[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-March-26, 19:49, said:

The other sets a flexible rule: "alert what your opponents might not understand".

The problem with defining non alertable meanings for each call is that they are hard to memorize for most players and, therefore, hard to apply, unless they are very straightforward.

The latter works well inthe EBU. The former seems ridiculous to me, but if it works for players in the Netherlands, great.

Hanoi5, on 2015-March-26, 20:47, said:

I believe there is something more important than global regulations and that might somehow help with the appeareance of global SYSTEM and ALERT regulations: the establishment of a standard bidding system. I think at the present moment there are as many bidding systems as people teaching them. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to 'revert' to standard? Or find a partner and agree to play 'standard' so that you don't have to discuss much? How about a Director asking a pair to stop playing a system they don't know well and just go back to 'standard'? It doesn't have to be a NEW system, the WBF could just choose BW standard or the system played at the World Individuals (with some additions I guess). I think it would be an excellent way to go towards global regulations.

It is very difficult for sarcasm to be understood on the Internet. You need to include smileys or something,

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2015-March-26, 02:29, said:

When I say it would be nice, I meant it would be nice for me. I don't expect another jurisdiction to tailor its regulations to what I think would be nice.

I answered the poll with my preference. I wouldn't impose my preference on any jurisdiction which feels that:

3H (3S) double should be alerted if it is penalty. If it is penalty????? give me a break. But so be it. I will try to memorize the times when I need to alert things like that.

Have you found this last to be a problem? If not, could you tell me what specific problem you have had when playing in foreign jurisdictions?

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2015-March-26, 22:14, said:

Have you found this last to be a problem?

Not any more, now that I know there are jurisdictions where I make a one-suited preempt and a local might possibly think a double by partner would be takeout for a suit I won't have. But it never would have occurred to me the first time. That first time, they would be getting a free-shot indemnity for their risky overcall... and that is a problem IMO.

It never would have occurred to me to look it up in advance, and if I did, would probably have assumed that exception had simply been too obvious to mention in their rules.

[Zelandakh]

Hanoi5, on 2015-March-26, 20:47, said:

I believe there is something more important than global regulations and that might somehow help with the appeareance of global SYSTEM and ALERT regulations: the establishment of a standard bidding system.

I am fine with this providing I can choose what the standard system is. For bridge itself I think it would be a disaster. One of the big selling points of the game for people like me is precisely the ability to write something original in the sphere of bidding. Cutting away bidding improvements completely would mean our standard system is at least as bad in 20 years as SAYC is now. Would you like to be forced to play, for example, Culbertson? Do you want to tell all the LOLs and LOMs in America they now have to use Acol? or Precision? or Moscito? The idea is increase the popularity of the game, not kill it completely!

Vampyr, on 2015-March-26, 22:03, said:

It is very difficult for sarcasm to be understood on the Internet. You need to include smileys or something,

Indeed!

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on 2015-March-26, 19:49, said:

Since there is no standard system in the WBF competitions, the WBF alert regulation is what it is: short, simple, and imperfect but the least of evils when there is no standard system. But I can easily see that a bridge club will have an alert regulation that says: "alert all meanings that are different from what you have learned in our bridge course". That regulation will work fine for that club (as long as it is clear to its members that the regulation is only valid at that club).

You are probably right that it is the least of evils. But it is a bit difficult to enforce. There will always be some opps who find 4-card major openings, or 1NT openings that could contain two doubletons, unexpected so some will interpret this as if they should alert everything.

[Hanoi5]

I might be so wrong I can't even see it.

I never meant to say that EVERYBODY HAD TO play the same system, but why can't everybody learn the game with the same system? Why shouldn't there be a standard to which people can refer to when they don't know the particulars of some other systems? What is 'natural'? What is 'artificial'? It might be natural for you to open 1♣ on two cards with 4=4=3=2 but for me that is not correct; you might think 'better minor' means opening with your best quality minor suit holding but I take it as opening with the longest one, regardless of suit quality, and opening clubs when they're both 3-3 in length, 1NT-4♣ means Gerber to you but it shows both Majors at least 5-5 with game playing values for me.

After learning the game and knowing how to play standard bidding some people will surely drift towards other systems, and that's fine but they will know what standard means and can play it too, if need be. But how can a LOL from Australia go to the US and try to get a partner only to find out she doesn't play Multi!? Or she isn't even allowed to use the convention with her partner because the LA's have decided it is too much? Worse, how will a foreigner know something is not natural when he didn't learn bridge in that environment? If there was a standard natural system everybody knows it would be easy to say that ANYTHING departing from that system is alertable. Wouldn't it be nice?

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on 2015-March-27, 04:41, said:

You are probably right that it is the least of evils. But it is a bit difficult to enforce. There will always be some opps who find 4-card major openings, or 1NT openings that could contain two doubletons, unexpected so some will interpret this as if they should alert everything.

