[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2012-April-09, 09:02, said:

Actually, I am surprised by Steffie's remarks, because we do in England as well. The SC has things people need to know on the front, no unfolding required. Glancing at it is quicker and more effective than the useless exchange of system we had at one time because opponents tell you things you do not need to know and not what you do.

As explained above the previous method did not get you the required information so you needed to look at the SC as well.

What do you consider to be "the required information"?

I play transfer responses to 1♣ with a few of my partners. In my experience, when I specifically tell the opponents that we are playing transfer responses to 1♣, most seem grateful to be told and a significant proportion then discuss with their partners what defence they play after 1♣-Pass-1♥. On the occasions when I do not tell the opponents about our system and leave them to look at our (quite thorouoghly completed) convention card, it is extremely rare that either opponent mentions anything about our system before the start of the round. (This doesn't stop them commenting on our complicated system when the auction does start 1♣(alerted)-Pass-1♦/♥/♠ (alerted)!) So in practice, the previous method is a lot closer to achieving full disclosure than the current official method.

bluejak, on 2012-April-09, 09:02, said:

You make it sound as thought the EBU thought it a bad idea. The reason given at the time was that it was probably correct, but unfortunately had been suggested too late, and the L&EC did not want to fiddle with a new alerting system that had recently been put in place. In general it takes twelve years after any change for people to stop bleating "Why do they change the alerting every year?" so changing it a year later seemed a very poor idea even if the change was a good one.

I didn't receive any feedback from the EBU L&E at the time other than in the minutes which said something like "the Committee decided against making any changes for the moment". It's nice to read now that the L&EC probably thought this was a good idea. Has the EBU L&EC started off a file of potential regulations changes to be made during the next major review?

[nige1]

jallerton, on 2012-April-08, 02:34, said:

One suggestion I made to the EBU L&E a few years ago was to abolish alerts on the first round of auction and to have a rule that all conventional calls on the first round are replaced by a brief announcement instead. So here it would go:
1♣(announced as "could be 2")-Pass-1♥(announced as 4+ spades).
Now everyone knows what's going on immediately and a lot of time and hassle is saved.

An extension of jallerton's suggestion has merit:

• Announce all your partner's calls.
• Ideally each table would have a card with common explanations (eg "Take-out", "Pre-emtive") to facilitate this while minimising disturbance to neighbouring tables.
• Opponents can switch-off such explanations during the auction (but can still ask for them at the end of the auction)

IMO, this would simplify and streamline disclosure law.

[chrism]

nige1, on 2012-April-09, 18:41, said:

An extension of jallerton's suggestion has merit:

• Announce all your partner's calls.
• Ideally each table would have a card with common explanations (eg "Take-out", "Pre-emtive") to facilitate this while minimising disturbance to neighbouring tables.
• Opponents can switch-off such explanations during the auction (but can still ask for them at the end of the auction)

IMO, this would simplify and streamline disclosure law.

This works well for experienced partnerships who know their system. It also works well in slightly less formal games and can keep the auction flowing (Andrew Robson's Bridge Club used this procedure when I played there). However, there is a potential for UI, and even deliberate exploitation thereof. For example, my partner opens a weak 2♥, and I know I want to consider the possibility of game but can't remember whether we agreed Ogust or Feature-asking - no problem, I'll bid 2NT and partner's announcement of what my bid means will clarify what the response means. Or after the uncontested and announced auction

1♥ {5 or more} = 2NT {GF raise with 4 pieces and no shortness}
4♥ {minimum}

if I can't remember whether we play Kickback but am lucky enough to have the ♠A, I can bid 4♠ and find out whether I have just asked for keycards or cue-bid a 1st-round control.

Overcoming similar problems may not be insurmountable, but I don't think it would be easy.

[lamford]

chrism, on 2012-April-09, 18:57, said:

Overcoming similar problems may not be insurmountable, but I don't think it would be easy.

