I'm glad I bid on over 4S

[Vampyr]

Maybe we should enhance the bidding box. Instead of just one Double card, we could have separate Takeout Double and Penalty Double cards. Replace the STOP card with Weak, Intermediate, and Strong Jump cards.

 

:) :) :)

 

And 2 1/2 ♠, etc

[gordontd]

The law would stipulate that you "announce" the meaning of partner's calls. If possible, you would do this by pointing to the relevant explanation on your card/supplementary notes (which would then be AI to you). Also, each table would be supplied with a card containing a matrix of common meanings, to which you could point. You would have the right to switch-off opponents' "announcements"

 

This change wouldn't "avoid" the danger of disturbing other tables (for instance, an opponent might have poor eyesight); but it would "reduce" it. It would simplify the rules, for example: it would encourage players to complete convention-cards; there would be fewer misexplanaitons; there would no longer be any need for local alert regulations; It would remove confusion about what is alertable -- current alert regulations cause unnecessary infractions; IMO, it would speed up the game -- although others might disagree.

And which rule would be simplified by this?

[jallerton]

I don't think anyone is claiming that overhearing stuff like this is never a problem. Just that most of the random chatter, including alert explanations and hearing declarers calling for cards from dummy, is not easily related to any specific boards. The cases that do make it hard to play a hand unbiased are usually easy to recognize, and that's when the TD should be called.

 

Well, Ed was claiming that anyone who hears any of this random chatter should call the TD.

[nige1]

and which rule would be simplified by this?

I alluded to some of them e.g. most local alert regulations could be binned. IMO disclosure would be simpler with fewer UI problems.

[blackshoe]

Well, Ed was claiming that anyone who hears any of this random chatter should call the TD.

I expressed an opinion. So?

[gordontd]

As well as the problem of accidental acquisition and subconscious usage of overheard information,. there is the theoretical risk that (heaven forbid!) an immoral player might deliberately eavesdrop in the hope of gaining illegal advantage. IMO, rule-simplification would reduce such dangers.

 

 

Which rule would you simplify, and how would it avoid such dangers?

 

 

The law would stipulate that you "announce" the meaning of partner's calls. If possible, you would do this by pointing to the relevant explanation on your card/supplementary notes (which would then be AI to you). Also, each table would be supplied with a card containing a matrix of common meanings, to which you could point. You would have the right to switch-off opponents' "announcements"

 

This change wouldn't "avoid" the danger of disturbing other tables (for instance, an opponent might have poor eyesight); but it would "reduce" it. It would simplify the rules, for example: it would encourage players to complete convention-cards; there would be fewer misexplanaitons; there would no longer be any need for local alert regulations; It would remove confusion about what is alertable -- current alert regulations cause unnecessary infractions; IMO, it would speed up the game -- although others might disagree.

 

 

And which rule would be simplified by this?

 

 

I alluded to some of them e.g. most local alert regulations could be binned. IMO disclosure would be simpler with fewer UI problems.

 

You started by saying that if we simplified the rules, the dangers of players deliberately using UI would be reduced. Since nothing that you have said since seems to back this up, I think you were just trotting out one of your little mantras.

 

I don't disagree with you that some rule simplification would be a good thing, but you do rather go overboard with your wild, simplistic claims.

[WellSpyder]

I expressed an opinion. So?

So others thought it might be sensible to illustrate that following the logic of this opinion would make the game almost completely unplayable in practice.

[blackshoe]

So others thought it might be sensible to illustrate that following the logic of this opinion would make the game almost completely unplayable in practice.

<shrug> Fair enough. Next topic.

[weejonnie]

All we need to do is look at (16A3) which states that No Player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated as extraneous) - there is no requirement that the information is correct.

 

I would have thought that this means that the 5 Heart bid is contraindicated - even if 16C1 doesn't apply.

[nige1]

You started by saying that if we simplified the rules, the dangers of players deliberately using UI would be reduced. Since nothing that you have said since seems to back this up, I think you were just trotting out one of your little mantras.I don't disagree with you that some rule simplification would be a good thing, but you do rather go overboard with your wild, simplistic claims.

OK I'll try again:

• Where possible, replacing spoken explanations with some kind of silent disclosure would reduce information available to adjacent tables. (That was the original claim).
• Allowing a player to switch-off opponents' alerts/explanations would drastically reduce UI (at an obvious cost)
• The suggested rule-change to remove alerts would further reduce UI. It would also eliminate infractions caused by misinterpreting alerting rules. I contend that dropping all local alert-regulations would simplify the game.
• Of course, I concede that the final suggestion -- treating information from explanations as AI to both sides -- doesn't "reduce" UI . That change just redefines a particular kind of UI as AI -- but that suggestion (which might have originated with Jeff Rubens) relaxes the strain on the mind-reading skills of directors :)

[blackshoe]

"Simplify" is not the same thing as "make better". Alerts were instituted for a reason. You didn't mention it, but as I recall, part of your campaign is to impose a single system on all players, so that there would be no need for alerts. That's not going to happen. As long as people are free to choose the meaning they assign to various calls, there will be a need for alerts.

