[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2015-March-28, 19:27, said:

We might get a better idea of attitudes if players were polled on such matters. Many players seem happy with local Bridge variants but I feel that others would prefer a global game with simpler rules. It's encouraging that so many play on-line.

There is a poll at the top of this thread.

[Zelandakh]

 Vampyr, on 2015-March-29, 04:00, said:

There is a poll at the top of this thread.

But does it ask the right question? I have already pointed out a way that regulations might not be the same everywhere but would address some of the questions Nigel is raising.

[Vampyr]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-March-29, 07:26, said:

But does it ask the right question? I have already pointed out a way that regulations might not be the same everywhere but would address some of the questions Nigel is raising.

Well, your idea of using WBF regulations for top-level events is nothing new. There is a league around here that has system restrictions that are at least as liberal as the WBF's (eg, forcing pass is allowed), and the same is true for many clubs.

The WBF regulations are there, and anyone who wants to can use them. The only conclusion to draw from that is that people don't want to.

[Zelandakh]

 Vampyr, on 2015-March-29, 14:48, said:

The WBF regulations are there, and anyone who wants to can use them. The only conclusion to draw from that is that people don't want to.

The idea of World Peace is there and anyone that wants to can follow it. The only conclusion to draw from that is that people don't want to.

[Vampyr]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-March-29, 16:05, said:

The idea of World Peace is there and anyone that wants to can follow it. The only conclusion to draw from that is that people don't want to.

That is for sure!

[Siegmund]

I would like the Laws to be the same everywhere. (They almost were, a few editions of the book ago - not much besides inquiring about a defender's revoke was different between ACBL and non-ACBL laws then -- but now we're on different planets with Law 12, among others. I can't help feeling the law book hit a high water mark in 1987 and has been creeping backward since.)

But that's not what Vampyr asked: the regulations are supposed to suit local needs. provided they don't conflict with the laws. Would be silly to expect the same regulations in a novice game and a world championship (use of screens, amount of disclosure needed, etc.)

[rhm]

Standards are good, provided the regulations itself are good.
For example I would not want the ACBL regulations.

As things stand I think different regulations and competition between those are better.

This is a common problem.
For example a common market can increase economic wealth.
But it requires common rules and standards, which may require compromise in the first place and once agreed it can then get very difficult to change these rules and standards .
Progress may then get very difficult.

Often it is better to have competition between smaller entities and live with some initial inefficiencies and see what works better.

Rainer Herrmann

[nige1]

 Siegmund, on 2015-March-29, 20:20, said:

I would like the Laws to be the same everywhere. (They almost were, a few editions of the book ago - not much besides inquiring about a defender's revoke was different between ACBL and non-ACBL laws then -- but now we're on different planets with Law 12, among others. I can't help feeling the law book hit a high water mark in 1987 and has been creeping backward since.)

But that's not what Vampyr asked: the regulations are supposed to suit local needs. provided they don't conflict with the laws. Would be silly to expect the same regulations in a novice game and a world championship (use of screens, amount of disclosure needed, etc.)

Global rules don't imply the same rules for all levels of play. Or for all kinds of game (e.g. MP pairs, Swiss teams, Knockout teams, etc), Also rules differ depending on the availability of appropriate equipment (for example screens, computers, bridge-mates, bidding-boxes, etc). Finally, global rules would not have to be ACBL rules.

mike777 and rhm point out that different regulators can try different bridge variants in order to decide on optimal practice. This experiment might have worked better had the results been properly monitored and collated.

[nige1]

 Hanoi5, on 2015-March-27, 04:55, said:

After learning the game and knowing how to play standard bidding some people will surely drift towards other systems, and that's fine but they will know what standard means and can play it too, if need be. But how can a LOL from Australia go to the US and try to get a partner only to find out she doesn't play Multi!? Or she isn't even allowed to use the convention with her partner because the LA's have decided it is too much? Worse, how will a foreigner know something is not natural when he didn't learn bridge in that environment? If there was a standard natural system everybody knows it would be easy to say that ANYTHING departing from that system is alertable. Wouldn't it be nice?

