BBO Discussion Forums: difference in alerting regulation between different countries - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

difference in alerting regulation between different countries EBU vs ACBL vs others?

#21 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,049
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2021-October-19, 06:25

View Postbarmar, on 2021-October-18, 15:44, said:

The same could be said for having different spoken languages in different countries. Do we need to scrap them and get everyone to speak Earthish?
Not really :)
I favour fewer, fairer, simpler rules :)
I'm against unnecessary new rules that add no value (e.g. local regulations) :(



0

#22 User is offline   paulg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,814
  • Joined: 2003-April-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scottish Borders

Posted 2021-October-19, 15:25

View PostDouglas43, on 2021-October-19, 03:40, said:

It would still be nice if the EBU, SBU, WBU, NIBU and ideally CBAI could agree a common approach across the British Isles. At least until the Isle of Man declares independence Posted Image

The WBU effectively outsources its arrangements to the EBU, so they are the same.

Traditionally the SBU could agree with anyone except the English and has effectively outsourced its regulations to the WBF. This is very different to the EBU regulations although most people cope well enough save for alerting doubles.
The Beer Card

I don't work for BBO and any advice is based on my BBO experience over the decades
0

#23 User is offline   fromageGB 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,660
  • Joined: 2008-April-06

Posted 2021-October-21, 05:24

View Postpaulg, on 2021-October-19, 15:25, said:

Traditionally the SBU could agree with anyone except the English and has effectively outsourced its regulations to the WBF. This is very different to the EBU regulations although most people cope well enough save for alerting doubles.

And the EBU version is crazy. I still fall foul of it having played in England all my life. Is this the one thing Scotland has done right in its myriad attempts to do things the non-English way?
0

#24 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,574
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2021-October-21, 11:18

View PostfromageGB, on 2021-October-21, 05:24, said:

Is this the one thing Scotland has done right in its myriad attempts to do things the non-English way?


Perhaps.
I am no fan of the EBU version, but then I play in Italy which essentially outsources to WBF just like Scotland.

I can see the limitations of WBF policy, but I don't agree with those who suggest it is unworkable at club level - I would argue almost the contrary, that club level players tend to have a clearer vision of what is natural than some expert players and directors do. Only a law committee member or someone fond of cocaine could seriously assert that a spades response denying spades is natural B-) My club members would have little doubt about an opening that showed spades and an undisclosed minor too, or a 1 opening that might be two cards (even if only 4=4=3=2 and if they play that themselves).

The two areas that are inherently tricky for any policy IMO are doubles (which are almost never natural for WBF, and hard to standardise for the 'not normal here' countries) and follow-ups to conventions (e.g. completion of transfer, responses to Stayman and subsequent developments). I struggle to see what is difficult about cuebids.
1

#25 User is offline   sfi 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,141
  • Joined: 2009-May-18
  • Location:Oz

Posted 2021-October-21, 14:25

View Postpescetom, on 2021-October-21, 11:18, said:

I struggle to see what is difficult about cuebids.

If this is in reply to what I wrote, I claimed they were complex - not difficult and I was talking about comparing the various regulations. For instance, in Australia we never alert cue bids. In jurisdictions more closely aligned with the WBF you alert them when not natural, and in the ACBL you sometimes do and sometimes don't.

The ABF regs have a few odd consequences. Consider the auction 1NT - (2D), where 2D shows both majors. Now any call in hearts, spades or diamonds is considered "self-alerting" because they are all cue bids. I can assure you few people get this one right. Another strange situation is that (1NT) - 2NT is self-alerting. This last one is explicitly mentioned in the regs and still almost nobody knows it.

One final example is 1NT - (P) - 2C - (X), where double shows clubs. Now our later 3C bid is alertable, because the opponents never bid clubs nor showed clubs with a bid (X is of course a call, not a bid). But I think the intent is that 3C should not be alertable, because it would seem strange to treat subsequent auctions such as 1C-(1H)-X and 1C-(1H)-1S differently if both showed 4+ spades.

In practice, even experienced players get a lot of these situations wrong. So I think the regs about cuebids are complex when compared across jurisdictions. And I think the in-theory simple idea of not alerting cue bids has some implications that present difficulties to players.
0

#26 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,574
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2021-October-21, 15:46

View Postsfi, on 2021-October-21, 14:25, said:

If this is in reply to what I wrote, I claimed they were complex - not difficult and I was talking about comparing the various regulations. For instance, in Australia we never alert cue bids. In jurisdictions more closely aligned with the WBF you alert them when not natural, and in the ACBL you sometimes do and sometimes don't.

