BBO Discussion Forums: difference in alerting regulation between different countries - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

difference in alerting regulation between different countries EBU vs ACBL vs others?

#41 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2021-October-30, 17:51

View Postnige1, on 2021-October-30, 17:35, said:

Welcome back, Vampyr :) IMO, it would be better ...
  • if the meaning or all calls (including all doubles) were announced.
  • if the meaning of all doubles were announced -- except for penalty doubles.
  • the EBU rule is also OK, if you can remember it



The EBU rule can be summed up in two sentences. It is not hard to remember.

Announcing all doubles would create way too much UI. Announcing all bids likewise.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#42 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2021-October-30, 18:15

View Postmycroft, on 2021-October-28, 10:13, said:

ut apart from that, only the "top of the top" will ever play in an NBO that isn't their own (even at a club!)


Well, that is not really true. I have played in about a dozen NBOs that aren’t my own, and I am nowhere near the “top of the top”

Quote

And, we assume, when you get to that level, you can handle "learning a different set of regulations" at least well enough for the event you're playing in.


I have never found this a problem, even at my level.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#43 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2021-October-30, 18:36

View Postnige1, on 2021-October-27, 15:16, said:

Yes :) the suggestion is that that the WBF impose a single set of regulations rather than each NBO impose their own.

Yes, It's cheaper and simpler to create and enforce a single set of regulations.
It should save time and money to check a system against a global set of WBF regulations rather than against a different set regulations for each NBO, in which you play.
For a long time, WBF regulations have worked OK in WBF competitions. They work fine in NBOs, like Scotland and Italy that have adopted them.


Nigel, you must concede that you are barking up the wrong tree.

Local system regulations exist because the players want them. Most ACBL players, for example, do not want to deal with Multi 2 or Multi 2 anything. So the regulations prohibit it. If the Multi were allowed, people would stop playing. Similarly, most EBU players do not want to deal with Wilcosz (sp?), so it is not allowed.

And think about alerting/announcing rules. In the ACBL, there is no alert or announcement of an opening 1 that could be on two cards. Yet in the EBU, this is essential information, since we are allowed to use any methods, even purely destructive ones, over artificial openings.

These are just a couple of examples, but of course there are many more instances of this type.

And just in passing, do you think that global system regulations would look more like the English, Scottish or Australian regulations than to one of the most restrictive NBOs in the world, the ACBL

“Imposing” a set of regulations that are not in keeping with the local bridge culture would be a disaster. One size does not fit all.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#44 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,128
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2021-October-30, 21:58

View PostVampyr, on 2021-October-30, 18:36, said:

Nigel, you must concede that you are barking up the wrong tree.

Local system regulations exist because the players want them. Most ACBL players, for example, do not want to deal with Multi 2 or Multi 2 anything. So the regulations prohibit it. If the Multi were allowed, people would stop playing. Similarly, most EBU players do not want to deal with Wilcosz (sp?), so it is not allowed.

And think about alerting/announcing rules. In the ACBL, there is no alert or announcement of an opening 1 that could be on two cards. Yet in the EBU, this is essential information, since we are allowed to use any methods, even purely destructive ones, over artificial openings.

These are just a couple of examples, but of course there are many more instances of this type.

And just in passing, do you think that global system regulations would look more like the English, Scottish or Australian regulations than to one of the most restrictive NBOs in the world, the ACBL

"Imposing" a set of regulations that are not in keeping with the local bridge culture would be a disaster. One size does not fit all.
Vampyr could be right but I hope she's wrong. Rule-makers and tournament directors seem to agree with her. Vampyr's short club example is excellent, .

Vampyr might be right about the ACBL. Australia seems to welcome diverse bidding systems. Scotland and Italy enjoy WBF regulations..

I wish there were more evidence. WBF/NBOs could conduct polls of ordinary players.

FWIW, my experience of teaching Bridge confirms PIlowsky's arguments: For example: over-sophisticated, over-subjective, and fragmented regulations deter would-be players from taking up the game. IMO, most players would prefer simpler rules and a more level playing field.
1

#45 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,128
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2021-October-30, 22:58

View PostVampyr, on 2021-October-30, 17:51, said:

The EBU rule can be summed up in two sentences. It is not hard to remember.