 

I don't know, but I would guess that the reason for a spoken "alert" is to make sure the opponents get it. Granted they should get it if you silently tap the alert strip (as in the ACBL regulation) or wave the alert card around, but that presumes they're paying attention, which they frequently aren't.

 

As for UI, I don't think it's possible to eliminate UI entirely. Again, things that are UI are UI for a reason. Arbitrarily making those things AI doesn't improve the game - unless you want to allow people to win through taking advantage of such information.

[jallerton]

All we need to do is look at (16A3) which states that No Player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated as extraneous) - there is no requirement that the information is correct.

 

I would have thought that this means that the 5 Heart bid is contraindicated - even if 16C1 doesn't apply.

 

Good point. This suggests to me that the TD should ask the player to explain his reasoning for the call. If:

 

(i) The 5♥ bid was obvious, it appears to have been based on AI, so the TD should allow the table auction to stand.

 

(ii) The 5♥ bid was not the call the TD would have expected based on AI alone, he should use Law 12A1 to adjust for apparent the breach of Law 16A3. This would result in an assigned adjusted score (possibly weighted), not average plus.

 

(iii) If based on AI alone the 5♥ bid was about 50/50, the TD has to form a judgement on balance of probabilities, and applies either (i) or (ii) accordingly.

[mycroft]

The reason for the ACBL Alert system of visible and audible designation (not that anybody does it, mind you) is boiled into two people:

 

1) an occasional partner of mine. He's blind in his left eye, and unless he's looking to his left (and who does, when it's RHOs, and then one's own, turn to call?), he won't see a tap of the strip/pull of the card. 95% of his opponents do not know this about him, even after years of playing against him; because he anticipates when he has to look left so well.

 

2) the well--known ear-trumpet-players of the world (now the hearing-aiders, and the actual deaf ones - another of my occasional partners, as it turns out). I don't care how clear you are, without some visible signal, they won't hear your Alert. They're less likely to be able to hide it, but my deaf partner can pull it off pretty well, at least until he speaks (he has the typical "I learned to talk by sight" accent).

 

You'll never know which is at this table, and woe betide you (well, the Alert Procedure will betide you) if you get it wrong.

[nige1]

"Simplify" is not the same thing as "make better". Alerts were instituted for a reason. You didn't mention it, but as I recall, part of your campaign is to impose a single system on all players, so that there would be no need for alerts. That's not going to happen.

Sort of. I advocate two tiers of competition:

1. Standard system (you can't add or change things but you can cross them out).
2. Anything goes (properly disclosed, with approved defences).

This scheme would replace current system regulations, so I contend it would be "simpler". Whether or not it would be "better" is for players to judge.

As long as people are free to choose the meaning they assign to various calls, there will be a need for alerts.I don't know, but I would guess that the reason for a spoken "alert" is to make sure the opponents get it. Granted they should get it if you silently tap the alert strip (as in the ACBL regulation) or wave the alert card around, but that presumes they're paying attention, which they frequently aren't.

Alerts and questions waste time and give UI. Spoken answers can be overheard by neighbouring tables. To reduce such problems, the gist of the suggestion is that you explain partner's calls without being asked and you do so by pointing to written explanations.

As for UI, I don't think it's possible to eliminate UI entirely. Again, things that are UI are UI for a reason. Arbitrarily making those things AI doesn't improve the game - unless you want to allow people to win through taking advantage of such information.

You can't eliminate UI but you can strive to reduce it and mitigate its impact.

 

The rules of Bridge can never be perfect but, IMO, improvement is possible and I've suggested simplifications. Others have suggested less drastic changes, many of which I support.

[gordontd]

This scheme would replace current system regulations, so I contend it would be "simpler". Whether or not it would be "better" is for players to judge.

Whether or not it would be "simpler" is yet to be demonstrated.

[dburn]

All we need to do is look at (16A3) which states that No Player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated as extraneous) - there is no requirement that the information is correct.

 

I would have thought that this means that the 5 Heart bid is contraindicated - even if 16C1 doesn't apply.

I'm not sure I would. Law 16A begins by giving a list of information that is authorised. This includes:

 

... information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) {where} the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.

 

Obviously, this is there to allow players to use "information" such as "lead top of major-suit doubletons against notrump" or whatever it is you're supposed to do nowadays. But the Laws do not preclude the use of the information that someone is glad he bid on over 4♠ on some deal, unless that deal is one that the player is playing or has yet to play. Law 16C1, on which I relied when ruling on this case, expressly says so.

[jallerton]

I'm not sure I would. Law 16A begins by giving a list of information that is authorised. This includes:

 

.. information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) {where} the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.

 

So if the comment is heard after the players have taken their cards out of the board, then presumably this information becomes unauthorised. Moreover, if a player only realises the potential context of the information after s(he) has taken his/her cards out of the board, then s(he) did not possess that information before the auction period commenced.

 

Obviously, this is there to allow players to use "information" such as "lead top of major-suit doubletons against notrump" or whatever it is you're supposed to do nowadays. But the Laws do not preclude the use of the information that someone is glad he bid on over 4♠ on some deal, unless that deal is one that the player is playing or has yet to play. Law 16C1, on which I relied when ruling on this case, expressly says so.