The ABF regs have a few odd consequences. Consider the auction 1NT - (2D), where 2D shows both majors. Now any call in hearts, spades or diamonds is considered "self-alerting" because they are all cue bids. I can assure you few people get this one right. Another strange situation is that (1NT) - 2NT is self-alerting. This last one is explicitly mentioned in the regs and still almost nobody knows it.

One final example is 1NT - (P) - 2C - (X), where double shows clubs. Now our later 3C bid is alertable, because the opponents never bid clubs nor showed clubs with a bid (X is of course a call, not a bid). But I think the intent is that 3C should not be alertable, because it would seem strange to treat subsequent auctions such as 1C-(1H)-X and 1C-(1H)-1S differently if both showed 4+ spades.

In practice, even experienced players get a lot of these situations wrong. So I think the regs about cuebids are complex when compared across jurisdictions. And I think the in-theory simple idea of not alerting cue bids has some implications that present difficulties to players.


Thanks and fair enough, but I think the complexity you describe is in good part induced by the regulations of some authorities, including ABF it seems.
I think WBF has this one nailed, the only natural meaning of a bid of opponents' suit is that I hold that same suit: it does not seem problematic to alert other meanings, which are often unpredictable and generally something the other side really should know.
This seems to me a good example of a possible simple and workable world-wide rule, with no local variations, as advocated by nige1.
1

#27 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,049
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2021-October-22, 10:09

View Postpescetom, on 2021-October-21, 15:46, said:

I think WBF has this one nailed, the only natural meaning of a bid of opponents' suit is that I hold that same suit: it does not seem problematic to alert other meanings, which are often unpredictable and generally something the other side really should know. This seems to me a good example of a possible simple and workable world-wide rule, with no local variations, as advocated by nige1.
The SBU have sensibly adopted WBF regulations, which work fine :)
Furthermore ...
  • We could enforce the rule that both sides have system-cards.
  • We could also mandate that each player announce the meaning of partner's calls -- or his own -- like BBO :)
  • A matrix of likely explanations, on a card or tablet, could simplify such announcements - and minimise disturbance to neighbouring tables -- a similar idea to BBO FD applets :)
  • All this might well frustrate secretary birds -- both rule-makers and tournament-directors :(
  • A pity -- but it would help players enjoy their game with less hassle :)
  • If globally adopted, it would save rain-forests of local regulations :)

0

#28 User is offline   Douglas43 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 388
  • Joined: 2020-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Isle of Man
  • Interests:Walking, boring my wife with bridge stories

Posted 2021-October-24, 12:10

View Postnige1, on 2021-October-22, 10:09, said:

The SBU have sensibly adopted WBF regulations, which work fine :)
Furthermore ...
  • We could enforce the rule that both sides have system-cards.
  • We could also mandate that each player announce the meaning of partner's calls -- or his own -- like BBO :)
  • A matrix of likely explanations, on a card or tablet, could simplify such announcements - and minimise disturbance to neighbouring tables -- a similar idea to BBO FD applets :)
  • All this might well frustrate secretary birds -- both rule-makers and tournament-directors :(
  • A pity -- but it would help players enjoy their game with less hassle :)
  • If globally adopted, it would save rain-forests of local regulations :)



Announcing certainly works well on basic calls like 1NT range and transfers, where it is required by the E****** Bridge Union
0

#29 User is offline   paulg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,814
  • Joined: 2003-April-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scottish Borders

Posted 2021-October-24, 13:22

View Postnige1, on 2021-October-22, 10:09, said:

The SBU have sensibly adopted WBF regulations, which work fine :)

They work so fine that the SBU feels obliged to provide a dozen pages of explanatory notes. If other NBOs thought the same, then you've not really changed anything.

View Postnige1, on 2021-October-22, 10:09, said:

Furthermore ...
  • We could enforce the rule that both sides have system-cards.

And who is going to ensure that these system cards are adequately completed? The SBU could not cope with just checking the triallists' system cards and have not even tried with a long-running national event that has more entrants.

View Postnige1, on 2021-October-22, 10:09, said:

  • We could also mandate that each player announce the meaning of partner's calls -- or his own -- like BBO :)
  • A matrix of likely explanations, on a card or tablet, could simplify such announcements - and minimise disturbance to neighbouring tables -- a similar idea to BBO FD applets :)

I don't mind the announcements, but the matrix of explanations is just creating a nightmare in an environment where there is system diversity. The "short club" crowd will just point to the 2+ clubs, leaving their opponents completely in the dark about the real meaning of the bid. Of course it should be on the system card, but when international pairs are failing to disclose this and not being corrected how is the ordinary club or tournament player supposed to behave.


