I play 2D as forcing Stayman with one of my partners. A few years ago in a Regional event at an NABC, I opened 1N and partner bid 2D. I said, ‘Alert’ and also pulled out the blue card to give both visual and oral warning. RHO turned to me and scolded me saying that I should have said ‘transfer’. I looked directly at him and firmly repeated, ‘Alert’, hoping he would get the message to ask. I did not think it was proper for me to offer an unsolicited explanation. He shrugged his shoulders and doubled 2D. I held KT9x there so I redoubled and it was passed out. My partner, a very good player, had 3 small diamonds and plenty of other points. The defense got 3 trump tricks, but no others, so we scored +1560. Now they screamed for the directors about misinformation, but they NEVER asked what 2D meant, so the director ruled table result stands.

Good, Steve. I like to hear stories about justice being served. HE GOT EXACTLY WHAT HE DESERVED — A ZERO. Some people are so arrogant. They think they wrote the book — but in this case — certainly not the Rule Book.

Cheers,

Judy

This is a very interesting discussion because I was not aware we had to use the alert card if we said “alert” loud enough to be heard, but I guess the term “loud enough” is a judgement call only. I have not seen many people use the alert card however, either at the club level or at tournaments. So it is time to step it up and do both, because you are right, hearing problems do exist, especially at a large tournament where the acoustics are not very good to begin with.

The stop card is the same in my opinion. Some people do not use the stop card and either do nothing but make a skip bid or often times say “skip bid” so softly no one can hear it even on a good day. Then, they get irritated when the opp does not wait the expected ten seconds because they did not notice the skip for whatever reason. I asked a director if the stop card is required use. The answer was no if the person making the bid announces the skip, but once again, we all have to hear it. So I don’t know what is right or wrong in this case, but it would be good to be consistent and use the cards we have available in the box. They are there for a reason, as you said, not just to add color to the room.

The Alert card should always be used in tournaments. At a club, where everyone knows each other, I think it is fine to relax this if you know that everyone at the table can hear fine.

The Stop card, IMO, is the stupidest thing in bridge and should be eliminated. Does anyone seriously believe that people can’t tell the difference when your partner sits counting to ten before passing and when he is actually wrestling with a decision? If we seriously want to eliminate this sort of UI, we need to play with screens. Otherwise there is really no point. What does the counting to ten actually add to the game? Interestingly, I have noticed that a large percentage, maybe even a majority, of players that learned bridge after bidding boxes were in common use don’t even know the purpose of the stop card. Also, lots of people use it as some sort of control freak toy and think that the person wielding it is supposed to be holding it out until he thinks it is time for his opponent to call.

HBJ : Life would be much easier if there were TWO BIDDING BOXES. The first is to be used when all bids are straightforward and natural.
The other is when all bids have specific, unusual and alternative meanings, which should encourage the opponents to read the opponents’ system cards and/or ask for relevant explanations.
However, if a player is deemed to have selected a bidding card from the wrong box, then an automatic top is awarded to the injured side. Now how simple is that ?

If we are expected to wait ten seconds when an opponent makes a skip bid, then using a stop card seems OK to me, but I have always wondered why waiting ten seconds is needed. Who are we really helping here? I think it is the partner of the player making the skip bid. We were expected to wait ten seconds when someone announced a skip bid unless I am mistaken about this, so using a card to make the announcement instead is the same thing, isn’t it? I am not defending the stop card, but am curious why the ten second hesitation is needed.

For those of us who play fast (like me) it seems silly to sit there for ten seconds when I would not normally do so to begin with. Counting to ten is a big break in tempo for me, but does not give my partner any info because I am being “forced” to do this or get glares from some opponents and even an occasional director call when I have not done anything out of the usual for my style of play. Sometimes the opp who makes the skip bid forgets to put the stop card back in the box, and then we sit there for even longer. Maybe Marty is right, it is a control thing. Why do we need the ten second rule? Perhaps Judy and Bobby can enlighten me.

Thanks in advance. Interesting topic.

The ACBL is (wisely in my opinion) eliminating alerts when it may wake partner up. For instance, a 3C response to a 2N opening is no longer alertable. The alert would confirm (or deny) using puppet stayman. A motion for the St Louis BOD meeting is to also eliminate the alert for a 2D response to a 2C opener.

As far as the stop card goes, the ACBL asks you to hesitate for a few seconds over all skip bids whether the stop card is used or not. A fast pass over a skip bid is a break in tempo possibly as damaging as a prolonged hesitation.

