[mrdct]

I tried a new technique at a bridge tournament this weekend whereby my partner and I wore ear plugs to cut down on the amount of background noise; but also to make it difficult and even pointless to attempt to say anything to eachother or to our opponents.

The ear plugs we used were noise protection ear plugs similar to the type that factory workers wear. They don't completely eliminate noise, but turn sounds into a fairly indistinguishable muffle similar to the noise you hear when scuba diving.

It was still possible to ask the opponents questions, but you had to lean into them a little bit to hear properly, similar to the way that a person hard of hearing would need to.

Does anyone see any practical or ethical issues with this approach?

[keylime]

As noisy as bridge events are, I see no issue with this.

[hrothgar]

Hi Dave

To some extent, this depends on the type of alert/announcement regime that you are using. For example, here in the US, nearly all alerts and announcements are primarily auditory in nature. In the absence of screens, there isn't really much of a tradition of writing out announcements. In a similar fashion, people say the word alert rather than smacking the alert strip or displaying the alert card.

Large portions of the disclosure system is predicated on players verbally announcing the NT range or saying the world "transfer". You state that you leaning in when you need to listen to an explanation, however, what happens when you don't know that an alert or an announcement is forthcoming? In short, I think that wearing earplugs makes it far more likely that you're going to miss some important information. If you look over appeals from ACBL Nationals, they are littered with examples where players missed a verbal cue for one reason of another. All I can say is the following: You better not ever call for a director because you didn't hear what the opponent's said.

On a more personal level, I don't really approve of what your doing. Personally, I epxect that it will lead players at your table speaking louder than they would otherwise and impose a real cost on other people in the playing area. In turn, this will lead other folks to start wear earplugs, more noise... Before you know it, everyone will be wearing year plugs and shouting at one another and you're back where you were when you started. I don't see this as particularly desirable. I think that its reasonable to ban earplugs.

The whole situation seems vaguely analagous to the American's purchasing larger cars and or SUV's because they believe them to be "safer". A few people purchase SUVs because they want to be higher off the ground and be able to see over samll sedans. Equally significant, if an SUV and a sedan get into an accident, the sedan is going to come off second best. Pretty soon, the owners of those small sedans can't see traffic at intersections and start getting worried about being decapitated so they upside their cars as well... Next thing you know, everyone is riding arround in hummers.

[inquiry]

Assuming your concentration aides help with you memory of what happened, can this run afowl of the rule against memory aides? I think the answer is no. The rule states no written memory aides. Earplugs can't violate that one. I wonder if it would be ethical to alert bids in the same manner (softly) against you when you are wearing those.

If the tourney uses bidding boxes, where you can see the bids and alerts, then fine, wear them. If the tourney does not use bidding boxes, I would suggest that you remove at least one during the auction, or bring your own set of bidding boxes and ask the director if you can use them. I suspect since you are not hearing empaired (other than self-induced), they may not grant you this request, or they may make it optional, where your opponents decide to use them or not.

As a side note, it seems rather anti-social to sit there all day plugged in (errr, plugged out). If you find your concentration is so interupted then try the plug them in after the auction is over, and remove them after the last board. If you are going to be removing them frequently, you may want to bring many pairs or make sure your ears are clean before arriving as others may not want to see them pulled out of your ears otherwise.

Ben

[Free]

I don't think it's illegal or so, as long as you don't have hidden microphones in them, camera's in your glasses and a 3rd person to tell you both what your partner has.

But I wouldn't like to play against a pair wearing earplugs. As Ben said, it's quite anti social... I'll have to do a lot of explaining, and if you're both nibbling on my cards each time I have to explain something (without telling the entire room what 'West' has), I'd find it really annoying!

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on Sep 3 2006, 09:17 AM, said:

To some extent, this depends on the type of alert/announcement regime that you are using.  For example, here in the US, nearly all alerts and announcements are primarily auditory in nature.  In the absence of screens, there isn't really much of a tradition of writing out announcements.  In a similar fashion, people say the word alert rather than smacking the alert strip or displaying the alert card.

