[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2013-March-29, 09:53, said:

There may well be better suggestions than mine, but players would probably like simpler, clearer, global rules.

Simpler, clearer, compared to what? You regard the Orange Book as unnecessarily complex, but we have not heard from a single other EBU member who does not like it in general and consider it far better than similar regulations in other countries. These people are "players". And they don't want what you say they would probably like.

Global? For what possible reason? It had better be a good one, considering all the people that would be made very unhappy by this. (To wit, pretty much everyone outside the ACBL, since their regulations would be the ones adopted.)

[Trinidad]

mycroft, on 2013-March-29, 10:07, said:

Situations where all meanings of a call are Alertable mean that the Alert is zero-information; equivalent to having no meanings Alertable (especially if there is a "overwhelmingly likely" Alertable meaning).

Such thinking in zeros and ones ("alertable" vs "non-alertable") is completely neglecting what an alert actually means.

An alert does NOT mean: "Since I alerted, the call will not have the non-alertable meaning."

An alert means: "The call has a meaning that you may not expect."

For some calls there simply is no expected meaning. Then it is entirely natural to alert and tell the opponents: "Please ask".

There is a big difference between asking the meaning of alerted calls and asking the meaning of calls that were not alerted. For many players, it is absolutely normal to ask about alerted calls, and hence such a question doesnot carry significant UI. Asking about calls that were not alerted is rare and hence does carry significant UI.

So, the secondary meaning of an alert is: "If you ask about this call, it is expected that the transmitted UI is insignificant."

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-29, 12:40, said:

Such thinking in zeros and ones ("alertable" vs "non-alertable") is completely neglecting what an alert actually means.

An alert does NOT mean: "Since I alerted, the call will not have the non-alertable meaning."

An alert means: "The call has a meaning that you may not expect."

Kind of. The problem is that, absent a Vulcan mind meld, it is impossible to predict which meanings the opponents may not expect. But it is true that in England (and most other countries, I expect), the unalerted meaning is usually the most expected meaning.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-29, 10:09, said:

Simpler, clearer, compared to what? You regard the Orange Book as unnecessarily complex, but we have not heard from a single other EBU member who does not like it in general and consider it far better than similar regulations in other countries. These people are "players". And they don't want what you say they would probably like.

Many EBU members who contribute to this forum are administrators and directors. You wouldn't expect them to rock the boat. Obviously, on balance, Bridge players are happy with the rules of their game. Otherwise they wouldn't play. Players of my acquaintance, however, express dissatisfaction with some rules, especially with aspects of local regulation. I've received correspondence from players with similar views to mine. I've asked them to post their views to public fora like this but most decline to poke their heads above the parapet.

Vampyr, on 2013-March-29, 10:09, said:

Global? For what possible reason? It had better be a good one, considering all the people that would be made very unhappy by this. (To wit, pretty much everyone outside the ACBL, since their regulations would be the ones adopted.)

I've tried to explain why I prefer global regulation in previous posts. I know I'm not a spokesman for all players. And I doubt that Bluejak or Vampyr or Gnasher would claim to be. Player-polls would reach a more objective conclusion.

[paulg]

nige1, on 2013-March-29, 15:39, said:

Many EBU members who contribute to this forum are administrators and directors. You wouldn't expect them to rock the boat.

I think this is an unwelcome slur on a group of people who contribute greatly to these forums. I may not always agree with them, but I find that they are open about the decisions made and, as an EBU member, I am always very happy that they are working for the benefit of EBU members rather than a desire to further a bureaucracy. Indeed, their openness both in these forums and in the information disseminated on the EBU web site is a model that I wish other organisations, including the SBU, would adopt.

I believe you owe them an apology.

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2013-March-27, 20:16, said:

I have skimmed through a lot of stuff written here on alerting. I wonder whether some of the posters really play bridge at all.

nige1, on 2013-March-29, 15:39, said:

Many EBU members who contribute to this forum are administrators and directors. You wouldn't expect them to rock the boat.

paulg, on 2013-March-29, 16:51, said:

I think this is an unwelcome slur on a group of people who contribute greatly to these forums. I may not always agree with them, but I find that they are open about the decisions made and, as an EBU member, I am always very happy that they are working for the benefit of EBU members rather than a desire to further a bureaucracy. Indeed, their openness both in these forums and in the information disseminated on the EBU web site is a model that I wish other organisations, including the SBU, would adopt. I believe you owe them an apology.