Jeremy Dhondy, Alerting Doubles said:

A. Suit bids that show the suit bid. Double of these bids is not alertableif for take-out; alertable otherwise.
B. Short, Nebulous, Prepared and Phoney Minor openings. Double of these bids is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise.
C. No-trump bids. Double of these bids is not alertable if for penalties; alertable otherwise.
D. Suit bids that do not show the suit bid. Double of these bids is not alertable if showing the suit doubled; alertable otherwise.
E. Above the level of 3NT the only double (or redouble) that is alerted is one that calls for a suit other than the one doubled.

View PostVampyr, on 2021-October-30, 17:51, said:

Announcing all doubles would create way too much UI. Announcing all bids likewise.

Announcing discloses more information. Disclosure rules determine what information is authorised and unauthorised.
0

#46 User is offline   paulg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,051
  • Joined: 2003-April-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scottish Borders

Posted 2021-October-31, 02:00

View Postpaulg, on 2021-October-11, 00:51, said:

I've always felt that the ACBL alerting regulations are written for tournament players and EBU/SBU regulations more for club players, where there are far fewer conventions used. The WBF regulations are written for elite players playing with screens.

View PostVampyr, on 2021-October-30, 17:24, said:

I am not really sure what you are trying to say. The EBU regulations are the same at all levels of play.



The ACBL and EBU regulations are the same at all levels of play.

What I meant was that the ACBL regulations didn't require alerts for many conventions that, in the UK, would be play primarily by tournament players and possibly not by club players. I meant simple things, like negative doubles, Michaels Cue Bids. Perhaps there is a greater difference between club and tournament play in the UK.

But I thought the target audience for the EBU was the vast majority of club players and ensuring that there was alerting appropriate to them.
The Beer Card

I don't work for BBO and any advice is based on my BBO experience over the decades
0

#47 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2021-October-31, 08:37

View Postnige1, on 2021-October-30, 22:58, said:

Me:
The EBU rule can be summed up in two sentences. It is not hard to remember.

Nigel:
Jeremy Dhondy, Alerting Doubles said:
A. Suit bids that show the suit bid. Double of these bids is not alertableif for take-out; alertable otherwise.
B. Short, Nebulous, Prepared and Phoney Minor openings. Double of these bids is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise.
C. No-trump bids. Double of these bids is not alertable if for penalties; alertable otherwise.
D. Suit bids that do not show the suit bid. Double of these bids is not alertable if showing the suit doubled; alertable otherwise.
E. Above the level of 3NT the only double (or redouble) that is alerted is one that calls for a suit other than the one doubled.


A and B are the same, and D also. Over natural bids a double is alertable unless takeout, over artificial bids a double is alertable if it doesn’t show the suit bid, including over 3NT. The second part is not really even necessary, it is strongly implies on the basis of the EBU’s sensible policy of having at most one non-alertable/announceable meaning for a call. Except for the 3NT bid, as this is an exception to the rule that calls above 3NT are not alertable after the first round of the bidding, which I think is the rule in every jurisdiction.

Double of a NT bid is alertable unless for penalty. It’s so simple, but people take a weird sort of pride in saying “I don’t understand it”.

Quote


Announcing discloses more information. Disclosure rules determine what information is authorised and unauthorised.



Yes, to partner too. The vast majority of players do not know what to do with unauthorised information; many will not know they have it. “Yes, of course my double was values; it stands to reason” etc.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#48 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2021-October-31, 08:58

View Postpaulg, on 2021-October-31, 02:00, said:

The ACBL and EBU regulations are the same at all levels of play.

What I meant was that the ACBL regulations didn't require alerts for many conventions that, in the UK, would be play primarily by tournament players and possibly not by club players. I meant simple things, like negative doubles, Michaels Cue Bids. Perhaps there is a greater difference between club and tournament play in the UK.

But I thought the target audience for the EBU was the vast majority of club players and ensuring that there was alerting appropriate to them.