This why it is important to cultivate an attitude that you alert for the opponents and that it is best to be as forthcoming with your alerts as possible. A simple, flexible WBF like rule makes that possible. A complex, rigid rule set makes that impossible.

In my view an alert means: "I think that you might want to ask for the meaning." It doesn't mean: "I have to say 'alert' because the regulations prescribe that I say 'alert'."

Rik

[hrothgar]

Couple quick points:

1. I think that the question itself is moot. Even if you have a consistent set of rules across the world, I don't believe that you are going to be able to ensure consistent enforcement which is what really matters. As a practical example, consider the question of psyches. The right to psyche is enshrined in the laws of bridge which, in theory, should be consistent across the world and yet we see all sorts of regulatory bodies banning psyches. I'm not just talking about the Friday night game down at the old folks home or some silly individual on BBO. There are entire national regulatory bodies (Italy, Austria) that have banned psyches. The WBF has sanction official tournaments run under its auspices that have banned psyches. People are welcome to advance all kinds of ridiculous theories about the way the world should be, but at the end of the day reality bats last.

2. As a rule, I think that local National organizations should be able to craft their own regulations. With this said and done, I genuinely believe that the ACBL is so piss poor at this that we would be better off copying what the EBU adopts. I'm not joking here. I am not saying this for effect. The ACBL is grossly incompetent and we'd all be a lot better off if the organization took a bullet to the head.

[euclidz]

Every time a new rule comes in, it is an irritant for a while them it becomes second nature, when partner now opens 1NT my mouth moves uttering the appropriate announcement and I don't even know I've said it.

What does irritate me is the requirement to leave the board on the table throughout the game and having to negotiate around it as an obstacle and what REALLY irritates me is that person who, when it is taken away, insists it be returned to the table just because they can.

[campboy]

euclidz, on 2015-March-27, 09:16, said:

What does irritate me is the requirement to leave the board on the table throughout the game and having to negotiate around it as an obstacle and what REALLY irritates me is that person who, when it is taken away, insists it be returned to the table just because they can.

There are at least two important reasons to leave it on the table.

• So that everyone can see the vulnerability.
  
• To make sure it is the same way round when you come to return cards to the slots.

[Vampyr]

Hanoi5, on 2015-March-27, 04:55, said:

I might be so wrong I can't even see it.

Well your idea is remarkably bad anyway.

Quote

I never meant to say that EVERYBODY HAD TO play the same system, but why can't everybody learn the game with the same system?

The question remains, who gets to choose the system?

The majority of players only ever play the first system they learned. Many have trouble getting their heads round a single bidding system, and could never manage to learn both the "universal" system and the one they want to play. So most people would end up playing this universal system; I can't imagine anything more dreary! But anyway this system would have to be super simple, as it would have to suit everyone including those who prefer to play a very simple system. Maybe you could have initial takeout doubles, Stayman and Blackwood for conventions. But in this case, most people already know the prospective "universal system".

euclidz, on 2015-March-27, 09:16, said:

What does irritate me is the requirement to leave the board on the table throughout the game and having to negotiate around it as an obstacle and what REALLY irritates me is that person who, when it is taken away, insists it be returned to the table just because they can.

What does the board get in the way of? If the dummy is too far away for you to see or to play yourself if you have to, you can shift the board nearer to yourself. It doesn't have to stay dead centre.

I would never allow an opponent to remove the board in play from the table, or move it to the corner or in fact anywhere.

[aguahombre]

euclidz, on 2015-March-27, 09:16, said:

Every time a new rule comes in, it is an irritant for a while them it becomes second nature, when partner now opens 1NT my mouth moves uttering the appropriate announcement and I don't even know I've said it.

What does irritate me is the requirement to leave the board on the table throughout the game and having to negotiate around it as an obstacle and what REALLY irritates me is that person who, when it is taken away, insists it be returned to the table just because they can.

The requirement is to leave it on the table throughout the hand, not throughout the game. I see nothing wrong with making that board the only one on the table during its play.

[akwoo]

Hanoi5, on 2015-March-27, 04:55, said:

I might be so wrong I can't even see it.

I never meant to say that EVERYBODY HAD TO play the same system, but why can't everybody learn the game with the same system?
[snip]

If there was a standard natural system everybody knows it would be easy to say that ANYTHING departing from that system is alertable. Wouldn't it be nice?

Let's take a single point of this purported standard natural system.

Should reverses show extra strength in this system or not?

Let's say they DO show extra strength. We have lots of beginners and lifetime beginners who simply are unable to recognize a reverse. That's why they are playing that reverses don't show extras in the first place! Now if you require that reverses not showing extras be alerted, they actually are unable to play the game without breaking the rules several times every session. After all, they can't alert a reverse if they don't know what a reverse is!