View Postnige1, on 2021-October-22, 10:09, said:


  • All this might well frustrate secretary birds -- both rule-makers and tournament-directors :(
  • A pity -- but it would help players enjoy their game with less hassle :)
  • If globally adopted, it would save rain-forests of local regulations :)

As you are also trying to reduce the size of the law book, I feel the lawyers will be chomping at the bit: they will not be frustrated but involved far more by these suggestions.



The Beer Card

I don't work for BBO and any advice is based on my BBO experience over the decades
0

#30 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,049
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted Yesterday, 20:40

View Postpaulg, on 2021-October-24, 13:22, said:

They (WBF system cards) work so fine that the SBU feels obliged to provide a dozen pages of explanatory notes. If other NBOs thought the same, then you've not really changed anything.

NBOs that use the WBF card, would disclose methods, in the same way. with the same notes (if necessary) That 's the point of a standard format.

View Postpaulg, on 2021-October-24, 13:22, said:

And who is going to ensure that these system cards are adequately completed? The SBU could not cope with just checking the triallists' system cards and have not even tried with a long-running national event that has more entrants

It's easier to check system-cards in a standard format. It's easier to enforce uniform rules. Rules work better if clearly stated and rigorously enforced. We're discussing first steps in that direction.

View Postpaulg, on 2021-October-24, 13:22, said:

I don't mind the announcements, but the matrix of explanations is just creating a nightmare in an environment where there is system diversity;

Announcements work fine for notrump ranges, transfers, and so on. Not a panacea but better than non-disclosure.

View Postpaulg, on 2021-October-24, 13:22, said:

As you are also trying to reduce the size of the law book, I feel the lawyers will be chomping at the bit: they will not be frustrated but involved far more by these suggestions.

IMO simpler, more consistent, less subjective rules would improve the game. Shorter is probably better too.
0

#31 User is offline   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,058
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, Canada

Posted Today, 11:46

View Postnige1, on 2021-October-26, 20:40, said:

NBOs that use the WBF card, would disclose methods, in the same way. with the same notes (if necessary) That 's the point of a standard format.
Assumes evidence very clearly not in scope. Paul's argument, and it has the imprimatur of "actually having happened repeatedly for the last 20 years at least", is that they would not. They would all have their interpretations, and those interpretations would inevitably vary (likely due to things like "nobody plays Polish Club in Glasgow; nobody plays a weak NT in Albuquerque; nobody plays Flannery in Manchester").

Now if you're going to impose:
  • a committee in the WBF to receive cases and issue interpretations that would ensure that they are consistent
  • regulations on the NBOs (with teeth. Think about how that's going to be possible) so that said consistency is followed
then this might work. It works for many sports (I remember reading the 2017 Canadian Box Lacrosse rules, with the annual interpretation guidelines. It can be done. Of course, all the referees are licensed by the same organization that issues the interpretations, and requires annual review tests. And, of course, said interpretations don't necessarily apply in NLL, or in NCAA Box Lacrosse, or definitely in field lacrosse. And...)

All Of That Costs. In time, effort and salary. The NBOs are already rebelling against the WBF's fees; never mind paying their directors to do something for the WBF; players with sufficient interest, skill level, and ability to issue clear and precise interpretations either don't have all that much time to offer or aren't cheap (or both!). Also, for this to be at all relevant, you're going to have to start by convincing the politicians that it's worth it. And that they should give up some of their power to regulate, for the common good. Which will *be* for the common good, Immediately Obviously To The Most Casual Observer.

Quote

It's easier to check system-cards in a standard format. It's easier to enforce uniform rules. Rules work better if clearly stated and rigorously enforced. We're discussing first steps in that direction.
I don't agree with all of this, as you well know. I'd ask Jan Martel, say, or any of the other National Team coaches whose job is to do this, how easy it is to check WBF system cards supposedly in the standard format for even 48 teams for the BB. And that's even after we say that the "Polish Club is marked Green, because in Poland Polish Club is Green" won't happen because of "clearly stated and rigorously enforced".

Never mind the "who's going to work on unified system regulations (even 8 or 10 levels of them, surely the BB is different from the Ciudad de México Flight A teams is different from the C game is different from the novice game) that the Aussies and the Arkansans and the Austrians will accept?" issue. Which is so much of a pipe dream it's not even legal in Canada or Portugal. But go right ahead, and believe in your utopia. Trust me, I have my own windmills to tilt at; I'm not begrudging you yours. I just admit that they are.

Quote

IMO simpler, more consistent, less subjective rules would improve the game. Shorter is probably better too.

As you've been saying for a decade. As I've been quoting (out of context) for a decade, "pick two (you can't have all three)." Or four, in your case.