I think it would be easy, but perhaps expensive. Each player has a keypad, and whenever partner makes a bid that requires either an alert or an announcement, one presses a button on one's keypad and types an explanation, only seen on the opponents' "tablets". Clarification questions can also be typed. You still know that partner regards your bid as artificial, so the unexpected alert rules still apply. It does seem wrong that information not meant for your partner should be given to him or her by being spoken.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2012-April-10, 08:10, said:

I think it would be easy, but perhaps expensive. Each player has a keypad, and whenever partner makes a bid that requires either an alert or an announcement, one presses a button on one's keypad and types an explanation, only seen on the opponents' "tablets". Clarification questions can also be typed. You still know that partner regards your bid as artificial, so the unexpected alert rules still apply. It does seem wrong that information not meant for your partner should be given to him or her by being spoken.

It would be less expensive if everyone simply brought their own laptop and sat in a different part of the room from their partner and played electronically... <sigh> When that point is reached I will restrict myself to rubber. I hope I can afford it.

[Oof Arted]

It does seem totally wrong that the Pair playing against these things have to protect themselves

Rather than those who play these things HAVING to MAKE SURE the Opponents are aware

[Vampyr]

Oof Arted, on 2012-April-10, 08:36, said:

It does seem totally wrong that the Pair playing against these things have to protect themselves

Rather than those who play these things HAVING to MAKE SURE the Opponents are aware

Obviously I agree. The only other pair (known to be impeccable ethically) I met last weekend who played transfer responses to 1♣ volunteered it before the round began. It took them about 2 seconds and everyone was happy.

[paulg]

Oof Arted, on 2012-April-10, 08:36, said:

It does seem totally wrong that the Pair playing against these things have to protect themselves

Rather than those who play these things HAVING to MAKE SURE the Opponents are aware

Vampyr, on 2012-April-10, 08:53, said:

Obviously I agree. The only other pair (known to be impeccable ethically) I met last weekend who played transfer responses to 1♣ volunteered it before the round began. It took them about 2 seconds and everyone was happy.

Any pair that does not pre-alert any agreement has impeccable ethics too, according to the EBU. Blame the lawmakers, not those following it.

[lamford]

paulg, on 2012-April-10, 09:07, said:

Any pair that does not pre-alert any agreement has impeccable ethics too, according to the EBU. Blame the lawmakers, not those following it.

I totally agree. Just as I agreed with the Arsenal player on Sunday taking the ball to an inch of the corner flag with a minute remaining and standing there with his foot on the ball. He is playing by the "rules" of the game, and there is no requirement to play according to the spirit of the game. The answer is to get those rules right.

[jallerton]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-07, 14:03, said:

Well, you know what it's like. You're EW, you arrive at the table, and the opponents' convention card is under your bidding box. Yes, I could take it out and unfold it and look at it, but it seems like too much hard work.

Vampyr, on 2012-April-10, 08:53, said:

Obviously I agree. The only other pair (known to be impeccable ethically) I met last weekend who played transfer responses to 1♣ volunteered it before the round began. It took them about 2 seconds and everyone was happy.

Don't you mean: "The only other pair I met last weekend whom I noticed playing transfer responses to 1♣ volunteered it before the round began."?

[jallerton]

nige1, on 2012-April-09, 18:41, said:

An extension of jallerton's suggestion has merit:

• Announce all your partner's calls.
• Ideally each table would have a card with common explanations (eg "Take-out", "Pre-emtive") to facilitate this while minimising disturbance to neighbouring tables.
• Opponents can switch-off such explanations during the auction (but can still ask for them at the end of the auction)

IMO, this would simplify and streamline disclosure law.

I suggested announcements on the first round of the auction only as:

• In general, players tend to know the agreed meanings of opening bids, overcalls and responses (scratch partnerships can announce "no agreement" when appropriate). In the rare cases where someone has forgotten the system and the annoucement provides UI to the bidder, the bidder would have received UI under traditional alerting rules anyway as there would have been an alert of the bid and, quite likely, a subsequent explanation in response to the prompted question.
  
• Knowledge of the meanng of each player's first bid is of great assistance to the opponents in understanding the rest of the auction.
  