Let's say they do NOT show extra strength. Then players who do know what they are doing would have to alert constantly, and it would be hard for people who play a reverse bid as having some more unusual, artificial meaning to actually get across the idea that the opponents really have to ask. To some extent this can be solved with announcements, but given how many players in ACBL land (are allowed to) forget to announce their NT range… (Also, for partners of advanced beginners who usually but not always recognize a reverse, we're talking about major UI leakage.)

[barmar]

mike777, on 2015-March-26, 18:48, said:

Should bridge regulations be the same everywhere?

I would vote no. Let the different regions act as a laboratory of ideas.
Let the tower of Babel reign free to roam.

The "laboratory" idea makes good sense for a relatively new game that's still undergoing active evolution. But bridge is a century old, hasn't it matured enough that we don't still need to experiment with how to regulate it?

I'm not saying that the game itself should stagnate. There's still room for players to experiment with new bidding systems, for instance. But it seems like it should be about time that the regulatory mechanics should have stablized.

But I'm also still not arguing for universal regulations. The general philosophy behind system and alert regulations is to accomodate the players. We shouldn't make regulations consistent just for the sake of consistency. This would unnecessarily inconvenience and annoy players in jurisdictions that would have to change significantly.

There are situations where consistency is important. Something like the Internet would work well if there were a Tower of Babel of different network protocols (that's what things were like in the 70's, although it wasn't a serious problem because there weren't that many computers yet). But bridge regulations are more like which side of the road you should drive on: it's not a big problem that we drive on the right in the US, while they drive on the left in the UK. It would probably be nice for world travelers if it were consistent everywhere, but is that a good reason to force one group to change?

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2015-March-27, 14:26, said:

It would probably be nice for world travelers if it were consistent everywhere, but is that a good reason to force one group to change?

Every vehicle would have to be retrofitted in the jurisdictions required to change. That joke aside --- I repeat what would be nice for me shouldn't be a criterion for any change. I am willing to live with having to study up before playing the game in another jurisdiction -- be content with my bitching about it.

[mgoetze]

Hanoi5, on 2015-March-27, 04:55, said:

What is 'natural'? What is 'artificial'?

How on earth is adopting BWS as a worldwide standard going to help you answer this question?

[Vampyr]

mgoetze, on 2015-March-27, 20:40, said:

How on earth is adopting BWS as a worldwide standard going to help you answer this question?

The idea of using BWS is hilarious. This is why I am torn between whether Hanoi's post is a joke or not.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2015-March-27, 15:14, said:

Every vehicle would have to be retrofitted in the jurisdictions required to change. That joke aside --- I repeat what would be nice for me shouldn't be a criterion for any change. I am willing to live with having to study up before playing the game in another jurisdiction -- be content with my bitching about it.

But what specific jurisdictions have been onerous in learning about? I think it would be nice if Nigel answered this as well. Who is suffering under the status quo, and how?

[helene_t]

Hanoi5, on 2015-March-27, 04:55, said:

I never meant to say that EVERYBODY HAD TO play the same system, but why can't everybody learn the game with the same system?

I could see an advantage of forcing the Americans to use the metric system and the Euro, and even forcing the whole world to use latin script would have advantages although it would be a sick idea.

But why on earth should every country have the same standard bidding system? Even if it was feasible to agree on a worldwide standard and even if the transition to wj2020 or wei precision or whatever the standard would be would take place without costs and setbacks in teaching quality I would see it as something that made the game poorer.

Suppose the Chinese, French etc were told to abolish their own cuisine because the new world standard is that everyone has to eat indonesian. By removing variation we would remove sources of inspiration so the game would stagnate.

I know you are not proposing to make alternative systems illegal but the fact is that alternative systems would be unknown to most players and even most inovators would have limited exposure to alternative systems.

When the swedes changed to driving in the right side of the road it had advantages for swedes going abroad. That all beginners in bermuda learn precision has the advantage that everyone can play with everyone. But what problem would it cause if Yorkshire played moscito while Lancashire played acol? Nobody visits another county expecting to be able to partner a local anyway. And as for Yorkshire people failing to alert theit moscito 2c opening when visiting Lancashire ... get over it. It's a non issue.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2015-March-27, 21:56, said:

Who is suffering under the status quo, and how?

Recently, Fantunes were caught out by the ACBL regulation about opening 1N with a singleton. Players have had to abandon Multi because they could not borrow or print the official ACBL defence. EBU regulations about rule of "x", keeping open a Multi, and alerting have caused problems.
We might get a better idea of attitudes if players were polled on such matters. Many players seem happy with local Bridge variants but I feel that others would prefer a global game with simpler rules. It's encouraging that so many play on-line.