Disclosure in BBO club games
In our weekly county online club game on BBO we are trying to persuade players to explain not only every call they make which would require an alert or announcement in face-to-face bridge, but also anything that the opponents might want to ask about (according to the dictum "tell 'em what you play"). Thus not only would we want them to explain their no trump range every time they bid no trumps with an agreed range (including rebids and overcalls), but also such bids as natural jump overcalls, Acol or Benjamin 2C openers, splinters, cue-bids, Lebensohl etc.
While most players are very good at following this, a number of them are particularly lax about explaining opening 1NT and two bids. I suspect this is because they have convention cards and often greet their opponents with a summary of their system which includes this information. It doesn't particularly bother me if they've just told me their basic system and they open 1NT or 2C (provided they at least alert the latter), but we have had some complaints that some players are not explaining these calls.
What is standard practice in other online clubs, and how good do you find compliance? Do you think we'd be being overzealous if we insisted on more rigid adherence?
Comments
Hi vixTD
I have played at three clubs and they all ask for alerting 'announcable' and conventional bids below and above 3NT. Just like BBO recommend. I have watched some non-uk teams games and some alert/explain everything even a stop bid as GF. I must admit that others are a little less accurate. Sometimes they alert and explain bids that are 'obvious'.
I would say that in the clubs I play at there is a variance in the amount of alerting taking place. Some don't give the NT ranges and many do not have a system(convention) card. Some find it strange to alert bids over 3NT and others don't even know they should. The non alerters cover all standards of player and all grades.
So to sum up compliance is good in places. I think that enforcing it too much might be counter productive. Prefer to 'nudge' people by example. I think you aren't over-zealous if you insist, but you might need to do a 'Directors Blog' and discuss the point in that you wish to bring out. For instance show reason why a Stayman bid over 1NT and 2NT might be different and why it is important to alert and explain. You could show that if a 2 club bid is not alerted in response to a 1NT might result in misinformation. Their LHO might have doubled an alerted 2C bid for a lead. There must be other circumstances that could be used as examples. But don't do it all at once.
Respect for trying and I wish you good luck.
CMOT
Best way to enforce it, is for the ops to always ask the meaning of every bid that should be alerted/explained... so that it becomes easier/faster to just do it as it should be.
I think that a lot of it is down to lack of knowledge of the differences between online and offline bridge.
We do send out newsletters by e-mail telling players of their obligations to explain their bids, and asking them to abide by this. Some players just do as little as they would in face-to-face bridge, and take the attitude that if more information is available somewhere (e.g on the convention card) then it's up to the opponents to look for it, or to ask. I've heard players object that it will slow the game down if they have to type descriptions of almost every call they make, but in my experience it's even slower if the opponents have to ask, wait for a response, ask for further explanation in the chat, and sometimes find the other players aren't looking at the chat.
Most of the offences are for 1NT openers and 2C responses, which I'm sure some can't conceive of being anything other than 12-14 and Stayman.
We did once have an auction by our opponents that went 2C (art and strong) - 4NT (Blackwood); 5H (two aces) - 6NT. There were no explanations, or even alerts. I asked for an explanation before leading, and got a long silence. It took us so long to drag a response out of them that we missed the second board. I think the very least we can do is ask the TD to give Av+/Av- for the missed board when one side are clearly at fault (and encourage the non-offenders to call the TD). There's not much else that's available by way of sanctions on BBO, and we are trying to encourage first rather than penalise.
Hi VixTD
yes I can feel your pain. Only thing I can suggest is that a claim for damage needs to be made and the score adjusted by the director on each and every appropriate occassion.
There is another thread
https://www.ebu.co.uk/forum/discussion/1034/who-is-at-fault#latest
that covers what to do when no explaination is given.
Good luck for now, just imagine the chaos when we go back to F2F!! Lead out of turn, bid out of turn, revokes to name but a few. And we will still have failure to alert or announce.
CMOT
If you play a pairs round of 2 boards in 14 minutes then it can take a lot of time to get the information you need some of the time. Even if you click the bid or ask privately for an explanation you can be ignored. Eventually you can provoke an answer but your 14 mins disappears rapidly and, of course, most of the time there is no damage from any failure to explain. Even when the players give a system summary then with certain TDs you have to wade your way past 18 announcements in the chat to find it. It isn't hard to click 12-14 or Stayman before you make the bid!