[helene_t]

I have sympathy for both Rik's and Andy's POV and I don't have an easy solution. The problem, as I see it, is that the alert regulation serves a dual purpose:
- To educate players (in particular club players and occasional tournament players) on how to alert in such a way that MI does not occur
- To allow TD, once damage has occured, to rule in a consistent, objective way.

And then there is the issue of whether it is any good to ask players to alert on the basis of what they think is unexpected to opps. Clearly that depends on the players and on what they know about their opps.

I used to think that the alert regulation should simply say "alert if and only if it is artificial". Hence, all t/o doubles and cuebids are alertable, forcing overcalls and nonforcing shifts are not. Then at least it is simple, and in many cases opps above all need to know whether a call is natural or not. The problem with this is that it is actually not trivial to define "natural". And besides, many completely bizare natural agreements actually do damage opps if not disclosed.

[Trinidad]

 gnasher, on 2013-March-01, 03:10, said:

You can't reasonably object to this apparent* disagreement, because it arises from exactly the type of ambiguity that you're arguing for. You can't say "I think it's better to leave the details undefined and have grey areas", and then criticise the EBU regulations for leaving the details undefined and having grey areas.

* I say "apparent", because I was actually thinking of responses to three-level preempts, not to weak twos. It's unexpected to play 3♣-3♥ as non-forcing, but less unexpected to play 2♥-2♠ as non-forcing.

You don't seem to understand my message (which is pretty bad on my part since my message is about communication).

I am not criticizing the EBU regulations for leaving the details undefined and leaving grey areas. The examples I gave were not about grey areas. They were about simple calls for which the alertability was unambiguously defined in the OB. Smart people sh/could have known, but they didn't. Why?

A human brain has a limited capacity. And the willingness of bridge players to learn bridge regulations is limited too (they have real lives and are not professional bridge lawyers). The EBU simply ignores the fact that a player will give the EBU very little access to his brain. Now if you have very little access to someone's brain, what would you try to teach him? "Make love, not war" or the manifest of the United Nations?

If you recognize that you have limited access to the players' brains, you would make your alert regulation as simple as possible while giving a tool for grey areas, something like:
"Alert when you expect that your opponents might attach a different meaning to partner's call. When in doubt you alert."

Every bridge player will be able to understand this and they will be willing to learn this rule. The vast majority will be able to apply it correctly in the vast majority of the cases.

The EBU approach is to get nervous about the exceptions: the few situations where the above rule is applied incorrectly. They start writing detailed instructions for each individual situation. They fail to recognize that those players who can't apply the simple rule correctly will never read these detailed instructions. And that therefore, these detailed instructions don't show a profit.

But there is a significant loss: A large part of those players that are capable of applying the simple rule will not read it at all since they will not be able to find it in the jungle of instructions or they simply refuse to open a 67 page document. On top of that, when players did go through all the instructions and still get to a grey area, they don't know what to do.

If you realize that there will be grey areas -no matter how many details you write- you recognize that you need to tell players how to handle grey areas anyway. Once they know how to handle grey areas, it is no longer necessary to write out extensive regulations or to bother the players with them.

Rik

[gnasher]

 Trinidad, on 2013-March-01, 04:47, said:

You don't seem to understand my message (which is pretty bad on my part since my message is about communication).

I understood what you were trying to say (and I have some sympathy for your point of view), but ...

Quote

I am not criticizing the EBU regulations for leaving the details undefined and leaving grey areas. The examples I gave were not about grey areas. They were about simple calls for which the alertability was unambiguously defined in the OB.

Perhaps I was the one who didn't do a good job of communicating his point.

The examples you gave were not all of calls for which the alertability was unambiguously defined in the OB. Three of them were, and these three demonstrate your point very well.

One of your examples is a sequence that is left as a grey area by the OB. This example does not support your argument.

[campboy]

The point is, you don't have to read the examples if you don't want to. You could just guess whether things are "unexpected" or not, and be no worse off than in any other jurisdiction. (In fact better off simply because the TDs have* read the examples so will* all rule the same way.)

But for those of us who aren't satisfied with reading the simple regulations and guessing when they apply, there are examples.

*cynicism compels me to add this footnote.

[Trinidad]

 campboy, on 2013-March-01, 12:59, said:

The point is, you don't have to read the examples if you don't want to.

