[Blofeld]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 2 2006, 06:30 AM, said:

Sadly, another consequence of the rules is that

1NT P 2H (announced 'spades') P
2S x

is alertable if it is takeout

Yes, we had this problem this evening. It feels very wrong.

Overall I like the new structure though.

[david_c]

the saint, on Aug 2 2006, 07:12 PM, said:

I'm still of the opinion that no doubles should be alerted. Players can ask. It solves a lot of UI problems that way.

I've thought about this a bit more this week ...

"No doubles should be alerted" still seems a bit much. Alerting does serve a useful purpose, and some meanings of doubles are sufficiently unexpected that it would be helpful if opponents were informed about them.

On the other hand, the EBU's approach seems misguided. It is not necessary to use alerting to distinguish penalty doubles from takeout doubles - at least, not after the first round or so of the auction. So, while it may be useful to have alerts for some doubles here, they're really using them for the wrong thing. And on top of that they get all these problems with trying to write regulations explaining what an unalerted double is supposed to mean.

So basically - and this is very unusual - I think the ACBL have got it about right. I'd want to change it a bit for English tastes, but the ACBL's ideas about the sort of doubles which should be alertable seem to be reasonable.

[Trinidad]

I have always felt that doubles shouldn't be alerted, as long as they are on a sliding scale between take out doubles and penalty doubles.

So, take out doubles, responsive doubles, action doubles, competitive doubles, cooperative doubles, (suggestion to) penalty doubles do not need to be alerted. They are all "Do something smart, partner"-doubles where the flavor varies from 99% take out to 99% penalty.

However, doubles that have a much more specific meaning than this general "Do something smart"-idea should be alerted. Examples of these are DONT doubles, Lionel doubles, support doubles, Rosenkrantz doubles, lead directing doubles, lead inhibiting doubles, colorful cuebid doubles, stolen bid doubles, Lightner doubles, Snapdragon doubles and other.

The only double that falls a bit in both categories is the negative double. One can argue that it is "take-out-ish". Another may argue that 1♣-(1♥)-Dbl saying: "I have exactly four spades" is fairly specific.

But I would be happy if the people at the top would adopt the approach that specific doubles are alertable and "do something smart" doubles are not. I would gladly accept any decision on where to put the negative double.

Rik

[badderzboy]

The new concept on alerting doubles seems easier to remember but no doubt will be the cause of some dispute but it shouldn't be too hard to remember that a double of a natural suit bid is not alertable if for takeout and a double of an artificial bid is not alertable if it shows that suit otherwise alert!

The only problems I've seen so far are people annoucing too much info ie weak may be 5 cards for a 2 level opening and so on.

Steve

[david_c]

badderzboy, on Aug 10 2006, 08:46 AM, said:

The new concept on alerting doubles seems easier to remember but no doubt will be the cause of some dispute but it shouldn't be too hard to remember that a double of a natural suit bid is not alertable if for takeout and a double of an artificial bid is not alertable if it shows that suit otherwise alert!

Unfortunately there is a difference between being easy to remember and being easy to get right. The new alerting regs lead to some very counter-intuitive positions, where if you sat down to think about it you might realise it was right to alert, but it might not even occur to you at the table. Even after people have got used to the rest of the new regulations, I can't imagine everyone remembering to alert some of the "obvious" penalty doubles. Frances's example of an alertable takeout double is equally counter-intuitive. Arguably it doesn't matter whether people get these difficult situations right, but if they don't it makes the whole thing seem a little farcical.

[Echognome]

I asked DWS on the weekend that if opponents opened an Ekren 2♥ (weak ♥ and ♠) and you double, is it alertable if it's penalty or takeout? Not an easy one. Then I asked about Lucas 2♥ which are the same under the laws in terms of being natural or not. I don't think I got a clear answer on it, but to say the least, it's not easy!

NB: In order to be considered a natural bid, a suit bid must show that suit and not distributional information about a different suit. Hence Ekren and Lucas 2s are not considered natural bids according to my reading of the orange book.

