[nige1]

Face-to-face, during the auction, it is not just alerts and explanations that transmit unauthorised information. It is also selective questions.

• Asking when you need to know usually advertises that you are thinking of bidding.
  
• It is hard to ask randomly, since you will sometimes have to refrain from asking about calls, in which you have a genuine interest.
  Hence, IMO, to minimise unauthorised information, you should
  
• always ask or
  
• never ask

Local disclosure rules (especially what is alertable and what is not) vary considerably from place to place, are quite complex, and impose a handicap on strangers and foreigners. If law-makers are prepared to accept the above "always or never" principle, it would open up the possibility of drastically simplified rules that could be the same everywhere ...

• If you would always ask, then alerts and questions become redundant. Law-makers could save time by prescribing that, instead, you announce the meaning of each call by partner, immediately after he makes it. You could announce "natural" for a simple natural call. A beneficial side-effect of this protocol is that it tends to even out the tempo. (In case anybody is worried, announcements seem to work quite well in EBU experience. Most of the predicted drawbacks have not been severe, in practice).
  
• If you would never ask (until the end of the auction) then opponents' alerts/announcements are of little use to you. Hence, law-makers could empower you to use something like a Please don't announce card (with a similar effect to the obsolete "please don't alert" card, discussed in another thread).

Some possible refinements:

• For announcing purposes, it might help to have a laminated table of common treatments. In straightforward cases, you could simply point to the appropriate box. (e.g. natural, penalty, takeout, lead-directing, support, strong, intermediate, weak, sign-off, limit, forcing, game-forcing, transfer, relay, asking, trial, splinter, and so on).
  
• System cards could be standardised, perhaps based on the WBF card. They would have a special pre-alert box, detailing unusual conventions, especially those to which opponents may need to prepare a defence (like the EBU card).
  
• Instead of a Stop card, we could have a simple 10 second timer, as discussed in other threads. Eventually, even face-to-face, we could have keyboards and displays to prevent some mechanical errors, time bids and plays, and facilitate hand-records and scoring.
  
• The law-book could suggest a form of words eg Sven's question "What do partner's calls tell you about his hand?" that you could use to catch up quickly when the auction had finished. This would not preclude follow-up questions about individual calls, if necessary.

[paulg]

Nigel,

Where do you feel the biggest problem is and who is your principal target for these changes?

Is it:

• the ordinary club player
  
• the occasional tournament player
  
• the 'average standard' tournament player
  
• players finishing in the top 10% of a tournament
  
• international players

Unfortunately I feel that most of your proposals are unrealistic, unworkable and/or unnecessary.

In particular the 'never ask/please don't alert' scenario is not the panacea you project, as these people will now be asking about unalerted calls creating even more UI than currently. If they truly never ask, then how can they compete fairly? Auctions such as (1♣) - 1♥ - (2♥) - 2♠ will lead to the question from the 'normal' pair, what does 2♠ mean? The partner of 2♠ bidder will have to say it depends on the meaning of 2♥, which is then explained as showing spades. It is just an impossible way of playing in today's world.

Announcing every bid will be loud and just slow the game right down. And that's for people who know the meaning of every call in their system.

Paul

[nige1]

cardsharp, on Jan 4 2010, 07:02 AM, said:

Where do you feel the biggest problem is and who is your principal target for these changes? Is it:

• the ordinary club player
  
  
  
• the occasional tournament player
  
  
  
• the 'average standard' tournament player
  
  
  
• players finishing in the top 10% of a tournament
  
  
  
• international players

Unfortunately I feel that most of your proposals are unrealistic, unworkable and/or unnecessary.

In particular the 'never ask/please don't alert' scenario is not the panacea you project, as these people will now be asking about unalerted calls creating even more UI than currently. If they truly never ask, then how can they compete fairly? Auctions such as (1♣) - 1♥ - (2♥) - 2♠ will lead to the question from the 'normal' pair, what does 2♠ mean?  The partner of 2♠ bidder will have to say it depends on the meaning of 2♥, which is then explained as showing spades. It is just an impossible way of playing in today's world.

Announcing every bid will be loud and just slow the game right down. And that's for people who know the meaning of every call in their system.

