[Vampyr]

I don't think that you have read a word of what Andy wrote above.

nige1, on 2013-March-30, 15:33, said:

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.

Andy probably does not know what people in Kansas and New South Wales want, but he is neither speculating nor guessing, as you are. I will go out on a limb ans say that the people in Kansas and New South Wales do not give two hoots that the people in the other location are playing under different regulations from them. I honestly think that your "many" above is actually none.

I just do not understand why you would want to change the regulations in these places or in Cape Town or Buenos Aires. Do you play in these places frequently enough for it to matter to you? If not, do you think that maybe they should be trusted to know what they want?

Obviously you want World Government too. Should that be Sharia Law or Communist Dictatorship? Or should it be what you prefer and are used to...?

[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).

Vampyr, on 2013-March-30, 15:51, said:

I don't think that you have read a word of what Andy wrote above.

I read it

Vampyr, on 2013-March-30, 15:51, said:

Andy probably does not know what people in Kansas and New South Wales want, but he is neither speculating nor guessing, as you are.

I admit I'm speculating.I think vampyr and gnasher are guessing that players would prefer regulation to be local rather than global..

Vampyr, on 2013-March-30, 15:51, said:

I will go out on a limb ans say that the people in Kansas and New South Wales do not give two hoots that the people in the other location are playing under different regulations from them. I honestly think that your "many" above is actually none. I just do not understand why you would want to change the regulations in these places or in Cape Town or Buenos Aires. Do you play in these places frequently enough for it to matter to you? If not, do you think that maybe they should be trusted to know what they want?

I don't know whether or not they want local regulation. I can only speculate until players' views are polled.

Vampyr, on 2013-March-30, 15:51, said:

Obviously you want World Government too. Should that be Sharia Law or Communist Dictatorship? Or should it be what you prefer and are used to...?

I don't like local war-lords.I dislike dictatorship in politics (or game-regulation). I'd like a democratic world government. IMO, the fewer the nation states, the less the probability of world-war. I accept that I might not like details of an actual compromise.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2013-March-30, 17:27, said:

I read it I admit I'm speculating.I think vampyr and gnasher are speculating that players would prefer regulation to be local rather than global.. I don't know whether or not they want local regulation. I can only speculate until players' views are polled.

Is it not premature for you to be pushing your viewpoint until the world poll has taken place?

I am simply going with the premise that if players wanted different regulations from what they have, they would have them already. You can call this speculative, but I think it is a truism.

Also, even in people who don't care for their local regulations will find it hugely easier to lobby/replace/become their national autorities than some global body.

Quote

I don't like local war-lords. Nor do I like dictatorship in politics or game-regulation. Hence I'd like a democratic world government. IMO, the fewer the nation states, the less the probability of world-war. I accept that I might not like details of an actual compromise.

Yes, this is the nature of compromise. In trying to produce something that no one hates too much, you end up with something that no one actually likes. Why do you want this for bridge?

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-30, 18:06, said:

Is it not premature for you to be pushing your viewpoint until the world poll has taken place? I am simply going with the premise that if players wanted different regulations from what they have, they would have them already. You can call this speculative, but I think it is a truism. Also, even in people who don't care for their local regulations will find it hugely easier to lobby/replace/become their national autorities than some global body. Yes, this is the nature of compromise. In trying to produce something that no one hates too much, you end up with something that no one actually likes. Why do you want this for bridge?

As a biased individual, I'm badly placed to conduct a poll of bridge-players. I argue only from limited personal experience. For instance, the SBU replaced most local regulation with simpler, clearer WBF rules. Nobody claims WBF rules are ideal but they do seem to be an overall improvement, SBU members I've asked welcome the change.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-30, 13:11, said:

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.

Where did you get that idea?!?

In your model, there is 1 non-alertable meaning and there are many alertable meanings. I only stated that it is not a disaster if for some situations there are 0 non-alertable meanings and many+1 alertable meanings. I have never said that it would be good, let alone best, to have 2 or more non-alertable meanings.

Other posters have argued that alerting all meanings amounts to the same as alerting none, since the alert doesn't carry any information. I argued that this is true in the sense that the alert doesn't say anything about the meaning of the call. But the intent of an alert is NOT to tell something about the meaning of a call. It is saying: "You may need to ask" or (when there is no alert) "Normally no need to ask".

