic.
With kind regards
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
0

#7 User is offline   Gerardo 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 2,343
  • Joined: 2003-February-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dartmouth, NS, Canada

Posted 2020-May-26, 13:18

It is no different than partner alerting and explaining their agreement when applicable.

People are still allowed to deviate from their agreements, and opps are entitle only to the agreement, not the deviation.

If the deviation is common enough for the partner to pick it up, though, then it should be included as part of the agreement (by whoever is supposed to alert / explain).

#8 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,313
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2020-May-26, 13:36

View PostP_Marlowe, on 2020-May-26, 10:43, said:

But how to verify the partnership agreement? This is my reason, claiming it problematic.


Bridge ultimately makes no sense as a game unless the agreements are verifiable.
Unfortunately the laws leave the related mechanisms up to RAs and do not even consider online play, so the whole thing right now is a bit of a mess.
The lowest common demoninator is a system card, however poorly regulated or compiled.
0

#9 User is offline   Bad_Wolf 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 2011-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hawke's Bay New Zealand
  • Interests:Mathematics, history.

Posted 2020-May-26, 20:12

Players like this will often have less than advertised. I know many of the characters playing in the New Zealand online events and a couple are fairly dodgy. In practice you should always take the declared point ranges of weak bids with a grain of salt. Of course you can always look up this players previous efforts since its online; this is a huge advantage of online play in my view as all their misdeeds are available for public scrutiny. I would bet anything that the last time this player had a similar hand in similar circumstances he made the same bid. Unfortunately the bridge world is full of players like this who "agree" a range but it comes with an implied wink. They are either oblivious to their implicit understanding with partner or simply don't give a crap - the latter types are just cheats.
慖n general, though, counting losers is easy. You find the people who mention 搇osing trick count?or 搇osers?in a post-mortem, line them up, and count them?
-Kieran Dyke
0

#10 User is offline   bluenikki 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: 2019-October-14

Posted 2020-May-27, 06:44

View Postkiwinacol, on 2020-May-26, 00:58, said:

Person playing with another member of same club in a tournament. Unknown what agreements they have but I'm sure the partner would not expect this hand. Person self alerts bid, 2S but has little like described. Is this just tough luck to those who read (N/S) the alert? Of course the partner doesn't see it, only opener and responder. Can you physic (if that's what the bid is) and give alert bid to opponents knowing description is out of range?


Only EW Vul. North deals and opens 1

1 2 2NT pass; .... The 2S overcall was alerted as "6-10 6+ suit".

Overcallers hand:

J 10 9 8 5 3 2

9 6

6

8 4 3



In the circumstance you describe, with no regular partnership, it is unlikely that there is any actual agreement about the point range of a jump overcall. For that matter, in your regular partnerships, do any of you have a explicitly agreed point range? If so, why?

If it is not written down, there should be no alert or self-alert.
0

#11 User is offline   msjennifer 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,311
  • Joined: 2013-August-03
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Variable private
  • Interests:Cricket,Photography,Paediatrics and Community Medicine.

Posted 2020-May-27, 07:00

Sir
the laws fairly fall short in such a case.If I was the director i would have watched this pair by using an observer to sit on their table in the future tournaments.If he had just daid "it is an undefined preempt in Spades " it would not have been misinformation.Yes ,I know that a player may bid 7NT on 0 points. .The problem here is he gave the HCP range which fell short in the 2S bid and it is here that the laws are FEEBLE and Cheaters can escape penalty.
0

#12 User is offline   Lobowolf 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,027
  • Joined: 2008-August-08
  • Interests:Attorney, writer, entertainer.<br><br>Great close-up magicians we have known: Shoot Ogawa, Whit Haydn, Bill Malone, David Williamson, Dai Vernon, Michael Skinner, Jay Sankey, Brian Gillis, Eddie Fechter, Simon Lovell, Carl Andrews.

Posted 2020-May-27, 10:38

There are two separate potential issues here -

1) The misdescription of the actual hand; and

2) A possible undisclosed partnership agreement.