My point is that this is not the case. If you want to ignore the examples, you will still have to read:

• 5A1
  
• 5A2
  
• 5A3
  
• 5A4
  
• 5B1
  
• 5B2
  
• 5B3
  
• 5B4
  
• 5B5
  
• 5B6
  
• 5B7
  
• 5B8
  
• 5B9
  
• 5B10
  
• 5C1
  
• 5C2
  
• 5C3
  
• 5C4
  
• 5C5
  
• 5C6
  
• 5D1
  
• 5D2
  
• 5D3
  
• 5D4
  
• 5D5
  
• 5E1
  
• 5E1a
  
• 5E1b
  
• 5E2
  
• 5E2a
  
• 5E2b
  
• 5E2c
  
• 5E2d
  
• 5E3
  
• 5E3a
  
• 5E3b
  
• 5E4
  
• 5E4a
  
• 5E4b
  
• 5E4c
  
• 5F1
  
• 5F1a
  
• 5F1b
  
• 5F1c
  
• 5H1

That amounts to a total of more than 3 pages of text.

Rik

[Trinidad]

 campboy, on 2013-March-01, 12:59, said:

In fact better off simply because the TDs have* read the examples so will* all rule the same way.

*cynicism compels me to add this footnote.

I assume that your cynicism indicates that not all the TDs have read the examples. (Correct me if I am wrong.)

Now, why am I not surprised? (Because the Orange Book was not written to be read.)

The TDs could/should of course look it up in the Orange Book when there is a case at hand. But I am not surprised that they don't do that either.

Rik

[bluejak]

 Trinidad, on 2013-February-26, 13:28, said:

The way it is, you get the impression that the authors of the regulation got paid for every letter they wrote. (I suppose they didn't get paid at all, but you get the idea.)

A very offensive view. You think it better shorter: some people disagree with you: rather than accepting different views you suggest a really ugly and untenable reason for the difference. Perhaps the people who wrote the Regulations believed these were better?

 helene_t, on 2013-February-28, 03:15, said:

Am I supposed to alert non-forcing shifts in response to partner's preempt?

Yes, in my view.

 Trinidad, on 2013-February-28, 09:53, said:

It is a good idea to give one or two examples to illustrate what the rule means. But, no matter what the first line of section 5E says, the "examples" in the Orange book are neither examples nor interpretations. They are specifications. And it is a long list of specifications. I certainly think that it is much better to leave this long list of specifications out. Less is good.

It may be English culture to think that a rule works better if it is specified in more detail. The EBU has managed to write a whopping 21 (twenty one!) pages on how players should disclose their system. And then I am not counting the pages about fielding of psyches. Does the EBU remember that their publications are not merely meant to be written but also meant to be read? We are in the 21st century now. I think an alert regulation should be at most 140 characters. ;

It should also be understood, and able to be followed, which your streamlining will make much more difficult.

 Trinidad, on 2013-February-28, 18:24, said:

What do we want?

1) A regulation where visitors of bridge laws forums can find on page 27 and 28 -after searching and with some help- exactly whether a bid should have been alerted after the damage at the table has been done and a discussion has been started about it.
or
2) A short, concise regulation that is easy to understand for every player. This will come with a grey area (which is easily solved by "when in doubt, just alert since it encourages the opponents to find out").

It is clear that I opt for the second one: a regulation that is easy to understand for everyone. Why? Because bridge is intended for everyone and not only for visitors of bridge laws forums.

The second clearly does not work because it leaves far too much to players' own understanding, which would be fine if they all had the same understanding. But they don't. So the first is more likely to work despite its obvious disadvantages.

[campboy]

 Trinidad, on 2013-March-01, 16:35, said:

My point is that this is not the case. If you want to ignore the examples, you will still have to read:
[...]
That amounts to a total of more than 3 pages of text.

Well, you don't have to read anything at all, and most players manage well enough without. But if you do want to read something there is no need to read the three pages in the Orange Book when the Tangerine Book section on alerting and announcing takes up less than a page of A5.

[Trinidad]

 bluejak, on 2013-March-01, 18:46, said:

 Trinidad, on 2013-February-26, 13:28, said:

The way it is, you get the impression that the authors of the regulation got paid for every letter they wrote. (I suppose they didn't get paid at all, but you get the idea.)

A very offensive view.