When your partner makes a call where the alertability of all meanings is equal you want to tell the opponents: "You may need to ask". Therefore, in such a situation, all meanings should be alertable, rather than having all non-alertable.

Rik

[barmar]

nige1, on 2013-March-30, 17:27, said:

I don't know whether or not they want local regulation. I can only speculate until players' views are polled.

Do you think there really could be a valid poll on this subject? I doubt that most players are familiar with the regulations in other jurisdiction, so how would they know if they'd like to adopt them. In fact, I think you'd find that most people have no idea that it's not uniform. Or even that the common bidding systems differ from region to region (I'll bet at least 90% of ACBL players have never even heard of WJ2000).

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-30, 13:11, said:

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".

But if the common meaning is alerted, it does not fit this purpose. After always getting the same, obvious answer to the request for explanation, most players will stop asking -- it's tedious asking useless questions. And then when they run up against someone playing something different, they won't realize that they should have asked.

This is why ACBL replaced alerts of transfers with announcements -- so that an alert would really provide information the opponents need.

[nige1]

barmar, on 2013-March-31, 14:21, said:

Do you think there really could be a valid poll on this subject? I doubt that most players are familiar with the regulations in other jurisdiction, so how would they know if they'd like to adopt them. In fact, I think you'd find that most people have no idea that it's not uniform. Or even that the common bidding systems differ from region to region (I'll bet at least 90% of ACBL players have never even heard of WJ2000).

Barmar has a point. Few players know their own local regulations, let alone all the foreign varieties. Perhaps players would understand a poll asking something like, "Should Bridge be played under the same set of rules everywhere, even if those rules are less sophisticated than the local rules, with which we're familiar?". Perhaps, some localities would prefer to stick to their current setup. although I hope most would prefer a global game with global rules. That opportunity won't really be available until there's a comprehensive integrated set of global rules ( = laws + regulations). A complete global rules proposal could be published for players to read and suggest refinements. Then they could vote to adopt the revised edition or to stay playing their current local game.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-March-31, 14:25, said:

This is why ACBL replaced alerts of transfers with announcements -- so that an alert would really provide information the opponents need.

Yes, the EBU did this too, also with Stayman.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2013-March-30, 19:54, said:

As a biased individual, I'm badly placed to conduct a poll of bridge-players. I argue only from limited personal experience. For instance, the SBU replaced most local regulation with simpler, clearer WBF rules. Nobody claims WBF rules are ideal but they do seem to be an overall improvement, SBU members I've asked welcome the change.

So SBU members are happy with their regulations, and EBU members, as far as I can tell, are happy with theirs, and I believe that Dutch and Australian players are as well. None of this supports the idea that lots of players would prefer different regulations from the ones they have.

nige1, on 2013-March-31, 15:21, said:

Barmar has a point. Few players know their own local regulations, let alone all the foreign varieties. Perhaps players would understand a poll asking something like, "Should Bridge be played under the same set of rules everywhere, even if those rules are less sophisticated than the local rules, with which we're familiar?".

I can't imagine why many people would want this.

Quote

Perhaps, some localities would prefer to stick to their current setup. although I hope most would prefer a global game with global rules. That opportunity won't really be available until there's a comprehensive integrated set of global rules ( = laws + regulations). A complete global rules proposal could be published for players to read and suggest refinements.

Yes, and if these refinements are competing with those from all over the world, I can't imagine anyone being fooled that theirs has a chance of being adopted.

Quote

Then they could vote to adopt the revised edition or to stay playing their current local game.

The logistics of all of this are quite straightforward. Not. And the utility is far from obvious...

[aguahombre]

I think we should launch into a discussion of whether logistics is being used as a single concept or as a bunch of things, and thus whether "is" or "are" is more appropriate.

[campboy]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-31, 16:37, said:

I think we should launch into a discussion of whether logistics is being used as a single concept or as a bunch of things, and thus whether "is" or "are" is more appropriate.

Fowler's doesn't have a separate entry for logistics, but under -ics it says the following.

Quote

The primary rule is that -ics words used strictly for the name of a subject (Economics, Ethics, etc.) govern a singular verb. But when used more generally, and esp. when preceded by determiners such as his, the, such, etc., a plural verb is called for: the economics of lending vast sums of money to Third World countries are difficult to understand [...]