• Problems addressed by the suggested protocol: at least three...
  • Use of unauthorized information - usually innocent. For example some players can't perform the mental gymnastics necessary to avoid taking advantage. Most players find Bridge rules hard to understand, especially those about unauthorised information. Beginners are not the only players who find it confusing. Recent threads on BLML show that some senior directors don't seem to understand it either, in its simplest manifestations.
    
  • Complex alerting regulations: several pages of rules about what you should and should not alert.
    
  • Local variation: each legislature has different rules.
  
  
• Target: ordinary players, playing face-to-face, without screens.
  
• Unworkable and unnecessary? Hard to tell until tried. I think cardsharp's wrong but he could be right. Unrealistic? I hope not but fear so, given general apathy, WBFLC inertia, and the falling number of players.
  
• Panacea? No. Manifestly these suggestions have drawbacks as well as advantages. I feel however that the latter outweigh the former. Just to clarify the suggested protocol in relation to cardsharp's criticisms:
  • If you tell opponents not to announce, then you may keep opponents' system card in view but you must not ask about any call until the end of the auction. Such a policy suffers the same drawback as when you don't ask about any of your opponents' alerts.
    
  • In practice, I think announcing each call may save time. For example, it eliminates the time taken by alerts and questions and it evens up the tempo.
    
  • There is already quite a lot of announcing in the EBU but it does not create bedlam. A table of common announcements would reduce the noise.
    
  • If you don't know the meaning of a call you have a similar problem to that you encounter with current regulations. I think you're meant to admit that you don't know but then offer to speculate (based on partnership philosophy, analogous situations, and negative inferences) if opponents so wish.

[Ant590]

I think the all/never idea is terrible.

Three main issues spring to mind at first:

(1) Say a pair have agreed "never", but the meaning of a call really does make a difference to their bid: (1♥) --- dbl --- (3♣) alerted. You may play different system after a natural forcing, natural constructive, natural weak, fit jump, splinter, or Bergen. What do you do, guess what it means? If you think such a bid will be on a system card, make the auction more complicated and repeat the question.

(2) Say a pair agree "always" and they play a pair playing symmetric relay, where almost every bid is alerted, and for one bidder their bids all mean the same thing: "says nothing about my hand: tell me more about yours partner". This will slow down most game and slam auctions and delay the movement.

(3) What if a pair differ or forget their agreement to always or never ask. There are enough rulings and appeals centred on bidding UI, let alone the a director having to rule on 1 and/or 2.

[nige1]

Ant590, on Jan 4 2010, 09:51 AM, said:

I think the all/never idea is terrible. Three main issues spring to mind at first:
(1) Say a pair have agreed "never", but the meaning of a call really does make a difference to their bid: (1♥) --- dbl --- (3♣) alerted. You may play different system after a natural forcing, natural constructive, natural weak, fit jump, splinter, or Bergen. What do you do, guess what it means? If you think such a bid will be on a system card, make the auction more complicated and repeat the question.
(2) Say a pair agree "always" and they play a pair playing symmetric relay, where almost every bid is alerted, and for one bidder their bids all mean the same thing: "says nothing about my hand: tell me more about yours partner". This will slow down most game and slam auctions and delay the movement.
(3) What if a pair differ or forget their agreement to always or never ask. There are enough rulings and appeals centred on bidding UI, let alone the a director having to rule on 1 and/or 2.

I am grateful to Cardsharp and Ant590 for their criticisms. Both make excellent points.

• One justification of the always or never protocol is that it avoids the unauthorised information transmitted by selective asking. Unfortunately, if law-makers agree with Ant590 that the protocol is a terrible idea, and I fear that it's likely that they do, then it will be a non-starter.
  
• Under the proposed protocol, if you adopt the never option, then opponents won't alert or explain any calls until the end of the auction. If you don't find a call or auction-type on their system-card, then you won't know immediately what meaning it has. Ant590 is right that this uncertainty is a major disadvantage of adopting the never option.
  
• Under the proposed protocol, if you adopt the always option and opponents are in a pure relay auction, then, at his turn to bid, the client's partner will announce relay or point to the relevant box on the table of announcement phrases. The server's partner will announce the feature described by his partner. Unfortunately, it's rarely that simple. Typically, the client can break the relay, at any stage, with some kinds of hand. His partner should really announce those exceptions. This problem is endemic to relay auctions, whatever the disclosure protocol in force.
  
• If a pair break their commitment not to ask or not to announce, then these are infractions of the suggested protocol. Presumably, the director would have to treat this as gratuitous unauthorised information.