On BBO, without discussion, most players employ a similar version of 2/1, saving time and encouraging an enjoyable game. Hence, Hanoi5's idea has obvious merit.

[barmar]

 nige1, on 2015-March-30, 06:48, said:

On BBO, without discussion, most players employ a similar version of 2/1, saving time and encouraging an enjoyable game. Hence, Hanoi5's idea has obvious merit.

Do they really? A common complaint is that in Individual tournaments that specify 2/1 as the standard system, many players just play whatever they feel like.

[mycroft]

I frequently "play anonymously" on BBO on my tablet.

Whenever E-W open 1NT and I have an interfering hand, I expect to be +5 IMPs. Why? Because at least two people will not bother to check the system and bid naturally, and find themselves in 4♠x with a diamond hand, or 3-or-more♣ with a single-suited heart hand, or...

I can't imagine it being any better in Individuals.

One thing I do know, "on BBO, without discussion, most players who find a partnership *not* playing a similar version of 2/1 get very annoyed and leave after a hand or two."

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2015-March-30, 11:09, said:

One thing I do know, "on BBO, without discussion, most players who find a partnership *not* playing a similar version of 2/1 get very annoyed and leave after a hand or two."

Wow, this kind of intolerance could happen in real life if there were a global system. I'm not assuming that BBO is a microcosm of the bridge world, but it is anyway a culture in which a de facto standard system has arisen, and it should serve as an object lesson to those who would like to impose this sort of thing in real life.

[paulg]

 nige1, on 2015-March-30, 06:48, said:

On BBO, without discussion, most players employ a similar version of 2/1, saving time and encouraging an enjoyable game. Hence, Hanoi5's idea has obvious merit.

On BBO, without discussion, no two players employ a similar version of 2/1. To ensure an enjoyable game they will often chat to each other to cover bids that come up, like checkback, defence to one no-trump, Blackwood variant, differentiate between takeout and penalty doubles, Drury, Stayman or Puppet over 2NT, etc.

I'm not saying that this behaviour is necessarily inappropriate, particularly in a friendly game. But to claim that play on BBO provides supporting evidence for a common system is ludicrous.

[phoenix214]

There is one thing im still confused about the alerting policies. From what I understand alerting should work as an announcement, that we are playing something that you are not expecting. If a NBO has a national system of strong club, short diamond, 15-17 NT and precision 2 clubs, is it possible for these bids to be made alterable.
This actually arise a problem(Playing a short club, alerting the 1C bid, opponents think they are facing a strong club, so are always forced to ask)

[Vampyr]

 phoenix214, on 2015-March-30, 16:49, said:

There is one thing im still confused about the alerting policies. From what I understand alerting should work as an announcement, that we are playing something that you are not expecting. If a NBO has a national system of strong club, short diamond, 15-17 NT and precision 2 clubs, is it possible for these bids to be made alterable.
This actually arise a problem(Playing a short club, alerting the 1C bid, opponents think they are facing a strong club, so are always forced to ask)

We used to have this exact problem. Now short clubs are announced instead.

Write to whoever is responsible for creating the alert regulations in your NBO and point out this problem to them. And you might want to get on the committee if you can.

[Trinidad]

 phoenix214, on 2015-March-30, 16:49, said:

There is one thing im still confused about the alerting policies. From what I understand alerting should work as an announcement, that we are playing something that you are not expecting. If a NBO has a national system of strong club, short diamond, 15-17 NT and precision 2 clubs, is it possible for these bids to be made alterable.
This actually arise a problem(Playing a short club, alerting the 1C bid, opponents think they are facing a strong club, so are always forced to ask)

I suppose anything is possible, but a sensible NBO would not make bids that are standard (i.e. standard within that NBO) alertable, for exactly the reason that you are giving: If standard bids are alertable, an alert doesn't give valuable information anymore.

This is a good reason why alert regulations should be flexible with respect to the local culture, rather than be universal. This flexibility can be achieved by putting it specifically in the alert regulation: "Alert what might be unexpected to your opponents" (who in China might expect 1♣ to be strong and artificial and in the USA might expect it to show 3+ clubs).