You also will have difficulties on things like:

P - 1NT - P - 2♦
P - 2♥ - P - P
X

Alertable if it's takeout (and similar to Frances' example).

[david_c]

Echognome, on Aug 10 2006, 02:46 PM, said:

I asked DWS on the weekend that if opponents opened an Ekren 2♥ (weak ♥ and ♠) and you double, is it alertable if it's penalty or takeout?  Not an easy one.  Then I asked about Lucas 2♥ which are the same under the laws in terms of being natural or not.  I don't think I got a clear answer on it, but to say the least, it's not easy!

NB: In order to be considered a natural bid, a suit bid must show that suit and not distributional information about a different suit.  Hence Ekren and Lucas 2s are not considered natural bids according to my reading of the orange book.

Agree that Ekren and Lucas are not natural according to the OB. But ...

For alerting of doubles, it no longer matters whether the bid is defined as "natural" or not. The word "natural" appearing in the previous regulations has been replaced by "showing the suit bid". Ekren and Lucas certainly do show the suit bid, so an unalerted double is takeout. (Which is what you would hope, since people defend against Lucas in the same way as they defend against a natural weak two.)

[lalislol]

To 'nonsense' and 'twaddle' I would add 'babble' and 'gobbledegook'.

Is there no way we can get a uniform code so that people can play BRIDGE, and not conventions, against each other? Bridge evolved from non-bidding card games, wherein the PLAY was the essence of the game. The change to contract, etc added some spice to the old game...but spices should be used sparingly, as any good chef would inform the unenlightened...one wants to taste the FOOD, not additives.

It would be so nice if we could all pick up our cards and get down to it, EVERYONE knowing what the bids mean, without having to memorize volumes of non-conventional conventions.

Because I was raised on Goren, I would vote for this fairly natural system, but would compromise on ACOL or SAYC...anything in which I would not have to be referred to p127 of vol2, footnote3 to understand (maybe) 'wot happened?'

I realize that this post will not sit well with teachers and pros who earn their livings by promoting this nonsense, but would really love to hear if other 'commoners' share my view...wouldn't you rather just play BRIDGE?

[hrothgar]

lalislol, on Aug 11 2006, 05:00 AM, said:

To 'nonsense' and 'twaddle' I would add 'babble' and 'gobbledegook'.

Is there no way we can get a uniform code so that people can play BRIDGE, and not conventions, against each other? Bridge evolved from non-bidding card games, wherein the PLAY was the essence of the game. The change to contract, etc added some spice to the old game...but spices should be used sparingly, as any good chef would inform the unenlightened...one wants to taste the FOOD, not additives.

It would be so nice if we could all pick up our cards and get down to it, EVERYONE knowing what the bids mean, without having to memorize volumes of non-conventional conventions.

Because I was raised on Goren, I would vote for this fairly natural system, but would compromise on ACOL or SAYC...anything in which I would not have to be referred to p127 of vol2, footnote3 to understand (maybe) 'wot happened?'

I realize that this post will not sit well with teachers and pros who earn their livings by promoting this nonsense, but would really love to hear if other 'commoners' share my view...wouldn't you rather just play BRIDGE?

Spare me your whining...

Don't start bitching because people don't like playing your own idiosyncratic set of rules and treatments. I'm sure that Goren makes a lot of sense if you were raised on it, however, if your first experience was playing Polish club I suspect that you'd have very different ideas about what the right way to play is.

As to your last comment...

I play BRIDGE
I think that you'd be happier playing spades...

[jtfanclub]

lalislol, on Aug 10 2006, 09:00 PM, said:

Because I was raised on Goren, I would vote for this fairly natural system, but would compromise on ACOL or SAYC...anything in which I would not have to be referred to p127 of vol2, footnote3 to understand (maybe) 'wot happened?'

I had a long post, and cut it. It's not worth posting, since it's not going to change anybody's mind anyways. I'll just leave the ending.

CC Wei's book on Preicision was 50 pages on how to play it, and an equal number of pages on examples of it working in tournaments. And this was a little, pamphlet sized book.

Audrey Grant wrote two volumes over 200 pages each on Standard American. These were full sized books, not little mini-paperbacks.