[barmar]

I think lawmakers and pundits have understood for a long time that selective questioning transmits UI. We've just decided to live with it as the lesser of evils. There may, very occasionally, be circumstances where the UI makes a difference, but is preventing that worth making things more cumbersome for every other auction?

It's impossible to prevent all UI. We deal with it, and the game doesn't suffer that much.

[nige1]

barmar, on Jan 5 2010, 12:50 PM, said:

I think lawmakers and pundits have understood for a long time that selective questioning transmits UI.  We've just decided to live with it as the lesser of evils.  There may, very occasionally, be circumstances where the UI makes a difference, but is preventing that worth making things more cumbersome for every other auction?

It's impossible to prevent all UI.  We deal with it, and the game doesn't suffer that much.

The suggested protocol not only reduces UI. It also opens the way for universal and simpler disclosure rules.

Under current regulations, there is UI from alerts and questions on almost every deal. It is difficult to gage how much it is used.

Judging from the dissension over the interpretation of laws and regulations in the simplest cases with agreed facts, directors do find it hard to cope.

[paulg]

Nigel,

This is just ridiculous in my opinion.

Never-asking is just not viable - you are then playing a game of non-disclosure.

Always-asking is just not viable:

Pass - ask, "that's natural"
Pass - ask, "that's natural"
1D - ask, "that's natural", "what does it show?", "4+ diamonds, 12+ HCP", "can you have a 4-card major?", "Yes"
Pass - ask, "that's natural"
1H - ask, "that's natural", "can you have a longer minor?", "yes", "even in a strong hand?", "yes, we always bid a 4-card major"
Pass - ask, "that's natural"
1NT - ask, "shows 4+ clubs or any hand that would for to game opposite 8 HCP"
Pass - ask, "that's natural"

etc.

Not to mention that always asking can only INCREASE the passing of UI, since every call is now asked about rather than the minority that were previously alerted. Announcements create exactly the same problems.

Paul

[axman]

nige1, on Jan 4 2010, 09:21 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Jan 4 2010, 07:02 AM, said:

Where do you feel the biggest problem is and who is your principal target for these changes? Is it:

• the ordinary club player
  
  
  
• the occasional tournament player
  
  
  
• the 'average standard' tournament player
  
  
  
• players finishing in the top 10% of a tournament
  
  
  
• international players

Unfortunately I feel that most of your proposals are unrealistic, unworkable and/or unnecessary.

In particular the 'never ask/please don't alert' scenario is not the panacea you project, as these people will now be asking about unalerted calls creating even more UI than currently. If they truly never ask, then how can they compete fairly? Auctions such as (1♣) - 1♥ - (2♥) - 2♠ will lead to the question from the 'normal' pair, what does 2♠ mean?  The partner of 2♠ bidder will have to say it depends on the meaning of 2♥, which is then explained as showing spades. It is just an impossible way of playing in today's world.

Announcing every bid will be loud and just slow the game right down. And that's for people who know the meaning of every call in their system.

• Problems addressed by the suggested protocol: at least three...
  • Use of unauthorized information - usually innocent. For example some players can't perform the mental gymnastics necessary to avoid taking advantage. Most players find Bridge rules hard to understand, especially those about unauthorised information. Beginners are not the only players who find it confusing. Recent threads on BLML show that some senior directors don't seem to understand it either, in its simplest manifestations.
    
  • Complex alerting regulations: several pages of rules about what you should and should not alert.
    
  • Local variation: each legislature has different rules.
  
  
• Target: ordinary players, playing face-to-face, without screens.
  
• Unworkable and unnecessary? Hard to tell until tried. I think cardsharp's wrong but he could be right. Unrealistic? I hope not but fear so, given general apathy, WBFLC inertia, and the falling number of players.
  
• Panacea? No. Manifestly these suggestions have drawbacks as well as advantages. I feel however that the latter outweigh the former. Just to clarify the suggested protocol in relation to cardsharp's criticisms:
  • If you tell opponents not to announce, then you may keep opponents' system card in view but you must not ask about any call until the end of the auction. Such a policy suffers the same drawback as when you don't ask about any of your opponents' alerts.
    
  • In practice, I think announcing each bid may save time. For example, it eliminates the time taken by alerts and questions and it evens up the tempo.
    