I object to slurs on Individual contributors to this forum. But I think representative organisations (even the EBU) are fair game for criticism. In any case, I don't expect officials to criticise their own organisation publicly. If officials object to the policies or rules of their organisation, then they can raise the matter internally. Also, I doubt that the SBU has any desire to be secretive.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2013-March-29, 15:39, said:

Many EBU members who contribute to this forum are administrators and directors.

And many of us are just ordinary players.

[Vampyr]

It is interesting that whoever started this thread with a post of mine decided to call it "alerting doubles" even though the regulation mentioned in the "OP" is about alerting in general, not just doubles.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-29, 12:40, said:

Such thinking in zeros and ones ("alertable" vs "non-alertable") is completely neglecting what an alert actually means.

An alert does NOT mean: "Since I alerted, the call will not have the non-alertable meaning."

An alert means: "The call has a meaning that you may not expect."

I have been thinking about this and wish to comment on an aspect of alertable and non-alertable meanings that you seem oblivious to.

Let's say the auction goes (1NT)-X-(2♥)X. The meaning of this second double is often penalty and often takeout. Neither of these meanings are unexpected. So which should be alerted? Both? Pointless. Neither? Well, this doesn't make any sense either as the meanings are very different. Assigning non-alertability to one meaning reduces by about 1/2 (assuming that the two possibilities are about 50% each and other meanings extremely rare). So it speeds up the game and ensures that the necessary disclosure is made to opponents in the most convenient way.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2013-March-29, 15:39, said:

Player-polls would reach a more objective conclusion.

Player-polls are conducted quite frequently. NBO members elect administrators and committees who implement policies that, in general, are desired by their electorate. This is the way representative democracy works.

Tell me, Nigel, if the world's bridge players were given the opportunity to vote on all existing sets of regulations, with the winner becoming the world regulations, which set of regulations would you vote for? Which one so you think would win? Which one do you think would be the most appropriate for everyone to play under?

Do you think that the best fit for eg Australian bridge players will also be the best fit for eg Americans? Do you think that a common set of regulations will make both populations happy?

[barmar]

nige1, on 2013-March-29, 15:39, said:

I've tried to explain why I prefer global regulation in previous posts. I know I'm not a spokesman for all players. And I doubt that Bluejak or Vampyr or Gnasher would claim to be. Player-polls would reach a more objective conclusion.

As I mentioned earlier, I think not. I'll reiterate my analogy with spoken language.

If you polled people about whether it would be better if everyone in the world spoke the same language, you'd probably get a resounding "yes". But if you asked them if they'd be willing to give up THEIR language in favor of the global language, I think most would say no. Even though the world has gotten much smaller, and technology allows easy correspondence with people all around the world, most people get by very well speaking their local languages, and see little reason to change.

The same thing goes with bridge regulations. Probably only a tiny fraction of a percent of bridge players ever play outside their local jurisdiction. The fact that the game is played a little differently in other countries impacts them not a bit. What do they gain by bringing their regulations in agreement with all these other jurisdictions?

[nige1]

nige1, on 2013-March-29, 15:39, said:

Player-polls would reach a more objective conclusion.

Vampyr, on 2013-March-30, 10:45, said:

Player-polls are conducted quite frequently. NBO members elect administrators and committees who implement policies that, in general, are desired by their electorate. This is the way representative democracy works. Tell me, Nigel, if the world's bridge players were given the opportunity to vote on all existing sets of regulations, with the winner becoming the world regulations, which set of regulations would you vote for? Which one so you think would win? Which one do you think would be the most appropriate for everyone to play under? Do you think that the best fit for eg Australian bridge players will also be the best fit for eg Americans? Do you think that a common set of regulations will make both populations happy?

