[barmar]

gnasher, on 2013-March-22, 04:51, said:

You can't expect the rules to enter your head by telepathy, so in order to know the rules you have to read them.

I doubt that most people have read the rule books of most of the games they play. They learn them from other players who taught them the game. It's not telepathy, it's more like osmosis or hearsay. Or like the way they learn the laws enacted by their governments -- few people outside the legislature and legal profession ever read the actual statutes.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2013-March-22, 17:35, said:

Others would be happier with global rules, even although their local reguations aren't bad.

I'll bet if you polled people about whether it would be better if everyone in the world spoke the same language, you'd probably get a majority saying yes. But if you asked them if they would be OK giving up THEIR language for this global language, most would say no. A number of countries have tried changing their national language by legislative fiat. It has rarely been very successful.

Similarly, bridge players will accomodate occasional small tweaks to the regulations, but major changes would have trouble being adopted.

It's been over a year since ACBL changed the alerting rule for Puppet Stayman (you no longer alert the asking bid itself, but you still alert the responses). In my experience, at least half of the players who use this convention still alert the asking bid.

[gnasher]

gnasher said:

You can't expect the rules to enter your head by telepathy, so in order to know the rules you have to read them.

barmar, on 2013-March-23, 01:15, said:

I doubt that most people have read the rule books of most of the games they play. They learn them from other players who taught them the game. It's not telepathy, it's more like osmosis or hearsay. Or like the way they learn the laws enacted by their governments -- few people outside the legislature and legal profession ever read the actual statutes.

The sentence of mine that you quoted was in a discussion of people who "play Bridge seriously", were participating in a World Championship, and were apparently unfamiliar with the rules governing what methods were allowed in World Championships.

What does that have to do with what "most people" do? And who do you know who learnt the WBF Systems Policy from the person who taught them the game?

[nige1]

barmar, on 2013-March-23, 01:29, said:

I'll bet if you polled people about whether it would be better if everyone in the world spoke the same language, you'd probably get a majority saying yes. But if you asked them if they would be OK giving up THEIR language for this global language, most would say no. A number of countries have tried changing their national language by legislative fiat. It has rarely been very successful.

Similarly, bridge players will accomodate occasional small tweaks to the regulations, but major changes would have trouble being adopted.

It's been over a year since ACBL changed the alerting rule for Puppet Stayman (you no longer alert the asking bid itself, but you still alert the responses). In my experience, at least half of the players who use this convention still alert the asking bid.

I question Barmar's analogy but concede the implication that if groups adopt different rules then they are playing a different games.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2013-March-22, 17:23, said:

I didn't assert that. And I've admitted that I may be mistaken about my actual assertion. I can't find a confirming reference

Vampyr, on 2013-March-22, 20:02, said:

It was an incident involving Singapore juniors, who had apparently written out the approved defenses untidily. They weren't ignorant of the regulation, though.

Thank you Vampyr. Do you have a link to anything relevant? (Again AFAIR) They wrongly believed that their hand-written efforts would comply with the rules. Thanks again

[jallerton]

gordontd, on 2013-March-20, 04:29, said:

Remember the bad old days when Stayman was alerted? All 2♣ responses to 1NT were alerted, so no-one bothered asking and would occasionally get caught out when opponents were playing Keri or something.

Yes, during the bad good old days before 1st August 2006, we also alerted a 4♥ response to 1NT showing spades, a 4♣ overcall of a 3♠ opening showing 5/5 in hearts and clubs, and a 4♣ overcall of a 3♠ opening showing 5/5 in hearts and diamonds. Currently, players are not permitted to alert any of these and "almost no-one" thinks to ask about natural sounding unalerted calls.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2013-March-23, 03:20, said:

Thank you Vampyr. Do you have a link to anything relevant? (Again AFAIR) They wrongly believed that their hand-written efforts would comply with the rules. Thanks again

It was discussed in this thread.

[Vampyr]

jallerton, on 2013-March-23, 05:22, said:

Yes, during the bad good old days before 1st August 2006, we also alerted a 4♥ response to 1NT showing spades, a 4♣ overcall of a 3♠ opening showing 5/5 in hearts and clubs, and a 4♣ overcall of a 3♠ opening showing 5/5 in hearts and diamonds. Currently, players are not permitted to alert any of these and "almost no-one" thinks to ask about natural sounding unalerted calls.

Yes, it is too bad first-round actions above 3NT were not made alertable.

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2013-March-23, 03:20, said:

Thank you Vampyr. Do you have a link to anything relevant? (Again AFAIR) They wrongly believed that their hand-written efforts would comply with the rules. Thanks again

The incident involving the Singaporean juniors was in an ACBL event.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-23, 05:24, said:

Yes, it is too bad first-round actions above 3NT were not made alertable.

I don't think the problem is confined to first-round actions. Sometime last year I heard my opponents bid:

1♦-1♠
3♦-4♠

so I started thinking about what to lead. Then it continued

5♦-6♦

and partner was on lead. It turned out that 4S was a Keycard ask for diamonds. Had I known that, I would have doubled 4♠ for the lead.

I think the whole idea of not alerting above 3NT is ill-conceived. When you make a conventional bid, the opponents are entitled to be told that it's conventional, at the time that it occurs, without having to give away information about their hands.

[jallerton]

nige1, on 2013-March-23, 03:20, said:

Thank you Vampyr. Do you have a link to anything relevant? (Again AFAIR) They wrongly believed that their hand-written efforts would comply with the rules. Thanks again

Try this one

Edit: I now see that Vampyr has just posted the same link.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2013-March-23, 05:47, said:

I think the whole idea of not alerting above 3NT is ill-conceived.