  • There is already quite a lot of announcing in the EBU but it does not create bedlam. A table of common announcements would reduce the noise.
    
  • If you don't know the meaning of a call you have a similar problem to that you encounter with current regulations. I think you're meant to admit that you don't know but then offer to speculate (based on partnership philosophy, analogous situations, and negative inferences) if opponents so wish.

There is something inherently wrong where players are compelled to create UI and then turn around and punish the partners that receive that UI. Yet this is the Orwellian World [re: 1984 by George Orwell] imposed upon bridge players.

Maybe this issue is the essence of the Nigel Project. However, the composition of Nigel’s proposals suggest that they do not solve the problem of compelling players to create UI.

Imo the current state of affairs is intolerable, but change that does not fix the problem is every bit the detriment as the intolerable situation itself.

[barmar]

As long as players can hear or see their partner's questions and answers, there will be UI.

In the sometimes-ask world we currently live in, there's UI from the asker to his partner based on whether or not he asked, and UI from the answerer to his partner due to the answer. In the always-ask world that's suggested, there's no UI from the asker, but much more UI from the answer.

Note also that the UI from the asker is vague and inferential, but the UI from the answerer is extremely clear. If the answerer has forgotten the system, his partner now knows this, which he wouldn't have if the opponent had chosen not to ask. He's now forced to perform the mental gymnastics of ignoring this knowledge, while hopefully maintaining a good poker face and not breaking tempo.

Online bridge and screens provide technological solutions to the root cause, although they sometimes create their own problems. E.g. with screens, there's occasionally the problem of different explanations being given to each opponent.

[nige1]

• If you choose the option of asking opponents to announce the meaning of each call by their partner, then
  • You eliminate the UI of selective questioning.
    
  • You avoid problems about what to alert (or not to alert).
    
  • You save time compared with the normal alert-question-answer protocol. This claim is controversial; but practice would (dis)prove it.
  
  
• I would choose the other option -- switching off alerts and explanations until the end of the auction. During the auction, I would have to rely on opponent's system card. As Paul points out, that would sometimes leave me with an incomplete picture. It would, however, eliminate most of the UI from both sides. I predict that opponents would have more bidding misunderstandings, so I would enjoy a nett gain. Again, practice would (dis)prove this claim.
  
• These rules are independent of local systemic preferences, so the law-book could specify them as a default. This would reduce the handicap suffered by foreigners unless the local regulator chose to over-ride the default.
  
• I hope that players (especially new players) would appreciate the simplicity of these disclosure rules, as compared with the pages of regulations that they now have to learn.
  
• UI rules are the hardest for players to understand and for directors to interpret, so reducing UI is also a worthy aim.
  
• As Barmer points out, this is similar to on-line protocol, which seems to work well.

[matmat]

nige1, on Jan 8 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

[*] I would choose the other option -- switching off alerts and explanations until the end of the auction. During the auction, I would have to rely on opponent's system card. As Paul points out, that would sometimes leave me with an incomplete picture. It would, however, eliminate most of the UI from both sides. I predict that opponents would have more bidding misunderstandings, so I would enjoy a nett gain. Again, practice would (dis)prove this claim.

You're right. this is a very good option. I would gladly use this against opponents who have very complex systems. I enjoy reading other people's long system notes and trying to find intricate inferences from complex agreements. I expect that it wouldn't take me very long at all to skim through the dozens of pages in some people's pamphlets, after all, I am a very fast reader. And, I expect that my partner would have a very easy time drawing no inferences from me scouring through pages and pages of stuff while i hum a pleasant tune to myself.

[nige1]

matmat, on Jan 8 2010, 08:52 PM, said:

You're right. this is a very good option. I would gladly use this against opponents who have very complex systems. I enjoy reading other people's long system notes and trying to find intricate inferences from complex agreements. I expect that it wouldn't take me very long at all to skim through the dozens of pages in some people's pamphlets, after all, I am a very fast reader. And, I expect that my partner would have a very easy time drawing no inferences from me scouring through pages and pages of stuff while i hum a pleasant tune to myself.

matmat is being sarcastic but: Yes. Switching off alerts and announcements (when we had that option), did seem to work best against players with complex systems.

I suppose that, playing a match, against players who employ a complex system, it would pay matmat to study their system-notes, before-hand.