1. The point of the Stop Card or the Skip Bid Warning, is not to help the partnership that used to the skip bid, but to create an artificial pause, so that no UI can travel between the other partnership.
2. It may be of interest to note, that sitting there twiddling your thumbs is also UI, so one should if one is capable, make at least some pretense of showing interest in the proceedings.
3. An immediate pass over a skip bid conveys UI as much as a long pause does.
4. Whether the stop card was used or not it is still incumbent upon the bidder following the skip bid to wait a requisite amount of time before placing a bid/call on the table. If for no other reason than to protect his own partnership.

Maybe, but a “fast pass”, as you phrase it, is only a break in tempo if this is out of the norm for a player’s style. I can see your point if the fast pass does alert partner to “keep quiet” and stay out of the auction. What if a player takes longer than ten to twelve seconds to make a call? Would this be considered a problem also? Once again, it goes back to how a person plays; fast, in the middle, or slow. Viva the difference!

Seems like it would be more important at tournaments to be consistent with the use of whatever cards we have in the box since so many of the faces are new and we don’t know styles of play. Maybe at our locals clubs, we could be a bit more relaxed.

Jane:

Thanks for your input. I always appreciate hearing from you as I know how much you love the game and are always interested in performing well — and on an even playing field.

We were the temporary victims of an abominable happening in the recent tournament when Bobby and I played in the Swiss Teams. Luckily it was adjudicated by an experienced and knowledgeable director.

First of all, there was no alert that EITHER of us heard when the lady overcalled my 1NT with 2H (showing AT LEAST FIVE HEARTS AND FIVE SPADES). Would a player of Bobby’s caliber, or anyone in their right mind, ever make such a nonsensical bid of 2S, with only a 4 card suit as well, when he knew the lady had at least five spades??? Of course not. It is no secret that Bobby’s hearing has been ebbing more of late, but there is nothing wrong with his mind. Hardly! Remember, I never heard the Alert bid EITHER. If I did, 2S would have taken on another meaning (asking for the minors). THAT IS WHY IT IS MANDATORY TO TAKE THE ALERT CARD OUT OF YOUR BIDDING BOX TO ASSURE THAT BOTH YOUR OPPONENTS ARE AWARE OF THE MEANING OF YOUR BID. It is similar to the Golden Rule. Your opponents are entitled to know what you know about the bid — just as you are privy to the same information about their methods. Very simple and outright!

One step further, it is suggested that you do not leave either the ALERT OR STOP card on the table and use it at WHEN NEEDED, but rather REMOVE the card from the box at the appropriate time so the physical motion of such intention brings it to the attention of both opponents. If that is too much of an effort to expect, then you should not be playing bridge.

Another reason and necessity for the appearance of the ALERT CARD is quite simple.

First, it calls it to the attention of your opponents. For instance a jump overcall is not always necessarily weak. (We play jump overcalls as an INTERMEDIATE bid when vulnerable and WEAK when non-vulnerable). Therefore, an alert is necessary to distinguish the two and the opponents are entitled to that information.

Equally important is the ten second rule. I am surprised it is even questioned. When you routinely wait the designated ten seconds and then pass, partner does not know whether you have some values or are relatively broke. A snap pass usually shows you never had any intention of competing and leaves the burden of reopening by the partner as a risk without any unauthorized information.

As far as the director who told you when a vocal skip bid is made, IT SUFFICES and the appearance of a the STOP CARD can be waived by such a vocal call — I believe he is wrong. WHY ARE THESE CARDS (ALERT and STOP) IN YOUR BIDDING BOX? It is simple courtesy to remove the red or blue card from the box. Vocal calls may not be audible. Lifting the designated card from your box should not be too strenuous.

That’s what good ethics are all about and puts everyone on an equal footing.

Cheers.

Judy

Hi Jane A,

Yes, I agree completely with your intentions for the use of the stop card. One should not give any unauthorized information to partner after the opponents sometime interrupt the flow of the bidding with some kind of a jump bid. It also applies, though not necessarily according to rule, when there is a contested high-level bidding contest when it sometimes goes: 1 heart, 1 spade, 4 hearts, *4 spades by the partner of the spade bidder. My view is that the stop card can and SHOULD be used in order to enable the original 1 heart bidder to understand that any snap pass or (for that matter snap anything) to now be made. The ethics of bridge forbid UI from being given which sometimes, not all (and probably not in your case) is ever given, because of your quick mind and your adjustment to whatever is happening.

