[gnasher]

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

Most experienced players would be able to supply Vampyr with dozens of examples.

Like Stefanie, I have played bridge in many different jurisdictions, each with its own rules about alerting, and never felt handicapped by not knowing the alerting rules. If they're not available on the internet or in printed form, and I can't find a director who knows what they are, it's unlikely that I'll suffer an adverse ruling from not knowing them. If I've forgotten whether something is alertable, I alert and, when asked say "Sorry, I can't remember if it's alertable but it means x." (In fact, I have to do that in England quite often, without ever feeling that my lack of knowledge of the alerting rules has done me any harm.)

I did once get awarded 40% for failing to alert a weak notrump. Since, however, I knew that a weak notrump was alertable, I don't have much sympathy for myself,

[Vampyr]

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

[*] Most experienced players would be able to supply Vampyr with dozens of examples.

I look forward to reading them.

[jeremy69]

If you have to bring in

a. the overseas pair treated badly by a barrack room lawyer and
b. What you regard as obscure points of the alerting regulations on doubling

then I think your argument is foundering. I agree that there are times when UI arises from alerting but they are not as common as you suggest and the tedium of asking all the time in case something is going on is not what I would want at the table.

[nige1]

jeremy69, on Jan 11 2010, 03:28 AM, said:

If you have to bring in
a. the overseas pair treated badly by a barrack room lawyer and
b. What you regard as obscure points of the alerting regulations on doubling
then I think your argument is foundering. I agree that there are times when UI arises from alerting but they are not as common as you suggest and the tedium of asking all the time in case something is going on is not what  I would want at the table.

• The unauthorised information argument is as important as the arguments about simplicity and universality.
  
• I chose an extreme example; but you encounter alert violations, in most tournaments.
  
• Regulations about doubling are a common source of mistakes.
  
• If players called the director for each alert-infraction, directors would have time for little else. Luckily, in practice, most players ignore infractions.
  
• Some, however, do invoke alert regulations to advantage.
  
• I concede that alert-infractions just add a little more unauthorised information to that which is unavoidable in properly complying with current disclosure rules.
  
• IMO Bridge rules are too subjective, fragmented, and sophisticated for directors and players to understand. In particular, the complexity and variety of disclosure and system regulations impose an unnecessary burden.
  
• There is no need to alert and ask all the time. Opponents simply announce the meanings of each other's bids.

[nige1]

gnasher, on Jan 10 2010, 07:53 PM, said:

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.

The case is a basic application of alert/UI rules with undisputed facts. It has attracted 23 replies so far, in diametrically opposed camps. IMO, alert regulations are so sophisticated as to be incomprehensible. For example ...

• Is information from partner's expected non-alert authorised to you?
  
• Without an explicit agreement, a top expert (David Burn) may realize that an equally cunning partner, holding a weak hand with hearts, would bid 2♦ as a three-way bet.
  • If partner recognises 2♦ as a transfer, he will bid 2♥, well and good.
    
  • If partner passes, then 2♦ undoubled may be a cheap escape.
    
  • Finally, if opponents double, then he can bid 2♥ unambiguously.
  Is this an implicit (meta-)agreement? Might it come as a surprise to less sophisticated opponents? If so, then is it alertable?

[nige1]

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

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.

Thank you, vampyr. I hoped that the protocol would work well, in practice. More practical experience, in different environments, would demonstrate benefits and drawbacks. I believe that the former outweigh the latter.

I'm particularly interested in whether the protocol annoys players or slows the game down. I hope it would add to player's enjoyment. My guess is that, paradoxically, it would also speed the game up. (by analogy with the experimental result that when all cars do a steady fifty on a motorway, it increases rush-hour through-put, compared with normal random braking/accelerating).

The designers of OK bridge and BBO pioneered many improvements to the rules, including the idea of announcing the meaning of calls (albeit your own calls).

[nige1]

gnasher, on Jan 10 2010, 07:47 PM, said:

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 ( 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.

The incident got out of hand but started with attention being drawn to an infraction. In such circumstances, would gnasher deliberately break the law by not calling the director? or would he just ask the director to waive the penalty?

A long time ago, my sister and I were members of the Young Chelsea. We played at the YC French Club. I asked the director about alerting when my sister was confused by opponents opening short minors. Reasonably enough, the director admonished us, instead, for failing to alert our four-card majors and weak notrump

[blackshoe]

nige1, on Jan 11 2010, 06:19 AM, said:

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

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.

Thank you, vampyr. I hoped that the protocol would work well, in practice. More practical experience, in different environments, would demonstrate benefits and drawbacks. I believe that the former outweigh the latter.

I'm particularly interested in whether the protocol annoys players or slows the game down. I hope it would add to player's enjoyment. My guess is that, paradoxically, it would also speed the game up. (by analogy with the experimental result that when all cars do a steady fifty on a motorway, it increases rush-hour through-put, compared with normal random braking/accelerating).

The designers of OK bridge and BBO pioneered many improvements to the rules, including the idea of announcing the meaning of calls (albeit your own calls).

I think you missed Stephanie's point, Nigel.