As I've also been saying for several years, if you think this is possible, build a first example. It doesn't have to hold up to criticism (see the 500 comments on BW about the first round of what became the ACBL Open Chart) - just a proof of possibility. Don't just state "this is obviously better, and clearly possible", in the face of repeated and large opposition that "history says it isn't, and people have tried for decades and have universally retired frustrated." I won't even force you to jump over the "going to be approved by the politicians"; let's just get a first draft on the table, which I'm sure won't have holes you can drive a lorry through (assuming you can find a HGV driver with hours these days).
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
0

#32 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,049
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted Today, 15:16

View Postmycroft, on 2021-October-27, 11:46, said:

Now if you're going to impose:a committee in the WBF to receive cases and issue interpretations that would ensure that they are consistentr egulations on the NBOs (with teeth. Think about how that's going to be possible) so that said consistency is followed then this might work. It works for many sports (I remember reading the 2017 Canadian Box Lacrosse rules, with the annual interpretation guidelines. It can be done. Of course, all the referees are licensed by the same organization that issues the interpretations, and requires annual review tests. And, of course, said interpretations don't necessarily apply in NLL, or in NCAA Box Lacrosse, or definitely in field lacrosse.

Yes :) the suggestion is that that the WBF impose a single set of regulations rather than each NBO impose their own.

View Postmycroft, on 2021-October-27, 11:46, said:

And...)All Of That Costs. In time, effort and salary. The NBOs are already rebelling against the WBF's fees; never mind paying their directors to do something for the WBF; players with sufficient interest, skill level, and ability to issue clear and precise interpretations either don't have all that much time to offer or aren't cheap (or both!). Also, for this to be at all relevant, you're going to have to start by convincing the politicians that it's worth it. And that they should give up some of their power to regulate, for the common good. Which will *be* for the common good, Immediately Obviously To The Most Casual Observer.

Yes, It's cheaper and simpler to create and enforce a single set of regulations.

View Postmycroft, on 2021-October-27, 11:46, said:

I don't agree with all of this, as you well know. I'd ask Jan Martel, say, or any of the other National Team coaches whose job is to do this, how easy it is to check WBF system cards supposedly in the standard format for even 48 teams for the BB. And that's even after we say that the "Polish Club is marked Green, because in Poland Polish Club is Green" won't happen because of "clearly stated and rigorously enforced".
It should save time and money to check a system against a global set of WBF regulations rather than against a different set regulations for each NBO, in which you play.

View Postmycroft, on 2021-October-27, 11:46, said:

Never mind the "who's going to work on unified system regulations (even 8 or 10 levels of them, surely the BB is different from the Ciudad de México Flight A teams is different from the C game is different from the novice game) that the Aussies and the Arkansans and the Austrians will accept?" issue. Which is so much of a pipe dream it's not even legal in Canada or Portugal. But go right ahead, and believe in your utopia. Trust me, I have my own windmills to tilt at; I'm not begrudging you yours. I just admit that they are. As you've been saying for a decade. As I've been quoting (out of context) for a decade, "pick two (you can't have all three)." Or four, in your case.As I've also been saying for several years, if you think this is possible, build a first example. It doesn't have to hold up to criticism (see the 500 comments on BW about the first round of what became the ACBL Open Chart) - just a proof of possibility. Don't just state "this is obviously better, and clearly possible", in the face of repeated and large opposition that "history says it isn't, and people have tried for decades and have universally retired frustrated." I won't even force you to jump over the "going to be approved by the politicians"; let's just get a first draft on the table, which I'm sure won't have holes you can drive a lorry through (assuming you can find a HGV driver with hours these days).

For a long time, WBF regulations have worked OK in WBF competitions. They work fine in NBOs, like Scotland and Italy.
0

#33 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,574
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted Today, 15:46

View Postpaulg, on 2021-October-24, 13:22, said:

I don't mind the announcements, but the matrix of explanations is just creating a nightmare in an environment where there is system diversity. The "short club" crowd will just point to the 2+ clubs, leaving their opponents completely in the dark about the real meaning of the bid. Of course it should be on the system card, but when international pairs are failing to disclose this and not being corrected how is the ordinary club or tournament player supposed to behave.


Nightmare seems a massive overbid to me.
I imagine what nige1 has in mind is an A4 page (or tablet based equivalent) with the 10 (say) most frequent explanations clearly evidenced.
My "1 Opening" explanation would be a box saying something like "3+ clubs with no 5-card major, or 2 clubs with both majors 4-card. Excludes both minors 4-card and balanced 15-17."
Which is a more verbose version of what is on my system card (and also what is commonly assumed - but not promised - with the obligatory "2+ cards" announcement).
I would have no problem following this system of disclosure in an ordinary club tournament.
I suggest that those who would are the real problem here, not the system of disclosure.
1

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users