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-31, 15:45, said:

So SBU members are happy with their regulations, and EBU members, as far as I can tell, are happy with theirs, and I believe that Dutch and Australian players are as well. None of this supports the idea that lots of players would prefer different regulations from the ones they have. I can't imagine why many people would want this. Yes, and if these refinements are competing with those from all over the world, I can't imagine anyone being fooled that theirs has a chance of being adopted.

I think I'm typical of players unhappy with current laws and rules. I have preferences but recognise that other suggestions have merit. I would welcome most deletions and changes that made the rules simpler and clearer but didn't change the fundamental enjoyable nature of the game.

Vampyr, on 2013-March-31, 15:45, said:

The logistics of all of this are straightforward. Not. And the utility is far from obvious...

The politics are fraught but the logistics are straightforward, exacting, and tedious. The process might include

• Study Laval du Breuil's flow-charts and consider whether rules might be better formatted as decision-tables, flow-charts, or even as an expert-system, accessible from a mobile- device.
• Complete the WBF regulations, to be more comprehensive. picking and choosing from local regulations. Currently, WBF regulations seem to be over-geared to international play.
• Integrate WBF regulations with the WBF law-book.
• Heed the useful lessons from successful on-line regulation e.g. "claiming"? "disclosure"?
• Solicit and Incorporate worthwhile suggestions from players.
• Drop rules that seem to add no value. Some possible candidates: "mechanical error"? "protect yourself"? "SEWOG"?
• Incorporate helpful examples like Ton Kooijman's (His guidelines are on the WBF web site but they keep moving around).
• Simplify and clarify the contents of the resulting rule-book with the help of lawyers. technical writers.and linguists. e.g. for each translation to a different language, translate back and forth, choosing more accurate words and constructions, until there is minimal change.
• Allow local legislators to opt out of many of the rules. They could adopt their own chauvinist regulations if they wanted to do so: but they wouldn't be forced to plug the gaps in the law-book, themselves, as now.

[mycroft]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-31, 02:30, said:

In your model, there is 1 non-alertable meaning and there are many alertable meanings. I only stated that it is not a disaster if for some situations there are 0 non-alertable meanings and many+1 alertable meanings. I have never said that it would be good, let alone best, to have 2 or more non-alertable meanings.

I don't even mind multiple non-Alertable meanings, provided they are all "common" and "expected". The ACBL in its wisdom have *many* such situations, some of which I don't like (because I don't think they're "expected" enough; 1♣-2♣ showing any of majors (usually), spades and diamonds (sometimes) or hearts and diamonds (for the pair that plays 2NT for the majors. Yes there is at least one), for instance). 1NT-something-double, in the ACBL, neither penalty or takeout ("negative") are Alertable.

I would prefer that there be 1 non-Alertable meaning; but I'd rather have multiple non-Alertable meanings than a common Alertable meaning and at least one "sort of common" Alertable meaning. Back when Transfers were Alerted, our "real Alert" of 2♦ was frequently ignored. (When Announcements came in, we frequently got "Alert" "you just have to Announce transfers now, not Alert" "Thank you. Alert." "But, But..." "Maybe you should ask". But it worked out in time.) If there are multiple common non-Alertable meanings, you have to ask. If there's one very common Alertable meaning, people tend not to ask.

Continuing down my path, if there are zero non-Alertable meanings for a common call, the Alert is a meaningless noise; if there were no Alerts for anything for that call, people would either know to ask (if it was say "takeout is Alertable because it's conventional, penalty is Alertable because it's unexpected, but still happens fairly often"), or not bother (in the EBU preAnnouncement Stayman, or ACBL preAnnouncement Transfer case). Since everything is Alertable, instead of nonAlertable, the same thing will happen, because the same information is transmitted (either there's enough people playing different things that you should always ask, or "everybody plays it as X", in which case nobody asks). Therefore, there is no information being passed by the Alert. Yeah "you should ask", but 99% of the time, you'll get "it's Stayman, just like everybody else plays it".