I 'm grateful to under-rewarded administrators (and directors), who perform well in demanding roles. IMO, polls are better than elections as guides to modifying policy and rules. I like different aspects of different local regulations. Australian systems regulation is acceptable although a bit strict

Currently, Bridge is not one game but a set of different games depending on jurisdiction Any global set of rules would ensure that we're all playing the same game. Clarification and simplification could be a bonus. Other rules anomalies might be ironed out later.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-30, 10:23, said:

It is interesting that whoever started this thread with a post of mine decided to call it "alerting doubles" even though the regulation mentioned in the "OP" is about alerting in general, not just doubles.

I called it what I did because that's what everyone was talking about.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-30, 10:30, said:

I have been thinking about this and wish to comment on an aspect of alertable and non-alertable meanings that you seem oblivious to.

Let's say the auction goes (1NT)-X-(2♥)X. The meaning of this second double is often penalty and often takeout. Neither of these meanings are unexpected. So which should be alerted? Both? Pointless. Neither? Well, this doesn't make any sense either as the meanings are very different. Assigning non-alertability to one meaning reduces by about 1/2 (assuming that the two possibilities are about 50% each and other meanings extremely rare). So it speeds up the game and ensures that the necessary disclosure is made to opponents in the most convenient way.

I think you're missing the point. Sure, when "the meaning is either A or it's B" and the regs say "alert A" (or for that matter "alert B"), it is logical to infer from an alert or lack of alert that the meaning is either the alertable one, or the other one. But how often is that the case? You say yourself that in this case there may be (are?) other meanings, and however rare they are they should be included in "alertable meanings. So when you hear an alert you have to think not that "it's A" but that "it's A or one of several possible but rare meanings". And now we're back to Rik's "an alert means the call has a meaning about which you may wish to ask". As for "it's mostly either A or B" and which one to alert, well, sometimes the regulators just have to flip a coin.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-30, 12:02, said:

I think you're missing the point.

I don't have any idea, to be quite honest, what point is being made.

[blackshoe]

Well, I can't speak for Rik, but the point I was making is that he's right when he says

Quote

An alert does NOT mean: "Since I alerted, the call will not have the non-alertable meaning."

An alert means: "The call has a meaning that you may not expect."

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-30, 12:42, said:

Well, I can't speak for Rik, but the point I was making is that he's right when he says

You spoke very well...

Rik

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-30, 12:42, said:

Well, I can't speak for Rik, but the point I was making is that he's right when he says

Quote

An alert does NOT mean: "Since I alerted, the call will not have the non-alertable meaning."

An alert means: "The call has a meaning that you may not expect."

See above about the Vulcan mind meld. It is more useful to think of it not as "an alert indicates a meaning that I somehow know the opponents will not expect", but as "an alert is an aid to disclosure, and its purpose is to give to the opponents information that they want/need". If one non-alertable meaning is defined, then this will not be a matter of opinion, and the alert procedure will be the same at every table.

What counts is not our knowing what the opponents will and will not expect, but their knowing what is going on. Also, if you know that the lack of an alert indicates the non-alertable meaning, it is a lot more relaxing and much better for inexperienced players, who may not be aware of additional non-alertable meaning.

This is all written in the assumption that the above quote is not just a pointless observation, but is somehow supposed to support a position that it is best to have more than one non-alert(announce)able meaning. I honestly think that this is a nonsensical viewpoint, and that it is only still being advanced because some people do not like to say they were wrong.

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2013-March-30, 11:10, said:

Currently, Bridge is not one game but a set of different games depending on jurisdiction Any global set of rules would ensure that we're all playing the same game.

Yes, but so what? If people in Kansas want to play a different game from people in New South Wales, I can't see why it is any business of yours, and I can't see why you should wish to force the poor Australians to play under ACBL rules (or vice versa).

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2013-March-30, 14:57, said:

Yes, but so what? If people in Kansas want to play a different game from people in New South Wales, I can't see why it is any business of yours, and I can't see why you should wish to force the poor Australians to play under ACBL rules (or vice versa).

Gnasher may know what people in Kansas and New South Wales want but I only speculate. Ensuring players can enjoy their game is the responsibility of rule-makers but we're all entitled to an opinion. I guess that many would prefer simpler, clearer, global rules.