Would you like to explain why you consider this view offensive?

 bluejak, on 2013-March-01, 18:46, said:

You think it better shorter: some people disagree with you: rather than accepting different views you suggest a really ugly and untenable reason for the difference. Perhaps the people who wrote the Regulations believed these were better?

Excuse me. What ugly and untenable reason for the difference did I give?

In what post of mine did you read that I did not accept different views? It is clear to me that those who wrote the Regulations believe it is better to write things in detail, otherwise they wouldn't have written it like that. I have no problem in accepting that people can have the opinion that more detail is better, but I strongly disagree with it, which is entirely different from not accepting different views.

And if I strongly disagree with the view that more detail in alert regulations is better, a discussion forum on changing laws and regulations seems to be the right place to voice that to try and convince people. In this discussion I gave arguments. It even seems that those who disagree with me seem to think that my arguments are pretty good (just not good enough). I exaggerated to make the discussion clear. I even played with the layout. (In post 85 I could have written "Chapter 5 -5G", but I thought that making a list made a stronger statement and added a little humor.)

Yes, I plead guilty to using arguments, exaggerations and layout to get my point across. I do not, however, remember "suggesting a really ugly and untenable reason" why the authors wrote the alert regulation in so much detail. If you accuse me of doing so, it would be a good idea to link to the post in question. And if you think that this ugly and untenable reason is this:

 Trinidad, on 2013-February-26, 13:28, said:

The way it is, you get the impression that the authors of the regulation got paid for every letter they wrote. (I suppose they didn't get paid at all, but you get the idea.)

then I can only conclude: "David didn't get the idea."

Rik

[Trinidad]

 campboy, on 2013-March-01, 19:05, said:

Well, you don't have to read anything at all, and most players manage well enough without. But if you do want to read something there is no need to read the three pages in the Orange Book when the Tangerine Book section on alerting and announcing takes up less than a page of A5.

I am aware of the Tangerine book. The problem is with the disclaimer in the introduction:

Quote

This booklet is a guide to the EBU’s regulations on bidding and play. It is not a replacement for the ‘Orange Book’ [], but a summary of the important elements of that book.
[]
Regulations are described here somewhat imprecisely as it is impossible to write a guide that is both simple and sufficiently detailed to satisfy the most pedantic reader.

I would be happy if the alert regulation in the Tangerine Book had the power of a regulation, but it doesn't.

Rik

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

I am aware of the Tangerine book.

Be aware not much longer! As part of the review for this coming August it is likely that

1. Complex detail will be sent to the White Book (for directors, clubs, organisers and anoraks)
2. The Orange Book will be shorter(about half the current length) and hopefully simpler(although not down to 140 characters!)
3. The Tangerine Book will be no more as all the regulation will be in the OB.

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2013-March-01, 20:08, said:

And if I strongly disagree with the view that more detail in alert regulations is better, a discussion forum on changing laws and regulations seems to be the right place to voice that to try and convince people.

Do you really need to convince the EBU? Do you play there enough that it matters to you, and that it should suit you rather than the EBU players?

[Vampyr]

 Jeremy69A, on 2013-March-03, 10:02, said:

Be aware not much longer! As part of the review for this coming August it is likely that

1. Complex detail will be sent to the White Book (for directors, clubs, organisers and anoraks)
2. The Orange Book will be shorter(about half the current length) and hopefully simpler(although not down to 140 characters!)
3. The Tangerine Book will be no more as all the regulation will be in the OB.

Really bad idea. A better approach would be to retain the Tangerine Book, and put some of what is in the White Book into the Orange Book. The White Book is large and much less likely for clubs to print out so that they have a copy onsite (some of our local clubs do print out an Orange Book every year). The White Book contains a lot that is of interest to players, and it is much more difficult to find the information they need.

Having the Tangerine Book for players who aren't interested in much detail and expanding (a little) the Orange Book for those who are seems a no-brainer. I am not implying that this says anything about the contents of the heads of the members of the L&E Committee.

[bluejak]

 Trinidad, on 2013-March-01, 20:08, said:

Would you like to explain why you consider this view offensive?


Excuse me. What ugly and untenable reason for the difference did I give?