However, not everyone is blessed with the quick witted mind that you possess and consequently the stop (or should be pause) card be used to remind everyone of their responsibilities to create an even tempo so that UI leaves the room.

We need to be constantly aware of the need to improve ethics, but, for years now, the ACBL has vetoed a card which merely says pause, but serves the same purpose as does the stop card. Sometimes when good and necessary reason needs to be present we need to innovate to make sure it continues to be present in all bidding sequences. Fie on those who insist on wiggle room to take advantage. BRIDGE IS NOT THE GAME FOR THOSE TYPES TO PLAY AND IT WOULD BE GOOD RIDDANCE FOR THEM TO FIND SOMEPLACE ELSE TO HAUNT! (strong words to follow).

*Pause card needed, but if not, the stop card will do!

Ellis:

Points well taken!

Thanks.

Judy

To Marty, Steven, JHG and Ellis,

All of you have simplistic, but rather good points, at least to me, basically discussing the mindsets which should be encouraged in neon with our tournament bridge.

It doesn’t matter much, how it is implemented, it only matters that good intentions are necessary and the good news is that everyone at the table with normal IQ’s or higher is able to discern the intention of all the players involved just what is going on and who is trying hardest to make bridge the game it needs to be. With alerts, bids such as NT openings and transfers need only be announced, FINE, but when an overcall is made and it also includes something original in its meaning, like a specific other suit, the table needs to be rattled until their opponents acknowledge that it is understood, otherwise it belongs in one of Steven Potter’s great group of books on Gamesmanship, Oneupsmanship etc.

For everyone, from beginner to expert, to not know almost the whole book on proper bridge ethics and all its nuances is the chief crime in our administration and, at times, it seems the ACBL goes out of its way not to clamp down on bad actors for fear of them renouncing what should be, their unwanted membership.

Sure they should be given the time to learn how to act, but then they should be expected to perform and NEVER revert back to using the laws as some kind of shield to keep from complying.

Marty:

I understand your annoyance — but you failed to take into account that every club is not under the same roof. You state you think Alert Cards in a club are unnecessary and Stop Cards are stupid. I couldn’t disagree more.

First of all, in Las Vegas, we frequently have tourists who don’t know one player from another, are not familiar with opponents systems nor are we with theirs, and have no clue who is hard of hearing and who isn’t. IMHO, Stop Cards and Alerts are MANDATORY so we are playing on an even turf. Many people try to get away with whatever they can (and often do) unless some kind of restraint is placed upon them. It is a game of egos and many will stop at nothing to gain even the slightest advantage.

I was around since the Sixties and because of marital ties kibitzed both world class competition overseas and the top experts in the States. I’ve seen it all! Some pairs and teams (both at home and abroad) would do (and did) anything to win and that includes some of our revered experts (who were quietly asked to stop playing together without making a public issue of it). Many (of course, not all) will stop at nothing to gain advantage and therefore, some type of guidelines must be in place — even at the club level — or they will run rampant.

I was an eye witness and know where I am coming from. It has been a painful experience which I will never forget.

Regretfully,

Judy

Judy (and by extension Bobby),

I’m one of those bidding scientists that have long plagued the game, dating all the way back to my teenage years. That I had two conventional agreements written up in The Bridge World before I was legally old enough to drink is one of my greater claims to fame (which, when you think of it, suggests a life without much accomplishment, but I digress). I learned early that there is a NEVER a good conversation that starts with somebody saying, “I never saw/heard your alert!”

Soooo, before the advent of boxes, I used my ‘announcer’s’ voice to say Alert, local club or tournament. I didn’t rap the table because i almost dislocated my knuckle that one time. Then, when the boxes came out, it was pull the alert card and wave it left and then right. But I added one more thing … a pre-alert. “We have many NON-STANDARD agreements on what would otherwise sound like regular auctions you MIGHT think you know the meanings of. PLEASE ASK” Presented audibly and in card format.

After that, no recriminations about the opponents not asking. I’d done, we’d one, our level best to keep the opponents informed.