Large portions of the disclosure system is predicated on players verbally announcing the NT range or saying the world "transfer".  You state that you leaning in when you need to listen to an explanation, however, what happens when you don't know that an alert or an announcement is forthcoming?  In short, I think that wearing earplugs makes it far more likely that you're going to miss some important information.  If you look over appeals from ACBL Nationals, they are littered with examples where players missed a verbal cue for one reason of another.  All I can say is the following:  You better not ever call for a director because you didn't hear what the opponent's said.

The regulation requires that when an alert or announcement is made, the player making it also tap the alert strip or show the alert card. It also puts on the player making the alert or announcement to ensure that both opponents are aware of it. That common practice may be different is irrelevant. No competent director would rule against a pair who were not aware of an alert if the alerting side didn't following the alert regulation, ear plugs or no ear plugs.

Edit: As Ben pointed out downthread, bidding boxes are not necessarily in use. The above applies when they are. When they aren't, there is no alert card or strip, of course, but the onus is still on the alerting side to be sure opponents are aware of the alert.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2006-September-03, 10:25

[jillybean]

If the noise is at a level to be distracting wouldnt a td call be in order?

In the ONE tournament I have played in players who had finished their round would get up and walk around chatting and tables around us would start to be cleared and set up for the next round.
I know it wasn’t the Bermuda Bowl but very distracting!


jb

[blackshoe]

inquiry, on Sep 3 2006, 09:44 AM, said:

Assuming your concentration aides help with you memory of what happened, can this run afowl of the rule against memory aides? I think the answer is no. The rule states no written memory aides. Earplugs can't violate that one. I wonder if it would be ethical to alert bids in the same manner (softly) against you when you are wearing those.

The rule to which you're referring is the footnote to Law 40E2. It says

Quote

A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique

so I don't think you can say earplugs are okay because they have nothing to do with writing.

Whether they're okay in view of the actual rule is a harder question. I don't think the lawmakers envisioned this particular scenario.

[blackshoe]

jillybean2, on Sep 3 2006, 11:17 AM, said:

If the noise is at a level to be distracting wouldnt a td call be in order?

Yes. Whether it would be effective is another question.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Sep 3 2006, 07:15 PM, said:

The regulation requires that when an alert or announcement is made, the player making it also tap the alert strip or show the alert card. It also puts on the player making the alert or announcement to ensure that both opponents are aware of it. That common practice may be different is irrelevant. No competent director would rule against a pair who were not aware of an alert if the alerting side didn't following the alert regulation, ear plugs or no ear plugs.

The requirements that you cite

A. Apply to the ACBL (Dave lives in Australia)
B. Only apply if bidding boxes are in use

Regardless, you state that the onus is on players making an alert to make sure that the opponents are aware that this took place... I recommend checking some some appeals.
Its very difficult to determine whether a pair took appropriate measures to ensure that the opponents knew that a sequence was alertable.

Personally, I'd have very little sympathy for a partnership that seems to be going out of their way to make this more difficult.

[Al_U_Card]

jillybean2, on Sep 3 2006, 11:17 AM, said:

If the noise is at a level to be distracting wouldnt a td call be in order?

In the ONE tournament I have played in players who had finished their round would get up and walk around chatting and tables around us would start to be cleared and set up for the next round.
  I know it wasn’t the Bermuda Bowl but very distracting!


jb

This is my pet peeve with f2f play. On-line with assigning avg- to late plays would go a long way to restoring order to this "timed-event" game. Often when in a tough contract, it can be very difficult to concentrate as people mill about chatting next to your table. If you finish early, take a break outside or hey! here's a thought, talk quietly with your table opps. Get to know them, be friendly, increase the enjoyment of the event......that is the "social" aspect of this activity.....