Quote

Other posters have argued that alerting all meanings amounts to the same as alerting none, since the alert doesn't carry any information. I argued that this is true in the sense that the alert doesn't say anything about the meaning of the call. But the intent of an alert is NOT to tell something about the meaning of a call. It is saying: "You may need to ask" or (when there is no alert) "Normally no need to ask".

Yeah, but when it's 100% Alertable, and 99+% of the time, the opponents know the answer to the question, they don't "need to ask". So either it's Alertable because it has to be to make the Alert procedure sane; or it's not Alertable because the Alert Procedure is "these, expected, conventions are so expected as to be exceptions to 'alert convention' meta-rule"); or it gets turned into an Announcement, because that solution to this issue seems to acceptably solve that problem (with the caveats above).

Quote

When your partner makes a call where the alertability of all meanings is equal you want to tell the opponents: "You may need to ask". Therefore, in such a situation, all meanings should be alertable, rather than having all non-alertable.

The problem is that the Alertability of all meanings are *not* equal; one meaning is Alertable because it's conventional, the other meaning is Alertable because it's *unexpected*. The binary switch is one for both cases, but the Alertability is not equal. And that's the problem with a binary system such as Alerts.

[nige1]

IMO: "Alert an artificial call" seems a sensible rule. "Alert a natural call with conventional restrictions" also seems reasonable. "Alert a call only if it has some unspecified unexpected meaning" is too vague because it's so dependent on local practice and individual experience. I prefer the EBU principle.

• Specify a few common meanings for a call.
• Announce those meanings
• Alert others.

Two-openers provide a good example. i.e. Announce "weak", "intermediate", "strong NF", and "strong F"; Alert others.
As advocated in this thread, the idea should be extended to Doubles i.e.Announce "penalty" and "takeout". Alert others.
This principle could usefully be applied in many other contexts e.g. Suit one-openers.. Announce "5+ cards", "4+ cards", "3+ cards", "2+ cards". Alert others.

In such cases, an alert would seem to add no information. But alerting accords with a player's expectation that an artificial call be alerted. And it saves time for an opponent, who is waiting for an announcement.

Each table should be provided with a card containing a table of annunciable meanings to prevent neighbouring tables being disturbed by announcements

[blackshoe]

I don't recall having ever been "disturbed" by an announcement at a neighboring table.

[mycroft]

Well, I've known how the auction was going to go at least once...of course, at my table it didn't have the same Announcements because I knew from the previous table that partner's 1♦ was a strong NT.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-01, 16:51, said:

I don't recall having ever been "disturbed" by an announcement at a neighboring table.

mycroft, on 2013-April-01, 17:16, said:

Well, I've known how the auction was going to go at least once...of course, at my table it didn't have the same Announcements because I knew from the previous table that partner's 1♦ was a strong NT.

Some players could be disturbed by the involuntary receipt of unauthorised information

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2013-April-01, 09:06, said:

I think I'm typical of players unhappy with current laws and rules. I have preferences but recognise that other suggestions have merit. I would welcome most deletions and changes that made the rules simpler and clearer but didn't change the fundamental enjoyable nature of the game. The politics are fraught but the logistics are straightforward, exacting, and tedious.

I meant the logistics of sending out your surveys and then getting back and compiling the responses.

mycroft, on 2013-April-01, 11:56, said:

The problem is that the Alertability of all meanings are *not* equal; one meaning is Alertable because it's conventional, the other meaning is Alertable because it's *unexpected*. The binary switch is one for both cases, but the Alertability is not equal. And that's the problem with a binary system such as Alerts.

It is a problem, but the solution isn't obvious. The ACBL "Special Alert" experiment did not last long.

nige1, on 2013-April-01, 15:14, said:

As advocated in this thread, the idea should be extended to Doubles i.e.Announce "penalty" and "takeout".

I think that if every takeout double of an opening bid had to be announced, I would quit playing. I simply do not have the energy.

Quote

Each table should be provided with a card containing a table of annunciable meanings to prevent neighbouring tables being disturbed by announcements

Now this is a good idea. I have a card like this and I bring it to every table. And I try to make announcements quietly so that the other tables are not disturbed.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-01, 19:35, said:

I think that if every takeout double of an opening bid had to be announced, I would quit playing. I simply do not have the energy.

Presumably vampyr has enough energy to announce all notrump and weak two openers?