It's been a long time since I played rubber bridge, but as I recall, everybody played pretty much the same system, and everybody knew what that system was. So there was no need for alerts, or announcements for that matter. The club Stephanie mentions seems to be in a similar situation, with very few conventions allowed. But in the wider world of duplicate bridge, where people can write four volumes on the conventions players might choose, no player, a prior is goiing to have any certainty at all what his opponents' bids mean — not without a little help. The System Card, the Principle of Full Disclosure, and yes, the Alert Regulations, are attempts to provide that help. If the regulations are complex, that only reflects that the problem they're trying to solve is complex. I don't think you will help matters, in the wider world of duplicate bridge, by trying to simplify the alert procedure. The problem (how to disclose information to opponents without giving up the principle that information should be conveyed between partners only by the calls and plays themselves) is still going to be complex.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on Jan 11 2010, 04:52 PM, said:

The club Stefanie mentions seems to be in a similar situation, with very few conventions allowed.

True. Also at this club director calls are discouraged, and when the director is called, it is not uncommon for extra-legal rulings to be made -- leads out of turn simply picked up, etc. No one would dream of calling the director about a break in tempo or the like.

It's just a different game there.

[awm]

In my experience this is not as much of a problem as nige1 makes it out to be. Basically there are three situations:

(1) Bids in the very early rounds of the auction. Usually the system card will tell you what you need to know about these so you don't have to ask.

(2) Bids in the late rounds of a non-competitive auction. The defending side almost never needs to know, and can just ask for an explanation of the entire auction when the bidding is over. This is also where asking might "help" the opponents find their way (most people don't mess up their opening bids, but relays in late rounds of bidding are another story).

(3) Bids in a highly competitive auction. Here it's worth always asking when they alert if you might possibly have a call. But a lot of people don't play as much junk in competition as they do in constructive auctions, and usually non-alerted bids don't need to be asked about.

I agree that occasionally you get a type (2) situation where you really need to know if you can make a lead directing double or something. And sometimes there are annoying calls of type (3) which are "not alertable" even though there are several possible meanings and you get roped into asking about a non-alerted bid (however, I'd say this is a defect in the alerting rules). However, I don't think these types of UI cases are really all that frequent, and nige1's suggested "cure" is a lot worse than the problem.

[nige1]

awm, on Jan 13 2010, 02:32 PM, said:

In my experience this is not as much of a problem as nige1 makes it out to be. Basically there are three situations:

(1) Bids in the very early rounds of the auction. Usually the system card will tell you what you need to know about these so you don't have to ask.

(2) Bids in the late rounds of a non-competitive auction. The defending side almost never needs to know, and can just ask for an explanation of the entire auction when the bidding is over. This is also where asking might "help" the opponents find their way (most people don't mess up their opening bids, but relays in late rounds of bidding are another story).

(3) Bids in a highly competitive auction. Here it's worth always asking when they alert if you might possibly have a call. But a lot of people don't play as much junk in competition as they do in constructive auctions, and usually non-alerted bids don't need to be asked about.

I agree that occasionally you get a type (2) situation where you really need to know if you can make a lead directing double or something. And sometimes there are annoying calls of type (3) which are "not alertable" even though there are several possible meanings and you get roped into asking about a non-alerted bid (however, I'd say this is a defect in the alerting rules). However, I don't think these types of UI cases are really all that frequent, and nige1's suggested "cure" is a lot worse than the problem.

The suggested protocol reduces unauthorised information and permits simple universal rules, eliminating the masses of alert regulations, peculiar to each regulating authority.

Personally, I would adopt the Please don't announce option. Those who think that option is stupid, would adopt the alternative: they would benefit from an explanation of all opponents' calls, without wasting time waiting for alerts or asking questions. In theory, this could slow the game down but I don't think it would, in practice. Nor do I think the game would become more noisy. Especially if a card is available, listing common explanations (like natural, penalty, and so on) to which players could point.

Thus, I don't understand why Adam and others believe that the "cure" is worse than the problem.

For example, If you always disclose then there is no UI from asking: but if you sometimes ask, as Adam advocates, then there is UI.

Please forgive me for repeating myself. I'll try not comment further on this thread unless I have something new to say.

[Ant590]

Nigel, announcements increase UI, because they are, by definition UI. They mean that partner knows if you are on the same page or not, and if you are not, what he believes the bid to mean.

Therefore only your "never ask" option reduces UI.

[paulg]

Ant590, on Jan 14 2010, 09:59 AM, said:

Nigel, announcements increase UI, because they are, by definition UI. They mean that partner knows if you are on the same page or not, and if you are not, what he believes the bid to mean.

Therefore only your "never ask" option reduces UI.

More precisely it reduces I

[awm]

"Never ask" is not a feasible option for most serious players, who occasionally need to know what the opponents bidding means in order to take a sensible action.

On the other hand, there are many issues with "always ask" or having the opponents just explain all their bids all the time. It gives a huge number of opportunities for UI based on their inflections and how exactly they explain things, as well as slowing down the game substantially.

Still, there might be some reason for this if asking always generated UI. But in fact, there are many situations in competitive auctions where "always asking" is totally normal and it'd be hard to argue that any UI is given. In most other auctions the need to ask before the end of the bidding is quite rare, so again no UI is given. The number of critical cases is actually quite small, but it's not because most people "always ask" or "never ask" -- whether people ask is predictable based on the nature of the auction and only the (very rare) state of going against the norm can possible generate UI. This is much better than the "always ask" strategy where the opponents are constantly talking in the middle of the auction and generating UI for themselves.

[mjj29]

awm, on Jan 14 2010, 08:32 AM, said:

This is much better than the "always ask" strategy where the opponents are constantly talking in the middle of the auction and generating UI for themselves.

And for the tables on either side