Unfortunately, that is a luxury beyond casual players, especially those who prefer pairs events. I have to be satisfied with perusal of opponent's system-card; although as noted several times, it is unlikely to provide me with a complete picture.

I would prefer a system-card to be mandatory, in a standard format (specified by the WBF), and include a pre-alert section (like that in the EBU card), highlighting unusual treatments, especially those that may require an agreed defence.

[gnasher]

Nigel, I think you must have had a lot of bad luck in your choice of opponents. In order to gain by banning alerts, you must be playing against a pair who
(1) Play methods which require alerts
(2) Don't know their methods
(3) Cheat.

[nige1]

gnasher, on Jan 9 2010, 09:30 AM, said:

Nigel, I think you must have had a lot of bad luck in your choice of opponents.  In order to gain by banning alerts, you must be playing against a pair who
(1) Play methods which require alerts
(2) Don't know their methods
(3) Cheat.

• In practice, we found that turning off alerts and announcements resulted in opponents suffering costly misunderstandings. That is quite enough reason for us to want to be allowed to resume the practice. Gnasher implies that we may have been lucky with our opponents (but I doubt it). Admittedly, most did play methods that required alerts.
  
• Gnasher may be among the few who know their methods. I'm one of the majority who are uncertain about partnership understandings, except in a few basic contexts.
  
• I deplore that the "cheat" epithet is used with reckless abandon. I know no cheats. Nevertheless, I suspect many players of using using unauthorised information. Many do so unconsciously. Some are just incapable of performing the required mental contortions to avoid its use. And there is widespread confusion about the interpretation of UI laws and regulations. For example, in the Bridge Laws Discussion List, there are endless arguments among senior directors.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on Jan 4 2010, 11:07 AM, said:

[/LIST]Local disclosure rules (especially what is alertable and what is not) vary considerably from place to place, are quite complex, and impose a handicap on strangers and foreigners...
[*] For announcing purposes, it might help to have a laminated table of common treatments. In straightforward cases, you could simply point to the appropriate box. (e.g. natural, penalty, takeout, lead-directing, support, strong, intermediate, weak, sign-off, limit, forcing, game-forcing, transfer, relay, asking, trial, splinter, and so on).

In what strange places have you played, Nigel, that you felt handicapped by not knowing the alert regulations? I have played in about a dozen countries, and never run into any problems. The only time we had a real misunderstanding was when partner and I carelessly said that our leads were "second and fourth" and upset our opponents when we led top of a doubleton. And now we know better. Unless you can give examples of when you and others were hurt by unfamiliar alert/announce regulations, you should really stop using this argument.

There is a large bridge club in London which eschews alerts; all "alertable" bids and quite a few others are announced. It seems to work quite well for them, but we are talking about a very limited list of treatments allowed and a very low level of play. I think that, for reasons others have mentioned, it would not be a good solution out in the wider world.

The only real solution is screens, but the problem here is a simple one of real estate.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on Jan 10 2010, 03:43 AM, said:

In what strange places have you played, Nigel, that you felt handicapped by not knowing the alert regulations? I have played in about a dozen countries, and never run into any problems. The only time we had a real misunderstanding was when partner and I carelessly said that our leads were "second and fourth" and upset our opponents when we led top of a doubleton. And now we know better. Unless you can give examples of when you and others were hurt by unfamiliar alert/announce regulations, you should really stop using this argument.

• Most experienced players would be able to supply Vampyr with dozens of examples.
  
• I posted a non-alert question to our simple ruling section. A simple basic case with clear undisputed facts. As expected, eminent directors disagree about the ruling.
  
• I've taught beginners for many years. Their first proper duplicate bridge outing has permanently put some off club bridge. Often, it's an alert ruling that they don't understand.
  
• A friendly young French couple visited Reading Bridge Club several times, enjoyed themselves, and applied to join. They failed to alert an alertable call and the director ruled that this damaged their opponents. The couple explained that the bid was not alertable in France, they appealed, there was a nasty heated argument, the committee upheld the director's ruling, and the couple left the club, distraught, never to return. There have been other such incidents with less traumatic outcomes.
  
• I play mainly in the UK but sometimes get confused about local alerting and announcing regulations (especially with doubles). So far, no real damage has resulted and opponents have been tolerant about my lapses, but my charmed life can't continue forever.
  