I renew my perennial suggestion that there be two levels of alert. Alert whereby the ‘usual’ conventional agreement applies. And REALLY ALERT!!!!! whereby the opponents should ask right there or then or during a review of the bidding before the opening lead. (I always ask for a review before the opening bid with all bids, alerted or otherwise, explained. To be consistent). Don’t know where the 2H call comes in my two-level alert system, but to err on the side of caution …

Oddly, the one thing in all of this bidding card-showing enthusiasm I purported to have, I have never, ever pulled out a stop card. Never. I’ve always been willing to live without the ‘protection’ and the occasional theatrical faux thought mode by an opponent. Always figured that was worse than a quick pass or a protracted pause. I’ve adhered to the rules when SHOWN a stop card. But I knew that this was one thing I could never do consistently, so better to not do it all. Which is not to say that I didn’t have partners that would use it. Just me.

Did I mention my REALLY ALERT!!!! system?

Judy,
I think you misunderstood my comment. What I said is that at a club WHEN EVERYONE AT THE TABLE KNOWS EACH OTHER AND ARE KNOWN TO HEAR OK, I think just saying Alert is adequate. This would certainly not apply when there is a new person present or someone known to have hearing difficulties. Personally I always use the alert card, but I find that many people at my club don’t like to for some reason, and I don’t find it objectionable under the conditions I stated.

Secondly, I believe the STOP card is a good idea that simply does not work. I think more UI is conveyed by someone sitting and visibly moving their lips counting to ten (which is very common) as by someone making a snap pass after a jump. Players who are ethical (and knowledgeable – lots of players simply don’t see why it matters) will make an effort to act like they have some interest. However, I maintain that I can tell more about whether someone (partner or opponent) is actually interested in entering the auction while they wait out ten seconds than if they just wait the amount of time that seems natural to them. (When it is partner, I make every effort to ignore this and avoid taking any inferences, of course.)

Further, a jump is not the only time that the opponents make a bid that might be expected to require extra thinking to decide what to do, yet it is the only time we are required to pause. For example, if an opponent makes an unexpected artificial bid (alerted, of course!) that, for me at least, often requires more thought than deciding what to do if they preempt. Yet the laws seem to demand (practice is generally different) that I bid in tempo after the alerted bid, and certainly nobody says that I must wait some specific time like ten seconds.

But the thing that really drives me crazy, and that inspired my first comment, is that a substantial number of players think that they are supposed to hold the stop out for the amount of time they consider appropriate, and that their opponent is not permitted to call until they remove it. A week or so ago, this happened. My RHO preempted and waved the stop card in my face. I counted to ten and then made a bid, and she complained that I was not allowed to do anything until she took the stop away. I told her that was not the rule, and that she should discuss this with the director, but of course she did not do this.

I do use the stop card, and will begin using the alert card as well. I understand the points of view being presented about the ten second rule, so thanks for explaining all of this. I can count to ten, and even higher, at least most of the time. My partners will be glad to know this!

Another topic of interest to me-I just found out that as of January of 2013, Puppet Stayman no longer needs to be alerted over a two NT open. I was curious about what to do about the responses however, so I emailed Mike Flador to ask. He said Puppet does not need to be alerted, but the responses to Puppet, assuming the partnership agreement includes the system, do need to be alerted. OK, so have we accomplished very much here? I have no problem with alerting the responses, but why delete the need to alert the system. Many people understand the system, so if it is alerted to begin with, the responses are already known to the opps unless something unusual is being played which would require an alert anyway. Did we simplify, or not? We did save the need to alert, but in a way, not really. Is this a wave of the future for other systems?

This is not intended to be a complaint, just a question. I want to alert what needs to be alerted, announce what needs to be announced, and hesitate when I am supposed to, but I find some of the alerts, the no longer needs to alert, and what to announce can be confusing.

Thanks for all the info and opinions from everyone, especially Bobby and Judy. You both try to keep us headed in the right direction.

Marty:

Thanks for clarifying. I do appreciate your taking the time to do so. Someone once told me rules are made by fools. In many instances, I agree.

Often the people in the driver’s seat are not qualified to set specifics and sometimes (I know of particular instances) it is done with their own agenda in mind. I think the ACBL should review their policies and the choices of committees should not be so political — because the decisions of some of these appointees affect the entire game as well as specific individuals.

I know of a case where a famous player studied over partner’s opener with a mini-NT (8-10) with a Yarborough (holding one jack) and passed — which ended the auction. When he (a not-so-kosher bridge idol) was challenged as to why he went into a haze, he nonchalantly replied: “I was thinking of the best way to keep the opponents out of the auction.” And — indeed he did. His action was outright and deliberately intimidating and there is no place for those kind of mind games or individuals at the helm. However, the opponents called the director who fearlessly changed the result, awarding plus 660 to the temporarily robbed opponents.