 

In practice, the player will often not know whether a comment relates to the board he is playing or not.

 

16C1 tells the TD expressly what to do when the UI relates to a board being played or not yet played; it is silent on when the information apparently relates to a different board.

[barmar]

The reason for the ACBL Alert system of visible and audible designation (not that anybody does it, mind you) is boiled into two people:

Not necessarily. Even if the regulations didn't require both visible and audible alerting, we would of course make accomodations for players with disabilities. For instance, when playing against blind players, we speak our bids and plays in addition to using the cards.

 

IMO, the reason for using two modes all the time is to make it more likely that opponents notice the alert even if one of their senses is distracted.

[aguahombre]

Not necessarily. Even if the regulations didn't require both visible and audible alerting, we would of course make accomodations for players with disabilities. For instance, when playing against blind players, we speak our bids and plays in addition to using the cards.

 

IMO, the reason for using two modes all the time is to make it more likely that opponents notice the alert even if one of their senses is distracted.

I think he was saying the same thing, but using two "composite" people to illustrate his point.

[nige1]

Whether or not it would be "simpler" is yet to be demonstrated.

Currently, players find pages of local regulations hard to understand. Scrapping most of them in favour of a few rules seems simpler to me but until a suggestion is tried, we're unsure about practical difficulties. Over the decades, many players have suggested "simplifications", rejected by law-makers. IMO, they're still worth debate,

[mycroft]

Not necessarily. Even if the regulations didn't require both visible and audible alerting, we would of course make accomodations for players with disabilities. For instance, when playing against blind players, we speak our bids and plays in addition to using the cards.

Absolutely - if you know of it. Unfortunately, the first you're going to find out about either of those two people is when they call the TD for failure to Alert. And according to both regulations and the Alert Procedure, they will be correct - you didn't Alert.

 

And that is entirely reasonable, as well; why should they have to pre-Alert their disability every round to get people to do the right thing? Also, we are required to accommodate disabilities as much as reasonably possible *without* subjecting the people to the embarrassment of having to Announce their disability.

 

IMO, the reason for using two modes all the time is to make it more likely that opponents notice the alert even if one of their senses is distracted.

Certainly, you get that "for free" when you require the accommodation of the (frankly very common in the over 60s) two disabilities above.

[barmar]

Absolutely - if you know of it. Unfortunately, the first you're going to find out about either of those two people is when they call the TD for failure to Alert. And according to both regulations and the Alert Procedure, they will be correct - you didn't Alert.

 

And that is entirely reasonable, as well; why should they have to pre-Alert their disability every round to get people to do the right thing? Also, we are required to accommodate disabilities as much as reasonably possible *without* subjecting the people to the embarrassment of having to Announce their disability.

 

Certainly, you get that "for free" when you require the accommodation of the (frankly very common in the over 60s) two disabilities above.

Since when is speaking your bids and plays "the right thing" when you're using bidding boxes?

 

Whenever I've played against people with disabilities, they tell us about the special needs when we come to the table. "My partner is legally blind, please speak your bids and plays, and make sure you clearly say 'Alert'."

[blackshoe]

"according to both regulations and the Alert Procedure"

 

Hm. Far as I know the alert procedure is a regulation. Also, it's the regulation that specifies how you're supposed to alert. So if you're talking about different regulations (to the alert procedure), which ones?

[mycroft]

So, the difference (as I thought I had explained, but I hadn't) is that there are people who are blind or almost blind and need spoken bidding (and there are people like me with the attention span of a weasel on a treadmill that "need" bidding boxes - either that or at least one review on at least 50% of the hands. So we do both at my table - I'm happy to bid for my opponent :-) and there are people like my partner, who is just blind on one side and adapts quite well.

 

That person does not need spoken bidding (because he knows to turn his head when it's LHO's turn to call), but does need spoken questions and Alerts (because he doesn't know they're coming) from his LHO. Because he's so good at managing at being monocular, you'd never know if you haven't played with him (actually it took me about 18 months to nail down which eye doesn't work, playing weekly. But I have the attention span of ...).

 

[Edit for Blackshoe: Okay, the *Bidding Box* regulation and the Alert Procedure. And it may be the case that it isn't in the Alert Procedure. And I thought *I* was a pedant! </fake indignancy>]

[blackshoe]

Just wanted to be sure we're on the same page. B-)

 

The bidding box regulation says, of alerts, 'Except when screens are in use, a player must say “Alert” out loud when tapping the alert strip of the bidding box.' This can be a problem: I haven't seen an alert strip in ages.

 

The alert regulation says 'Using bidding boxes, an Alert is made by tapping an Alert card on the table or by tapping the Alert strip on the side of the bid box. In addition, the Alerter must say “Alert.”' So not quite the same as the above.

 

I tend to wave the alert card around while saying "alert". I guess I'm doing it wrong. I think I'll change to putting the alert card face up on top of the board, and tapping it while saying "alert". That should cover both the guy on my right who's blind in his left eye and the one who forgot to turn his hearing aid on. :)