Alternatively, the NBO can try to define what meanings are not alertable, which is effectively defining a "system of expected meanings" for that NBO. This means in practice that bridge players are forced to know two systems: their own system and the NBO's "alert free system", otherwise they don't know what to alert and they don't know what the alerts by the opponents mean. Since most players have enough problems remembering one system (and they will obviously be more interested in their own) this approach only works if there is a simple, well defined standard system in the NBO (e.g. from a standard bridge course).

Rik

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2015-March-30, 20:36, said:

Alternatively, the NBO can try to define what meanings are not alertable, which is effectively defining a "system of expected meanings" for that NBO. This means in practice that bridge players are forced to know two systems: their own system and the NBO's "alert free system", otherwise they don't know what to alert and they don't know what the alerts by the opponents mean. Since most players have enough problems remembering one system (and they will obviously be more interested in their own) this approach only works if there is a simple, well defined standard system in the NBO (e.g. from a standard bridge course).

No, this is not true. Players need only to know what is alertable in their own system. And they have no need to know what their opponents' alerts mean. Personally, I would find it very difficult to determine what each set of opponents would expect.

Trinidad, do you need to explain in yet another thread that the Netherlands regulations are great and the EBU's are horrible? Do you think that there is anyone here who is not aware of your beliefs on the matter?

Are most Dutch events inexplicably held under EBU regulations? If not, why do you care? Can you not accept the fact that you are happy with what you have and we are happy with what we have? And thank whatever you believe to be holy that we have regulations that suit the players who actually have to play under them?

[Vampyr]

I wonder if a mod could move post #54 onwards to a new thread?

So Trinidad, suppose under your splendid Dutch regulations the auction goes (1NT)-X-(2♥)-X. What is your double? Around here the meanings takeout and penalty are equally divided. So, do you alert? Well, what will the opponents expect? What will they think you think they will expect? It doesn't matter whether you alert or not; they will have to ask.

Or...partner opens and you make a jump shift. Let's assume that if it is any kind of raise or fit bid it is alertable. But if it is natural - do you alert if it is strong? If it is weak? What will the opponents expect? What will they think you think they will expect? Either way they will have to ask if it matters to them.

Or...the auction goes 1NT-(X)-2♦. Obviously various 2-suited meanings will be alerted. But we are playing it as natural. Or maybe we are playing it as a transfer. I know what the majority play and expect, but I know that the minority who play the opposite may well expect the opposite. So do I alert? Do I quiz them first on what they expect 2♦ to be?

Edit: will inexperienced players or foreigners have the faintest idea what their opponents will expect?

And always, will they know what I expect their bidding to mean? Shall I trust them to guess correctly? Am I entitled to an adjustment if they have guessed incorrectly?

It is in this situation that all players need to learn a national non-alertable (ie expected) system. Having a specified non-alertable meaning puts everyone on an equal footing.

No, the EBU alert regs are not perfect, nor are they worded perfectly. Perhaps they droop a little at the margins. But it is a set of regulations under which an alert, or the lack of an alert, means something.

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2015-March-30, 20:53, said:

No, this is not true. Players need only to know what is alertable in their own system. And they have no need to know what their opponents' alerts mean.

But they need to know what their opponents' non-alerts mean, which is defined by the alert regulation.

Rik

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2015-March-30, 23:22, said:

So Trinidad, suppose under your splendid Dutch regulations the auction goes (1NT)-X-(2♥)-X. What is your double? Around here the meanings takeout and penalty are equally divided. So, do you alert? Well, what will the opponents expect? What will they think you think they will expect? It doesn't matter whether you alert or not; they will have to ask.

This auction is an excellent example. Your last sentence answers your question: They will have to ask. That means you will have to alert.

You have your mind set to "a specific alert rule machinery". This divides all possible meanings of a call between alertable ones and non-alertable ones. It doesn't think about why one alerts. The mechanism has become more important than the goal.

Why does one alert? to tell the opponents that a call might have a meaning that they don't expect. (Or do you disagree with that?)

So, if you keep the goal of alerts in mind, rather than the mechanism, it is clear that you will alert the double, simply because you think that the opponents should ask.

Rik

P.S. Did you notice that the actual meaning of the double is irrelevant?