I could go on and on — but why labor the point!

Committees that generate rulings that affect the entire membership should be better selected, objective and above board — regardless of their outstanding personal record as their decisions are often clouded by personal motivation.

Something to think about ………….

Forgot to mention that yesterday at the club, I had several bids when I needed to use the stop card. I was curious about what would happen because of this current blog. I made my bid, used and promptly replaced the stop card in the box, and the next person passed. NOT ONE PLAYER waited ten seconds, and I did not care a bit because they passed in tempo in my opinion. I now understand why the ten second hesitation rule exists, but it is too bad we need it at all.

Hi Jane:

Because not everybody plays by your admirable code of ethics, I do think the STOP CARD and ALERT CARD play a vital part in not divulging unauthorized information.

Perhaps the club director should announce that players should heed the purpose of both the STOP and ALERT CARDS and conform to the request. If presented in a non-offensive and non-accusatory tone of voice, perhaps it will do some good and enlighten people as to their responsibilities and the rules.

Many of the inexperienced players may not quite understand the purpose, but the great majority will comprehend their duty to adhere to the suggestion. Otherwise, it may give unauthorized information — which is not cricket.

Regards,

Judy

Hi Jane,

In a perfect world all finesses would work and both competitive partnerships would get good results, but, by saying such a ridiculous thing, impossible wishful dreaming, of course, dominates my thoughts.

In an adequate world, all competitions would be decided by skill, but based on about 100 factors, rather than just great system, expert card playing, and off-the-charts talent. Those other factors include many intangibles, including hard work, preparation, partnership harmony, intense uninterrupted concentration, active ethics, desire to win etc.

Those partnerships, playing for basically social reasons, but preferring to score high, at least once in a while would fill out the field and have their wishes granted, but in actuality would fulfill their goals, when they do not do so well, but still be more than willing to play often.

However, competitive bridge mirrors life with ups and downs, sometimes catering to great play, sometimes not, getting along with partner well, but certainly not all the time, but almost always creating a changing and unpredictable result which could be explained as bridge the way all of us have come to expect it.

Again, Jane, at least according to my judgment, you have it exactly how it is and that is, at least for you, it is not necessary, when a stop card is produced, to study 10 seconds, (whatever your tempo suggests is OK), but proper ethics by your partnership would always trump any other happening and everyone would be satisfied with your habits and no disputes would ever occur at your table.

However, your methods, from my experience, should definitely not apply to everyone. No doubt the rules are formulated to address questionable behavior which also is practiced by too many, who look for every edge. Furthermore the distribution of talent of these possible miscreants range to and from all levels of play, meaning from the very top to the bottom fishing ones.

We need to at least suggest, a method wherein we negate the advantage obtained by this group, and therefore the rules need to be similar to what you have come to disagree.

By all means, Jane, continue to do exactly what you do and all will respect you. It is only for the possible mass murderers that we are now discussing banning guns or at the very least, try and cut down on their opportunities for their unspeakable despicable behavior. Such is life as we know it, and at least in both of our lifetimes, sadly it will likely continue.

Hi Jane A,

Your question and reference to Puppet Stayman (PS) and why it is not now a required alert, the answer is that it is now believed by the powers who be that the partner of the intended PS or even possibly the PS user have forgotten what they are playing and therefore the alert procedure helps them more than it does their opponents, when it is possibly alerted by the player who does remember which then sets in motion an advantage for the users of it.

The powers who be, may be right in their assumptions, but sometimes the confusion is worse than the forget, at least for the orderly running of the tournament.

Only one answer which eventually can save our bridge society and that is a PURE HEART. I hope, at least some agree, but I am not holding my breath.

Thanks for the clarification. I would never have guessed this was the reason. It would be interesting to me to hear how the ACBL came to this conclusion. Not questioning their great wisdom (?); are there other alerts under consideration that may be removed for the same reason in the future?

I like the pure heart idea. My Sat partner says we deserve better results because we are both pure of heart. Usually gets a good laugh at the table, but not sure who is getting laughed at. Probably both of us.

Jane:

I think you got your answer when Bobby refers to “the powers that be.”

See ‘ya,

Judy