[pran]

barmar, on 2014-September-14, 11:18, said:

Must be nice to play in bridge clubs/tourneys where there's so much space between tables that you can't hear all the little bits of spoken instruction. The rest of us play in the real world. And as someone said above, if we called the TD for everything we overheard, they'd never have time for real rulings.

In my part of the (real) world we frequently have tables (at club Level) so close that you cannot everywhere walk easily between them. And the players are used to keep their voices low, so overhearing remarks at other tables is seldom any problem.

Maybe the players in your world should be trained in adapting to the local acoustics?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-September-14, 11:18, said:

Must be nice to play in bridge clubs/tourneys where there's so much space between tables that you can't hear all the little bits of spoken instruction. The rest of us play in the real world. And as someone said above, if we called the TD for everything we overheard, they'd never have time for real rulings.

Passive-aggressive insults aside, I've had players tell me we don't have time for any rulings.

[nige1]

pran, on 2014-September-14, 11:35, said:

In my part of the (real) world we frequently have tables (at club Level) so close that you cannot everywhere walk easily between them. And the players are used to keep their voices low, so overhearing remarks at other tables is seldom any problem. Maybe the players in your world should be trained in adapting to the local acoustics?

Most of the clubs, in which I play are like Pran's. I'm rather deaf but other players complain that they can overhear conversations at other tables. It rarely causes a problem because they do their best to ignore what they hear. It mist be hard, however, never to take subconscious advantage. An improvement might be disclosure rules that involved pointing to written explanations -- as previously suggested

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2014-September-14, 11:35, said:

In my part of the (real) world we frequently have tables (at club Level) so close that you cannot everywhere walk easily between them. And the players are used to keep their voices low, so overhearing remarks at other tables is seldom any problem.

Once again I am amazed at what some people claim to experience when playing bridge. For most of us, hearing some remarks at other tables is a reality several times a session. Fortunately it is indeed seldom a problem, because, like jallerton, we use common sense in deciding whether or not to report it. Knowing that there is a hand somewhere in the set of boards in play in which one of the players has 12-14 points, or on which a heart is led from dummy at some point, probably isn't going to help you very much when you have no idea which hand it is. Perhaps partly because you know it won't help, it is also easy to forget this particular piece of information. Knowing that a grand slam makes on a finesse on a hand somewhere in the set of boards in play may be more of a problem and more difficult to forget when a hand comes around on which it might be relevant.

[gordontd]

WellSpyder, on 2014-September-15, 09:51, said:

Once again I am amazed at what some people claim to experience when playing bridge. For most of us, hearing some remarks at other tables is a reality several times a session. Fortunately it is indeed seldom a problem, because, like jallerton, we use common sense in deciding whether or not to report it. Knowing that there is a hand somewhere in the set of boards in play in which one of the players has 12-14 points, or on which a heart is led from dummy at some point, probably isn't going to help you very much when you have no idea which hand it is. Perhaps partly because you know it won't help, it is also easy to forget this particular piece of information. Knowing that a grand slam makes on a finesse on a hand somewhere in the set of boards in play may be more of a problem and more difficult to forget when a hand comes around on which it might be relevant.

One of the regulars when I ran the Young Chelsea was a woman in her late 90s who had been a good player and as she had become deaf her (usually correct and concise) analysis became louder and often spoiled the boards for others. My favourite of hers, for getting the most information into a short sentence, was when she said loudly to one of her husbands: "Darling, if you'd pinned the ten of spades you'd have made your six clubs"!

[barmar]

I don't think anyone is claiming that overhearing stuff like this is never a problem. Just that most of the random chatter, including alert explanations and hearing declarers calling for cards from dummy, is not easily related to any specific boards. The cases that do make it hard to play a hand unbiased are usually easy to recognize, and that's when the TD should be called.

[nige1]

As well as the problem of accidental acquisition and subconscious usage of overheard information,. there is the theoretical risk that (heaven forbid!) an immoral player might deliberately eavesdrop in the hope of gaining illegal advantage. IMO, rule-simplification would reduce such dangers.

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2014-September-15, 19:03, said:

As well as the problem of accidental acquisition and subconscious usage of overheard information,. there is the theoretical risk that (heaven forbid!) an immoral player might deliberately eavesdrop in the hope of gaining illegal advantage. IMO, rule-simplification would reduce such dangers.

Which rule would you simplify, and how would it avoid such dangers?

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2014-September-16, 01:05, said:

Which rule would you simplify, and how would it avoid such dangers?

The law would stipulate that you "announce" the meaning of partner's calls. If possible, you would do this by pointing to the relevant explanation on your card/supplementary notes (which would then be AI to you). Also, each table would be supplied with a card containing a matrix of common meanings, to which you could point. You would have the right to switch-off opponents' "announcements"

This change wouldn't "avoid" the danger of disturbing other tables (for instance, an opponent might have poor eyesight); but it would "reduce" it. It would simplify the rules, for example: it would encourage players to complete convention-cards; there would be fewer misexplanaitons; there would no longer be any need for local alert regulations; It would remove confusion about what is alertable -- current alert regulations cause unnecessary infractions; IMO, it would speed up the game -- although others might disagree.