The (negative to the 2 bidder) replies to date have mostly focused on the possibility of an undisclosed agreement, but those replies are not addressing the issue as framed in the OP, which states "I'm sure the partner would not have expected this hand.". That's the very essence and description of a psych, and psychs are perfectly legal. OP's concern - as the post was written - is with the fact that s/he received a description that didn't match the actual hand. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
1. LSAT tutor for rent.

Call me Desdinova...Eternal Light

C. It's the nexus of the crisis and the origin of storms.

IV: ace 333: pot should be game, idk

e: "Maybe God remembered how cute you were as a carrot."
1

#13 User is offline   miamijd 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 672
  • Joined: 2015-November-14

Posted 2020-May-28, 14:33

I'm afraid I don't understand. Why would this bid be self-alerted? If you aren't playing with screens (and since this was a club, you wouldn't be), you don't self-alert. And even if you did have screens, this isn't an alertable call.

So I am very confused.
0

#14 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,154
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2020-May-28, 15:05

View PostLobowolf, on 2020-May-27, 10:38, said:

There are two separate potential issues here -

1) The misdescription of the actual hand; and

2) A possible undisclosed partnership agreement.

The (negative to the 2 bidder) replies to date have mostly focused on the possibility of an undisclosed agreement, but those replies are not addressing the issue as framed in the OP, which states "I'm sure the partner would not have expected this hand.". That's the very essence and description of a psych, and psychs are perfectly legal. OP's concern - as the post was written - is with the fact that s/he received a description that didn't match the actual hand. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.


Psyches are legal, but you need to examine the psycher's partner's actions to see if you are entitled to redress.
0

#15 User is offline   P_Marlowe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,451
  • Joined: 2005-March-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-May-30, 08:47

View Postmiamijd, on 2020-May-28, 14:33, said:

I'm afraid I don't understand. Why would this bid be self-alerted? If you aren't playing with screens (and since this was a club, you wouldn't be), you don't self-alert. And even if you did have screens, this isn't an alertable call.

So I am very confused.

Hi,

my take was / is, that this occurred on BBO, maybe the club decided to go online duuring the corona times.

And I want to make it clear, I dont dispute, that psyches are legal, ... I just find psyches problematic, when the
psych is via a self alert. And again, if you are in a zone of trust, i.e. you know the guys, than this is perfectly fine,
only if you are not in a trust zone, ..., well be aware, that someone my not believe your claim, that your alert decribed
the partnership understanding.

With kind regards
Marlowe
With kind regards
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
0

#16 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 19,962
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-June-01, 08:34

View Postmiamijd, on 2020-May-28, 14:33, said:

I'm afraid I don't understand. Why would this bid be self-alerted? If you aren't playing with screens (and since this was a club, you wouldn't be), you don't self-alert. And even if you did have screens, this isn't an alertable call.

So I am very confused.

Alerting rules depend on jurisdiction. The OP is in New Zealand, maybe they alert weak jump overcalls there.

#17 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,867
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2020-June-02, 12:42

View PostP_Marlowe, on 2020-May-26, 10:43, said:

View Postbarmar, on 2020-May-26, 08:35, said:

Not really. You're allowed to deviate from your agreement, but you should still explain the agreement.

But how to verify the partnership agreement? This is my reason, claiming it problematic.

One might just as easily say that self-alerting is problematic.

View PostBad_Wolf, on 2020-May-26, 20:12, said:

Players like this will often have less than advertised. I know many of the characters playing in the New Zealand online events and a couple are fairly dodgy. In practice you should always take the declared point ranges of weak bids with a grain of salt. Of course you can always look up this players previous efforts since its online; this is a huge advantage of online play in my view as all their misdeeds are available for public scrutiny. I would bet anything that the last time this player had a similar hand in similar circumstances he made the same bid. Unfortunately the bridge world is full of players like this who "agree" a range but it comes with an implied wink. They are either oblivious to their implicit understanding with partner or simply don't give a crap - the latter types are just cheats.