Negative doubles are not alertable, and as for Michaels cuebids… the comment was made in this thread or another that you can make bids alertable if they do not conform to some standard system, or you can have an underlying philosophy that is system-independent. Artificial bids are alerted or announced. No except for this, except for that, etc. Everyone plays Michaels cuebids, Jacoby transfers etc. Why make the rules more complicated for anyone at any level?
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#49 User is offline   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,054
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16

Posted 2021-October-31, 09:55

View PostVampyr, on 2021-October-30, 18:15, said:

Well, that is not really true. I have played in about a dozen NBOs that aren’t my own, and I am nowhere near the “top of the top”
You absolutely are. So am I. Yes, I realize the difference between us and National Championship level is massive - but you try, and so do I, and that's the thing - and the difference between National Championship level and actual chance to win a World Championship is also massive.

But my experience and skill put me at about the top 10-15% of players that have to care about dumb things like convention and Alert regulations, and my guess from our history is that you are at my level or the next rung up. There are tens of thousands of players in the EBU below you, and over a hundred thousand in the ACBL below me.

Yes, Europe is special, especially years ago (and I did mention the Britain weirdness last time as well); but anybody actually interested in playing in the EBL events, or rich enough to travel out of country and play bridge or capable enough to be sent out of the country for work and play bridge is rarefied air, even in Europe.

Quote

I have never found this a problem, even at my level.
Which is, in fact, my point.

Many years ago I found out that the teachers at the University club I was in were saying "don't let [Mycroft] near the novices". When I was told that - by one of the novices - I went and asked. They explained that I had forgotten the first two levels of bridge players so completely that my "simple answers for new players" were still so far over their heads that it was Charlie Brown land. (As a sop, but I think accurate, they said that once they get past novice level, to the point where they could understand answers that started "it depends...", I was one of the best people to send those players to.)

I have tried to remember that lesson (in bridge, and in life) ever since. I have noticed the same thing in many other people - especially those who "know how much they don't know". I would suggest this is a similar thing.

I would point you at the Acol Club thread if you want to see it in your world (or the many many clubs, the opinion of the players if you and Paul showed up - especially the second time - that would be clearly obvious on their faces). *Those players* don't go to den Haag for a week and play bridge, or maybe even to Edinburgh, never mind playing in actual Euro tournaments or the ACBL (well, except for BBO).

Re: the actual differences. s/Artificial bids.*etc./Things that everyone plays aren't Alertable, things that not everyone plays are/ and your last paragraph makes exactly the same sense. It's not your comfort level, but it is definitely a different way to "not be more complicated at any level". For one thing, the "permanent Cs" can rely on the fact that "nothing's Alertable" (okay, the new rules have changed that, but if they can remember NT and transfer Announcements, they can remember to explain their Blackwood auction eventually. Note: they can't/aren't willing to remember their NT and transfer Announcements) and they don't have to worry about all those Alerts as "so, is this what I and everyone plays, or is it something weird I need to know/ask about?" or get upset when they assume the Alert and find out it's wrong (the Michaels vs Top/Bottom cuebids game, say, or Bergen vs Fit vs mini-Splinter jumps (note, I don't know what Artificial J/S is "common" in England) or "is this Alerted double penalty, or competitive, or something weird like transfer to spades, or good raise, or stopper ask?"

I do sort of agree with PaulG. I think the ACBL Alert procedures are written for our level, give or take, and for tournament regulars. But I will guess that 75% of active ACBL players play in at least one tournament a year (maybe in the 199er or Gold Rush, but still). Not sure what the ratio is in England.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
1

#50 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,128
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2021-October-31, 13:10

Vampyr 'Double of a NT bid is alertable unless for penalty. It's so simple, but people take a weird sort of pride in saying "I don't understand it"'
+++++++++++++++++
Non-EBU partnerships agree this double to be T/O of 1 :)
IMO, the rule should be "announce the meaning of all calls".
IMO, information from the announcement should be authorised to both sides.
I understand why Vampyr might not like this :(
But this would eliminate the need for local alert regulations :)
and reduce controversial rulings :)

0

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users