I think that one of the reasons was to eliminate the two-way 4NT convention...

Quote

When you make a conventional bid, the opponents are entitled to be told that it's conventional, at the time that it occurs, without having to give away information about their hands.

...but it looks like solving that problem has created others.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-23, 05:24, said:

Yes, it is too bad first-round actions above 3NT were not made alertable.

In Norway first round conventional calls (i.e. a conventional call by a player who has not already called on that board) shall be alerted regardless of level. (With screens "alerts" apply "way out".)

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2013-March-23, 08:17, said:

In Norway first round conventional calls (i.e. a conventional call by a player who has not already called on that board) shall be alerted regardless of level. (With screens "alerts" apply "way out".)

Interesting wording. It seems to be the same as the ACBL, but it isn't.

P P 1H P
4C! Is alertable in the ACBL; but since PASS is a call, it would not be in Norway.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-23, 08:44, said:

Interesting wording. It seems to be the same as the ACBL, but it isn't.

P P 1H P
4C! Is alertable in the ACBL; but since PASS is a call, it would not be in Norway.

Sorry, my error:

The precise rule is:

Calls not to be alerted:

...
Calls above 3NT, except conventional calls up to (but not including) opener's second call.

So in your example the 4C bid shall be alerted if it is conventional.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-23, 05:22, said:

It was discussed in this thread.

jallerton, on 2013-March-23, 05:44, said:

Try this one Edit: I now see that Vampyr has just posted the same link.

Lewis Carroll said:

And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more –
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.

Thank you both

gnasher, on 2013-March-23, 05:33, said:

The incident involving the Singaporean juniors was in an ACBL event.

So gnasher was right all along

[bluejak]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-20, 13:46, said:

To me, and most other players, accepting a Jacoby transfer to spades does not show willingness to play in spades, and it certainly doesn't when the context of the auction comes into play

Many many discussions here, on RGB, on BLML, and in emails I have dealt with over the years have proved this to be quite untrue. Accepting a Jacoby transfer is considered a willingness to play in that suit by a large number of very voluble people, and is considered not as a willingness to play but as accepting an instruction by a similarly large number of very voluble people.

Trinidad, on 2013-March-21, 15:24, said:

Let's keep in mind that the Orange Book is supposed to be a communication to the players in the EBU on how the game of bridge is supposed to be played there. Communications to the players should be clear and easy to understand for all players, who are people of all skills and trades. It's clear that the OB doesn't meet that standard.

The OB is a work of reference, like the telephone directory. The suggestion that its main purpose should be to make it easy to read seems very strange to me. It's main purpose should be to provide a framework for the game in this country, which it does pretty well, especially when compared with similar documents elsewhere.



I have skimmed through a lot of stuff written here on alerting. I wonder whether some of the posters really play bridge at all. Is the alerting of doubles in England perfect? No. Is it adequate? Yes. Does it suffer from major defects? No. Is it better than the alerting of doubles in, for example, Scotland? Yes, considerably. Do we need to change it because some people find some odd problems? No.

Should we adopt Nigel's ideas for world-wide alerting? No. Why not? Because people would hate them, especially being forced to use bad regulations designed for different environments. The main effect of adopting Nigel's ideas would be to reduce the numbers of people who bother with regulations and the number of people who play bridge.

[nige1]

WellSpyder, on 2013-February-21, 10:26, said:

Do you always ask in England, where in practice almost all cuebids are alerted? (equivalent, in information terms, of course, to no cuebids being alerted)

???

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2013-March-27, 20:16, said:

Should we adopt Nigel's ideas for world-wide alerting? No. Why not? Because people would hate them, especially being forced to use bad regulations designed for different environments. The main effect of adopting Nigel's ideas would be to reduce the numbers of people who bother with regulations and the number of people who play bridge.

There may well be better suggestions than mine, but players would probably like simpler, clearer, global rules. They might even help to reverse Bridge's current decline.

[mycroft]

Situations where all meanings of a call are Alertable are prime fodder for Announcements, if the idea of not Alerting a conventional call is not acceptable.

Situations where all meanings of a call are Alertable mean that the Alert is zero-information; equivalent to having no meanings Alertable (especially if there is a "overwhelmingly likely" Alertable meaning). It is certainly *acceptable* to have zero-information Alerts, if it means that the overall Alerting structure is simpler and more useful information is processed by Alerts *in general*; but other solutions that will get the same overall outcome while minimizing zero- or minimal-information situations are worth looking into.

The problem with introducing Announcements, of course, is that people - even people who should know better - extend them to situations where they *aren't* "the expected Alert"; and frequently into situations where the Announcement assists the caller "oh, partner did get it" better than the opponents. I cite the ACBL example (especially the universal 1NT-2♠ "Transfer") as proof. The other thing that happens (vice the ACBL, again) is that people who have to Announce "but everybody plays it" calls don't, and gripe about having to - which boils down to the argument that players want exceptions to "conventional calls are Alertable" in the "but everybody plays it" situations. Some RAs answer this by saying "yeah, that makes sense" (and then players extend what's "played by everybody" way too far); some answer it by saying "yes, it's an Auto-Alert/Auto-Announcement, but really, the day you hit someone who *doesn't* play it, you'll thank us." and accept the "why should we" grumbles as "can't please anybody". Both approaches are sensible, and unfortunately for Nigel, once trained in one, it's "stupid" to go the other way. Either way.