Which system, exactly, do you think is going to refer you to p127 of vol2, footnote 3 to understand what happened?

If you still believe that 'Standard American' is simpler or more natural than Precision, Polish Club, or a host of other systems, try taking the test to become a Certified Standard American Instructor some time. You will never think that again.

The only reason why Standard American still exists is because the ACBL puts rules in place to protect it. It is far too complex a system to use as a standard.

[Elianna]

jtfanclub, on Aug 10 2006, 07:56 PM, said:

The only reason why Standard American still exists is because the ACBL puts rules in place to protect it. It is far too complex a system to use as a standard.

I didn't disagree with you until this last bit.

I like Standard American, and would prefer to play that with people, rather than 2/1 or other systems. I wouldn't claim that it's the most natural or easiest system, etc.

So I don't think that the only reason that it still exists is because there are rules in place to protect it.

If you mean that the only reason it still exists as the "standard American" system, then I won't argue with you (nor will I agree with you, I just don't take a stance either way).

[lalislol]

TO frothgas:
1) Look up the definition of 'whining'.
2) I'll 'bitch' all I want...especially if it annoys a bigoted azzhole.
3) I think YOU would be happier playing with yourself...take that either way.

TO the intelligent one:
1) My comment re length was of course a deliberate exaggeration, as you knew.
2) I have no intention of taking tests or becoming a teacher or a pro...just want to enjoy playing bridge.
3) First time I've heard sayc referred to as 'too complex', especially in light of what I'm exposed to while watching VG, where even the experienced comms are often non-plussed.

TO both:
1) I was probably remiss in posting this here...should have sought a platform where 'commoners' are more likely to be found. Will try elsewhere soon...there MUST be a place to find out how average bridge-players view this issue.
2) Yes, I'm an old-timer who would just like to play fun/interesting bridge...my tournament days are long gone...my signature says it all.

[hrothgar]

lalislol, on Aug 11 2006, 08:46 AM, said:

>TO frothgas:
>1) Look up the definition of 'whining'.
>2) I'll 'bitch' all I want...especially if it annoys a bigoted azzhole.
>3) I think YOU would be happier playing with yourself...take that >either way.

This is rich. A crotchety old idiot whose early posting on the forums is a complaint about "Queer propaganda" accuses me of being a bigot.

Guess I was stupid enough to feed the troll...

[david_c]

lalislol, on Aug 11 2006, 03:00 AM, said:

Is there no way we can get a uniform code so that people can play BRIDGE, and not conventions, against each other?

That's a fair question. I believe the answer is: no, there is no way you can achieve this.

System regulations can work to some extent. Imposing a standard system is a particular case of this. But a standard system can never be sufficiently detailed to tell you about every bid that might be made. You're still going to need to have rules telling you what happens after the standard system "ends". Besides, standard systems are terribly unpopular except with the people who were playing them already. It would never happen.

Let's be realistic - bridge is a difficult game to write rules for. And certainly a lot of the time the rulemakers make a complete mess of it. But there is no magic solution; the rulemakers are trying to do the best they can for the game.

[jtfanclub]

Elianna, on Aug 11 2006, 12:01 AM, said:

If you mean that the only reason it still exists as the "standard American" system, then I won't argue with you (nor will I agree with you, I just don't take a stance either way).

Sorry, yes, that's what I meant. SA is very similar to SEF, for example, but I don't think the French protect their system the way Americans do. So it must have some purpose.

To lalislol:

Quote

3) First time I've heard sayc referred to as 'too complex', especially in light of what I'm exposed to while watching VG, where even the experienced comms are often non-plussed.

So your complaint is what, exactly, that you want to be able to understand VG better so everybody on the planet should play your system? That doesn't seem reasonable.

I've played quite a few years in 'anything goes' clubs, and played in open events at the Regional and National levels. During that time, I've played against:

-Precision, which is 1♣ showing a strong hand.
-Canape, which is Precision with 2♥ and 2♠ showing 11-15 (or so) and a 5 card major, with 1♥ and 1♠ showing 4 or 6 cards in the major, but not 5.
-And once, simplified Polish Club, which is where 1♣ shows a hand which either has 4 clubs or a strong hand.