[mrdct]

Just to clarify, the event in question was played without screens and with written bidding (which is very common in Australia and New Zealand). With written bidding you alert by saying "alert" and simultaneously drawing a circle around the alerted bid on the bidding pad. Accordingly, there is no risk of missing an alerted bid.

Bidding boxes tend to only be used in Australia in conjunction with screens when the alerting regime is very "ear-plug friendly" as you need to wave the alert card card around or vigorously point at the alerted bid and, moreover, do so siliently. Also, questions and answer are also written. The next tournament I'm playing next month will be played with screens, so it's my intent to wear ear-plugs again.

If and when bidding boxes gain wider accecptance in Australia, I think the Australian bidding box regulations require the alert card to be held on or near the alerted bid in an obvious fashion.

I don't believe there are any bridge clubs in Australia, with the possible exception of some rubber bridge clubs, which use spoken bidding and certainly no tournament use spoken bidding.

[nickf]

i was dave's partner and co-ear plug wearer. My observations:

- once we started wearing ear plugs our performance or results improved dramatically. We rocketed from something like 60th/94 to 9th when the music stopped. There's no question we swissed it however.
- We don't have announcements in australia
- the ear plugs were anti social. Mind you they sure helped drown out the incessant chatter some of our opponents engaged in.
- i have some ethical concerns because I think some of our opponents were distracted by two unkempt opponents with little yellow things sticking out of their ears.

I dont play as well when I engage in banter at the table so I think the ear plugs hepled me focus better.

nickf
sydney

[mrdct]

For a couple of years now I've had a policy of saying absolutely nothing to my partner or opponents during a match other than alerting, calling for cards from dummy and asking and answering questions. So the ear-plugs are somewhat a natural progression.

Ear-plugs are also my defence to the unethical practice of many of my opponents to insist on discussing each hand after it's over and often well into the next hand. Of course, post-mortems at the table are a flagrant breach of Law 74A2:

"A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game."

I don't play in tournaments for the social aspect, not at the table at least. In any case, there is plenty of opportunity to socialise between matches and in the bar after play.

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on Sep 3 2006, 11:31 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Sep 3 2006, 07:15 PM, said:

The regulation requires that when an alert or announcement is made, the player making it also tap the alert strip or show the alert card. It also puts on the player making the alert or announcement to ensure that both opponents are aware of it. That common practice may be different is irrelevant. No competent director would rule against a pair who were not aware of an alert if the alerting side didn't following the alert regulation, ear plugs or no ear plugs.

The requirements that you cite

A. Apply to the ACBL (Dave lives in Australia)
B. Only apply if bidding boxes are in use

Regardless, you state that the onus is on players making an alert to make sure that the opponents are aware that this took place... I recommend checking some some appeals.
Its very difficult to determine whether a pair took appropriate measures to ensure that the opponents knew that a sequence was alertable.

Personally, I'd have very little sympathy for a partnership that seems to be going out of their way to make this more difficult.

I was replying to you. You prefaced your remarks in the post to which I was replying with "here in the US", so naturally I referred to the ACBL regulation. Dave is in Australia? Fine, but he didn't say so. Australian regs are quite possibly different, but I believe the principle that the onus is on the alerting side to be sure the alerted side hears, or sees, or is otherwise aware, of the alert, is true everywhere.

In the ACBL, the ACBL alert regulation applies whether bidding boxes are in use or not. I did edit my original post to reflect that the use of the alert card or strip only applies when bidding boxes are used.

As to your recommendation that I check some appeals, I stated the rule. Checking appeals would not prove anything except that committees don't always follow the laws and regulaitons in force.

I did not read the original post as indicating that the pair in question were going out of their way to make their opponents' compliance with the rules more difficult. Nor do I now. Rather, I think they were trying to find a solution to the problem they face, of too much ambient noise in the playing area. It would, of course, be better if the TD or sponsoring organization solved that problem, by requiring people to be more quiet, but that's another kettle of fish.