"Players like this." You are condemning this player on the basis of one incident. "I would bet anything that the last time this player had a similar hand in similar circumstances he made the same bid." Maybe he did. The question is how frequently this comes up for this pair. That is what leads his partner to expect it, and thus it becomes an implicit partnership understanding. But assuming such an understanding exists without any other evidence than one hand is fundamentally wrong.

View PostCyberyeti, on 2020-May-28, 15:05, said:

Psyches are legal, but you need to examine the psycher's partner's actions to see if you are entitled to redress.\

No. That's the director's job, not the players'.

Players need to understand the rules here, and the frequency of questions like the OP's tell me that they don't. Here's the deal:

1. Partnership understandings arise via either explicit discussion or mutual experience.
2. Partnership understandings must be disclosed to the opponents.
3. The Regulating Authority, or the fact of being online, specifies how this is to be done.
4. The Alert Procedure, whether f2f or online, is intended to disclose partnership understandings.
5. It is legal in most cases to deliberately deviate from such understandings, provided partner has no more indication than opponents that this may happen.
6. It is legal in most cases to accidentally deviate from such understandings.
7. There should be no stigma attached to such deviations, whether deliberate or accidental, and whether they rise to the level of "psych" or not.
8. The fact that one self-alerts online or behind screens does not change any of the above.

As the song says "paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep". Don't let it.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
1

#18 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,154
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2020-June-02, 14:20

View Postblackshoe, on 2020-June-02, 12:42, said:

No. That's the director's job, not the players'.

Players need to understand the rules here, and the frequency of questions like the OP's tell me that they don't. Here's the deal:

1. Partnership understandings arise via either explicit discussion or mutual experience.
2. Partnership understandings must be disclosed to the opponents.
3. The Regulating Authority, or the fact of being online, specifies how this is to be done.
4. The Alert Procedure, whether f2f or online, is intended to disclose partnership understandings.
5. It is legal in most cases to deliberately deviate from such understandings, provided partner has no more indication than opponents that this may happen.
6. It is legal in most cases to accidentally deviate from such understandings.
7. There should be no stigma attached to such deviations, whether deliberate or accidental, and whether they rise to the level of "psych" or not.
8. The fact that one self-alerts online or behind screens does not change any of the above.

As the song says "paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep". Don't let it.


Sorry I was sloppy in my language, I was thinking as a director, but you tend to do it at least mentally as a player to see if it's worth calling the director.
0

#19 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,313
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2020-June-02, 14:25

View Postbarmar, on 2020-June-01, 08:34, said:

Alerting rules depend on jurisdiction. The OP is in New Zealand, maybe they alert weak jump overcalls there.


Many if not most jurisdictions alert weak jump overcalls, and weak jump responses too for that matter.
The natural meaning of a jump is strong, as the WBF alert procedures recognise.
0

#20 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,313
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2020-June-02, 14:34

View Postblackshoe, on 2020-June-02, 12:42, said:

Here's the deal:

1. Partnership understandings arise via either explicit discussion or mutual experience.
2. Partnership understandings must be disclosed to the opponents.
3. The Regulating Authority, or the fact of being online, specifies how this is to be done.
4. The Alert Procedure, whether f2f or online, is intended to disclose partnership understandings.
5. It is legal in most cases to deliberately deviate from such understandings, provided partner has no more indication than opponents that this may happen.
6. It is legal in most cases to accidentally deviate from such understandings.
7. There should be no stigma attached to such deviations, whether deliberate or accidental, and whether they rise to the level of "psych" or not.
8. The fact that one self-alerts online or behind screens does not change any of the above.

As the song says "paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep". Don't let it.


I agree 98% and upvoted the post.
But I would say 'always' for #6 and 'in most cases' (coherent with #5) for #7.
Let the stigma be for deliberate deviations where partner might remember.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


富二代精品国产app