You could learn all three in a weekend, none of them are particularly complex. I've seen stranger stuff in VG and mentioned here, but why should I care? If I don't like what they're doing, I don't look at it.

As far as complexity, ask yourself this. How often do you get in a disagreement with a long-standing partner about a bid in an uncontested auction? If the answer is 'ever', you're playing a complex system. I have sent somebody two pages of notes and started playing Precision with them, and I don't think we've ever had a bidding misunderstanding in an uncontested auction.

[mgoetze]

jtfanclub, on Aug 11 2006, 03:06 PM, said:

-Canape, which is Precision with 2♥ and 2♠ showing 11-15 (or so) and a 5 card major, with 1♥ and 1♠ showing 4 or 6 cards in the major, but not 5.

Nope, that's not canapé. Canapé refers to systems where you systematically open your second-longest suit, e.g. Blue Team Club (which also happens to be a strong club system, but this is not necessary.) Precision, incidentally, is a specific type of srong club system with 5 card majors, but there are lots of strong club systems out there which aren't precision (even though they may include 5 card majors...)

[Gerben42]

Quote

I have always felt that doubles shouldn't be alerted, as long as they are on a sliding scale between take out doubles and penalty doubles.

AGREE!

Quote

As far as complexity, ask yourself this. How often do you get in a disagreement with a long-standing partner about a bid in an uncontested auction? If the answer is 'ever', you're playing a complex system.

I'm sorry but this is not true. "Natural" just doesn't catch all of it. I will challenge you Jtfanclub: You send me your two pages of Precision system note and I will give you an ambiguous uncontested auction.

[lalislol]

Ah, frothgas, I enjoy verbal sparring, and look forward to happy hours prodding you, so please do continue to 'feed the troll'. (A troll, btw, is often considered to be a bridge-guarder, and since BBO...etc...I might consider the term a compliment, but doubt that you meant to use it as such, eh?

Your depiction of me is very lacking: 'crotchety' does not fit, as my friends and acqaintances could assure you (they laugh at you for applying it here); 'old' yes chronologically, but still young at heart; your use of 'idiot' shows that you are desperate, or of limited vocabulary...my IQ of 140-150 must be considerably higher than yours, and I neither babble nor drool, at least not yet.

You are definitely a bigot. Reading some of your (all too frequent) posts...truly a masochistical task...shows your considerable intolerance towards the opinions of others, and this is prime bigotry. Your denigration of your betters...e.g. Roland, Ben, Mike...is a bigot's attempt to assert that his position correct, and an admission that you cannot really defend your stance adequately. I AM afflicted with some narrowly defined bigotry (as are most people)...for example...

You take issue with my use of 'queer' in reference to male homosexuality. I refuse to use the fine old word 'gay' in describing this perversion. I used to call myself gay...fun, happy-go-lucky...but obviously can no longer do so, else people would think I indulge in unnatural sex acts. I really don't care, and it is no business of mine, what consenting adults do in private...'whatever turns you on'...but become annoyed when they promote their 'cause' in public, and try to get at my tax dollars to boot. ( BTW you can settle a bet by answering the question: Are you queer, or simply strange?...we both assumed the former, but she lost the coin-toss, so is stuck with the less likely choice.)

I look forward to more of this fun, but perhaps we should start our own Topic so as not to clutter up this area where others want to discuss more important matters. As for title, I might suggest 'lalislol afflicted with frothgas'...you might prefer something like 'gar bites lalsass'...suggestions?

[hrothgar]

>my IQ of 140-150 must be considerably higher than yours

Ooohhh. Next you'll be telling me you're a member of Mensa...

>BTW you can settle a bet by answering the question: Are you queer, or
>simply strange?...we both assumed the former, but she lost the coin-toss,
>so is stuck with the less likely choice

Really not sure how my own sexual preferences are relevant to my position regarding gay marriage

[pbleighton]

Anyone who boasts about their IQ is an idiot.

Peter