In what post of mine did you read that I did not accept different views? It is clear to me that those who wrote the Regulations believe it is better to write things in detail, otherwise they wouldn't have written it like that. I have no problem in accepting that people can have the opinion that more detail is better, but I strongly disagree with it, which is entirely different from not accepting different views.

And if I strongly disagree with the view that more detail in alert regulations is better, a discussion forum on changing laws and regulations seems to be the right place to voice that to try and convince people. In this discussion I gave arguments. It even seems that those who disagree with me seem to think that my arguments are pretty good (just not good enough). I exaggerated to make the discussion clear. I even played with the layout. (In post 85 I could have written "Chapter 5 -5G", but I thought that making a list made a stronger statement and added a little humor.)

Yes, I plead guilty to using arguments, exaggerations and layout to get my point across. I do not, however, remember "suggesting a really ugly and untenable reason" why the authors wrote the alert regulation in so much detail. If you accuse me of doing so, it would be a good idea to link to the post in question. And if you think that this ugly and untenable reason is this:

then I can only conclude: "David didn't get the idea."

Rik

It is all very well to pretend you meant something different and reasonable but I have no doubt that if you had not meant to be offensive you would have expressed it differently. A large number of people in England have spent a long time formulating regulations as they see best, and seeing and considering the failure of regulations in other jurisdictions is part of that consideration. Another part of that consideration, often ignored by people from other jurisdictions commenting on English regulations, is that they have seen the effect on the English game of earlier and different regulations. Furthermore they know the English game, and have looked at its particular happenings and problems, another point often ignored by foreign commentators who assume the English game is exactly the same as their own.

If they have decided to make the regulations longer that is because they believe it right to do so. Disagreeing with that principle is fine: doing so by suggesting that they are longer "because they get paid for every letter they wrote" is not. Not only is that offensive, it was clearly intended to be.

[barmar]

Get off your high horse, David. It was just an expression that implies that they were overly verbose. You're the only one who seems to have interpreted as a serious accusation.

[nige1]

As previously suggested, the WBF could incorporate (default) universal announcing regulations in the law-book to make life simpler for all.

Failing that, there may be specific fixes for the "EBU Alert doubles?" question posed by the OP:

• The simplest and easiest to understand rule is "Alert all doubles that aren't penalty" (because all are artificial).
• A more convoluted rule (hence more in the spirit of the Orange Book) is "Announce penalty and takeout doubles. Alert all others."

The second rule might reduce the frequency of common mistakes. For example quick answer - no consulting the Orange Book In the following EBU auction, when is the double alertable?
1N "12-14" (Pass) 2♥ "Spades" (Pass)
2♠ (Double)

And what if 2♥ is alerted (usually ♠ but not always) and 2♠ denies four ♠?

[aguahombre]

 nige1, on 2013-March-19, 09:18, said:

As previously suggested, the WBF could incorporate (default) universal announcing regulations in the law-book to make life simpler for all.

Failing that, there may be specific fixes for the "EBU Alert doubles?" question posed by the OP:
[list=1][*]The simplest and easiest to understand rule is "Alert all doubles that aren't penalty" (because all are artificial).

Yes we, a Scot and a Colonist, agree about what the EBU could do to make things simpler. Do you think our opinions will impress them?

[gordontd]

 nige1, on 2013-March-19, 09:18, said:

The simplest and easiest to understand rule is "Alert all doubles that aren't penalty" (because all are artificial).

It's simple and easy to understand, but I'm sure players would find it hard to follow. We already have a rule that's fairly simple and easy to understand, but players seem to find it hard to follow when it requires them to alert a call that they consider to be standard (eg a penalty double after a redouble, or a takeout double of a 1NT response). How much worse it would be that you want them to alert a takeout double of an opening bid.

[gnasher]

 aguahombre, on 2013-March-19, 09:43, said:

Yes we, a Scot and a Colonist, agree about what the EBU could do to make things simpler. Do you think our opinions will impress them?

Probably not. Do you really think it's an improvement to make people alert

(1♠) dbl

and

1♦ (1♠) dbl

[aguahombre]

 gnasher, on 2013-March-19, 10:16, said:

Probably not. Do you really think it's an improvement to make people alert
[indent](1♠) dbl

That is the traditional question when people want to poo poo the concept by citing an extreme. Certainly first-round direct doubles for takeout of opening bids are not what we are talking about.

In the routine negative double situation, people use them in so many different ways, an alert can't hurt.