• When people say that disclosure rules are straightforward, I sometimes ask basic questions that most ordinary players get wrong. For instance, under EBU (SBU?) regulations
  • After opponents' transfer* sequence, is partner's (takeout) double alertable? eg
    (1N) _P (2♥*) _P
    (2♠*) _X
    
  • After opponent's game-level overcall of my game-forcing bid*, is partner's forcing pass alertable? eg
    1♥ (_P) 2♦* (4♠)
    _P

[mjj29]

nige1, on Jan 10 2010, 06:04 PM, said:

I play mainly in the UK but sometimes get confused about local alerting and announcing regulations (especially with doubles). So far, no real damage has resulted and opponents have been tolerant about my lapses, but my charmed life can't continue forever.

The regulations for alerting doubles now are very simple. Doubles of a natural suit below 3NT are not alertable if they are for takeout of some description. Doubles of an artificial suit are not alertable if they show the suit doubled. Doubles of NT bids are not alertable if they are for penalties. Everything else is alertable. Above 3NT only lead directing doubles for suits other than the doubled one are alertable.

(below done without reference to the OB)

nige1, on Jan 10 2010, 06:04 PM, said:

[*] When people say that disclosure rules are straightforward, I sometimes ask basic questions that most ordinary players get wrong. For instance, under EBU (SBU?) regulations

• After opponents' transfer* sequence, is partner's (takeout) double alertable? eg
  (1N) _P (2♥*) _P
  (2♠*) _X

2♠ is not a natural suit, so an unalerted double shows the suit.

nige1, on Jan 10 2010, 06:04 PM, said:

• After opponent's game-level overcall of my game-forcing bid*, is partner's forcing pass alertable? eg
  1♥ (_P) 2♦* (4♠)
  _P

The only alertable passes above 3NT are lead directing ones.

nige1, on Jan 10 2010, 06:04 PM, said:

A friendly young French couple visited Reading Bridge Club several times, enjoyed themselves, and applied to join. They failed to alert an alertable call and the director ruled that this damaged their opponents. The couple explained that the bid was not alertable in France, they appealed, there was a nasty heated argument, the committee upheld the director's ruling, and the couple left the club, distraught, never to return. There have been other such incidents with less traumatic outcomes.

The problem here is not the differences in alert regulations, yes, that's a shame when you get caught out, but it shouldn't be a big deal. The problem is that noone should have a heated argument about it.

It's possible that the current situation of many different alert regulations across different SOs isn't the ideal one, however, I don't think it applies to many cases. Almost everyone will only play under the auspices of one SO. If I were to play somewhere else I would take the time to get an appropriate system card and learn the appropriate alerts for where I was playing, I don't think that is too much to ask. If I then forgot and got it wrong I would take it with good grace, as I do if I get it wrong here.

A more consistent set of alert regulations would surely be more beneficial, but I don't think that no alerts or having everything announced is the answer (by all means play without alerts against us, I'll happily double you at the four level when you're playing in our suit). Having alert regulations which are like the current ones and consistent everywhere, however, is also hard, since all of them are (to a greater or lesser extent) based upon what is 'expected', which varies considerably within jurisdictions.

[gnasher]

nige1, on Jan 11 2010, 12:04 AM, said:

[*] A friendly young French couple visited Reading Bridge Club several times, enjoyed themselves, and applied to join. They failed to alert an alertable call  and the director ruled that this damaged their opponents. The couple explained that the bid was not alertable in France, they appealed, there was a nasty heated argument, the committee upheld the director's ruling, and the couple left the club, distraught, never to return.  There have been other such incidents with less traumatic outcomes.

The problem was not with the alerting regulations, but with the pair who (a) assumed that two people with funny accents who they'd never seen before would be familiar with the alerting regulations, and (b) put a parochial desire to win a club duplicate ahead of the social and cultural benefits of encouraging the visitors to return to the club. The French pair should have gone to the YC instead.

[gnasher]

nige1, on Jan 11 2010, 12:04 AM, said:

Vampyr, on Jan 10 2010, 03:43 AM, said:

In what strange places have you played, Nigel, that you felt handicapped by not knowing the alert regulations?

...
I posted a non-alert question to our simple ruling section. A simple basic case with clear undisputed facts. As expected, eminent directors disagree about the ruling.

But your question in the other thread had nothing to do with unfamiliarity with the alert regulations. In the scenario you posited, everyone at the table understands the relevant alerting regulations.