• Players tend to have less firm agreements about the meanings of calls on later rounds of the auction so annoucements impart less useful information to the bidding side's opponents, whilst at the same time are more likely to create UI issues for the bidding side.

[Vampyr]

jallerton, on 2012-April-10, 15:21, said:

Don't you mean: "The only other pair I met last weekend whom I noticed playing transfer responses to 1♣ volunteered it before the round began."?

No, I asked every other pair. Even if they gave us basic system information.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2012-April-10, 11:29, said:

there is no requirement to play according to the spirit of the game.

True, but playing according to the spirit of the game makes it more enjoyable for everyone. Honestly, did you think it was fun when you had to guess what to switch to and knew it couldn't be a spade, even if it seemed likely to be best?

I am going to enquire about certain pairs' agreements thus: "Is there anything you'd rather we didn't know about your system?"

[jh51]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-10, 08:17, said:

It would be less expensive if everyone simply brought their own laptop and sat in a different part of the room from their partner and played electronically... <sigh> When that point is reached I will restrict myself to rubber. I hope I can afford it.

When that point is reached, Why have face to face tournaments at all? In order to ensure security, one might require players to go to a monitored location in order to prevent disallowed communication (telephone, texting, email) but the players at a table need not even be on the same continent. It would reduce the costs for the sponsoring entities if they did not have to rent a facility in order to host a tournament.The participants would not need to travel or obtain a hotel room for an out of town tournament.

[axman]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-10, 16:44, said:

True, but playing according to the spirit of the game makes it more enjoyable for everyone.

The ones that I identify with are the schmucks that get drawn and quartered because they answered some frivolous question.

[AlexJonson]

We have come a long way from the idea that when oppos alert you can ask.

Do we need to get overwrought about this simple proposition.

[FrancesHinden]

jh51, on 2012-April-13, 11:45, said:

When that point is reached, Why have face to face tournaments at all? In order to ensure security, one might require players to go to a monitored location in order to prevent disallowed communication (telephone, texting, email) but the players at a table need not even be on the same continent. It would reduce the costs for the sponsoring entities if they did not have to rent a facility in order to host a tournament.The participants would not need to travel or obtain a hotel room for an out of town tournament.

But we can't go for drinks & dinner afterwards.
OK, we can, but drinking alone is sad.

[barmar]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-April-13, 14:38, said:

But we can't go for drinks & dinner afterwards.
OK, we can, but drinking alone is sad.

Bring your laptop and skype

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-09, 14:30, said:

But it's always folded and kept under the bidding box, to save room on the table. So if you are looking at the "front", you can either unfold it or look at each half separately.

Well, when I play in England it is not folded and out of sight. The front is in sight. Perhaps London is not England.

jallerton, on 2012-April-09, 16:56, said:

What do you consider to be "the required information"?

I play transfer responses to 1♣ with a few of my partners. In my experience, when I specifically tell the opponents that we are playing transfer responses to 1♣, most seem grateful to be told and a significant proportion then discuss with their partners what defence they play after 1♣-Pass-1♥. On the occasions when I do not tell the opponents about our system and leave them to look at our (quite thorouoghly completed) convention card, it is extremely rare that either opponent mentions anything about our system before the start of the round. (This doesn't stop them commenting on our complicated system when the auction does start 1♣(alerted)-Pass-1♦/♥/♠ (alerted)!) So in practice, the previous method is a lot closer to achieving full disclosure than the current official method.

I would expect transfer responses to 1♣ to be on the front of the SC.

paulg, on 2012-April-10, 09:07, said:

Any pair that does not pre-alert any agreement has impeccable ethics too, according to the EBU. Blame the lawmakers, not those following it.

Pre-alerting in England is by putting it on a particular part of the SC and exchanging cards at the start of the reound. If they do not pre-alert correctly, of course I do not blame the lawmakers, I blame them, the law-breakers.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-April-24, 08:56, said:

Well, when I play in England it is not folded and out of sight. The front is in sight. Perhaps London is not England.

This is very possible.