[barmar]

Maybe we should enhance the bidding box. Instead of just one Double card, we could have separate Takeout Double and Penalty Double cards. Replace the STOP card with Weak, Intermediate, and Strong Jump cards.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2014-September-16, 07:59, said:

Maybe we should enhance the bidding box. Instead of just one Double card, we could have separate Takeout Double and Penalty Double cards. Replace the STOP card with Weak, Intermediate, and Strong Jump cards.

And 2 1/2 ♠, etc

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2014-September-16, 06:52, said:

The law would stipulate that you "announce" the meaning of partner's calls. If possible, you would do this by pointing to the relevant explanation on your card/supplementary notes (which would then be AI to you). Also, each table would be supplied with a card containing a matrix of common meanings, to which you could point. You would have the right to switch-off opponents' "announcements"

This change wouldn't "avoid" the danger of disturbing other tables (for instance, an opponent might have poor eyesight); but it would "reduce" it. It would simplify the rules, for example: it would encourage players to complete convention-cards; there would be fewer misexplanaitons; there would no longer be any need for local alert regulations; It would remove confusion about what is alertable -- current alert regulations cause unnecessary infractions; IMO, it would speed up the game -- although others might disagree.

And which rule would be simplified by this?

[jallerton]

barmar, on 2014-September-15, 14:28, said:

I don't think anyone is claiming that overhearing stuff like this is never a problem. Just that most of the random chatter, including alert explanations and hearing declarers calling for cards from dummy, is not easily related to any specific boards. The cases that do make it hard to play a hand unbiased are usually easy to recognize, and that's when the TD should be called.

Well, Ed was claiming that anyone who hears any of this random chatter should call the TD.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2014-September-16, 12:05, said:

and which rule would be simplified by this?

I alluded to some of them e.g. most local alert regulations could be binned. IMO disclosure would be simpler with fewer UI problems.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2014-September-16, 15:43, said:

Well, Ed was claiming that anyone who hears any of this random chatter should call the TD.

I expressed an opinion. So?

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2014-September-15, 19:03, said:

As well as the problem of accidental acquisition and subconscious usage of overheard information,. there is the theoretical risk that (heaven forbid!) an immoral player might deliberately eavesdrop in the hope of gaining illegal advantage. IMO, rule-simplification would reduce such dangers.

gordontd, on 2014-September-16, 01:05, said:

Which rule would you simplify, and how would it avoid such dangers?

nige1, on 2014-September-16, 06:52, said:

The law would stipulate that you "announce" the meaning of partner's calls. If possible, you would do this by pointing to the relevant explanation on your card/supplementary notes (which would then be AI to you). Also, each table would be supplied with a card containing a matrix of common meanings, to which you could point. You would have the right to switch-off opponents' "announcements"

This change wouldn't "avoid" the danger of disturbing other tables (for instance, an opponent might have poor eyesight); but it would "reduce" it. It would simplify the rules, for example: it would encourage players to complete convention-cards; there would be fewer misexplanaitons; there would no longer be any need for local alert regulations; It would remove confusion about what is alertable -- current alert regulations cause unnecessary infractions; IMO, it would speed up the game -- although others might disagree.

gordontd, on 2014-September-16, 12:05, said:

And which rule would be simplified by this?

nige1, on 2014-September-16, 17:15, said:

I alluded to some of them e.g. most local alert regulations could be binned. IMO disclosure would be simpler with fewer UI problems.

You started by saying that if we simplified the rules, the dangers of players deliberately using UI would be reduced. Since nothing that you have said since seems to back this up, I think you were just trotting out one of your little mantras.

I don't disagree with you that some rule simplification would be a good thing, but you do rather go overboard with your wild, simplistic claims.

[WellSpyder]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-16, 22:11, said:

I expressed an opinion. So?

So others thought it might be sensible to illustrate that following the logic of this opinion would make the game almost completely unplayable in practice.

[blackshoe]

WellSpyder, on 2014-September-17, 02:35, said:

So others thought it might be sensible to illustrate that following the logic of this opinion would make the game almost completely unplayable in practice.

<shrug> Fair enough. Next topic.

[weejonnie]

All we need to do is look at (16A3) which states that No Player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated as extraneous) - there is no requirement that the information is correct.

I would have thought that this means that the 5 Heart bid is contraindicated - even if 16C1 doesn't apply.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2014-September-17, 00:19, said:

You started by saying that if we simplified the rules, the dangers of players deliberately using UI would be reduced. Since nothing that you have said since seems to back this up, I think you were just trotting out one of your little mantras.I don't disagree with you that some rule simplification would be a good thing, but you do rather go overboard with your wild, simplistic claims.

OK I'll try again:

• Where possible, replacing spoken explanations with some kind of silent disclosure would reduce information available to adjacent tables. (That was the original claim).
• Allowing a player to switch-off opponents' alerts/explanations would drastically reduce UI (at an obvious cost)
• The suggested rule-change to remove alerts would further reduce UI. It would also eliminate infractions caused by misinterpreting alerting rules. I contend that dropping all local alert-regulations would simplify the game.
• Of course, I concede that the final suggestion -- treating information from explanations as AI to both sides -- doesn't "reduce" UI . That change just redefines a particular kind of UI as AI -- but that suggestion (which might have originated with Jeff Rubens) relaxes the strain on the mind-reading skills of directors