[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2013-March-22, 05:31, said:

Personally I find it quite obvious that a double of a transfer accept is considered a natural call for this purpose, regardless of the technical definition of "natural". I don't need to read anything specific about transfer accepts to come to this conclusion.

I think that this is worth remembering. No matter how much people may quibble over the "naturalness" of a transfer accept, the fact is that the people that it affects are unlikely to ever get it wrong. Is this not good enough?

Quote

As for puppets and pass-or-correct bids, it is not quite so obvious for me.

Here is where guidance becomes helpful, because it is somewhat arbitrary but distinguishing is important. Otherwise all, or nearly no, doubles will be alerted, making the information useless.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2013-March-22, 05:07, said:

Whereas, of course, no-one complains about or has difficulty understanding the global rules we do have - the Laws of Bridge.

IMO

• Games need rules
• Bridge regulations in less restrictive jurisdictions attract less criticism
• TFLB should be made simpler, clearer and more comprehensive
• The local regulation tower of Babel should be scrapped
• Hence Bridge rules could be better
• But the rules are never likely to be immune from criticism

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2013-March-22, 06:11, said:

I'm unsure so I wrote "AFAIR" but it may have been Philadelphia. Can anyone remember?

The World Championships in Philadelphia were played under the WBF rules, including the WBF System Policy, if that's what you're asking. How does that relate to your apparently categorical statement that "Players ignorant of this rule suffered but some players, who were aware of it, were able to use it to considerable effect"?

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2013-March-22, 06:23, said:

The World Championships in Philadelphia were played under the WBF rules, including the WBF System Policy, if that's what you're asking. How does that relate to your apparently categorical statement that "Players ignorant of this rule suffered but some players, who were aware of it, were able to use it to considerable effect"?

AFAIR = As far as I remember. Sorry, I can't find the reference. I may be mistaken.

[mycroft]

Absolutely, most people would be much happier if everybody used the same set of regulations worldwide.

As long as it was the set they currently use.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2013-March-22, 08:03, said:

Absolutely, most people would be much happier if everybody used the same set of regulations worldwide.

As long as it was the set they currently use.

Precisely.

It would be nice to have some idea of whom Nigel is trying to help.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-22, 06:15, said:

I think that this is worth remembering. No matter how much people may quibble over the "naturalness" of a transfer accept, the fact is that the people that it affects are unlikely to ever get it wrong. Is this not good enough?

That is more than good enough. And remember that a double of a transfer accept is a relatively difficult case. The same goes for a takeout double of spades in the auction 1♠-Pass-1NT. Despite the complexity of these situations, still almost every player gets it automatically right (the way it was intended) by simply ignoring the way it is actually worded in the Orange Book.

That is nice, because the game will run the way we want it to run. It also says quite a bit about players: They are perfectly capable of using common sense.

But what does it say about the Orange Book if players use their common sense rather than the wording in the Orange Book to determine whether a call is alertable?

Rik

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-22, 09:03, said:

That is more than good enough. And remember that a double of a transfer accept is a relatively difficult case. The same goes for a takeout double of spades in the auction 1♠-Pass-1NT. Despite the complexity of these situations, still almost every player gets it automatically right (the way it was intended) by simply ignoring the way it is actually worded in the Orange Book.

That is nice, because the game will run the way we want it to run. It also says quite a bit about players: They are perfectly capable of using common sense.

But what does it say about the Orange Book if players use their common sense rather than the wording in the Orange Book to determine whether a call is alertable?

Rik

I think you've misunderstood something. 1♠-pass-1NT-dbl [takeout] is alertable in the EBU, and almost everyone in the EBU alerts it. That is, players have sensibly used the alerting rules to determine whether it is alertable.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-22, 06:15, said:

Otherwise all, or nearly no, doubles will be alerted, making the information useless.

It is not necessarily useless to have a few situations where all meanings of a bid are alertable (or no meanings, but I prefer all). It simply says: This is a situation that:

• we don't want to regulate (e.g. because there are so many different approaches and it doesn't make sense to pick one as non-alertable)
  
• we aren't able to regulate (e.g. because the matter is too complex to cover with simple, understandable regulations)
  
• all meanings fall within sensible blanket rules that mean that the meanings of the bid are alertable (as an example, in The Netherlands, a 2♣ opening is always alertable. If it is strong and artificial because it is artificial, in all other cases because it is unexpected, i.e. also when it is natural (e.g. Precision).)

By alerting every possible meaning you send the message: "Please ask.". And that is the message you want to send.

Of course, we shouldn't get to a situation where every possible meaning of every possible bid should be alertable. But if there are a few situations where every meaning is alertable, that is certainly not a disaster.

Rik

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-22, 09:03, said:

The same goes for a takeout double of spades in the auction 1♠-Pass-1NT. Despite the complexity of these situations, still almost every player gets it automatically right (the way it was intended) by simply ignoring the way it is actually worded in the Orange Book.

No. When they get it right, they do so by following the wording of the regulation.

[Trinidad]

Thanks Gnasher and Gordon for correcting me.

I assumed Vampyr was correct when she wrote:

Vampyr, on 2013-March-21, 07:09, said:

In England it is very popular to play that over (1♠)-P-(1NT) double is takeout of spades. This treatment will no doubt seem bizarre to you, because the 1NT bid (normally not forcing, so it doesn't conceal a raise) does not express the desire to play in spades at all. Th hand may have a singleton or void in spades. But the principle of doubling for takeout a suit the opponents' partnership have shown is universally accepted. So this informs our actions over acceptances of transfers and similar.

Obviously you do not play this way, and where you play such doubles would not be for takeout. Hopefully this brief explanation can help you to understand why the regulations under discussion are appropriate for the bridge environment for which they are intended.

to say that players do not alert takeout doubles of 1♠-1NT, because there -just like in the transfer auction- the opposing partnership has shown the spade suit.

Rik

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2013-March-22, 05:31, said:

I have discussed this with lots of club players and the verdict is almost unanimous: nobody cares what the regulations say, but many people have strong opinions about one thing: they would like the regulations to change less frequently. I can sympathise with this. If it takes appr. 10 years for a revised regulation to sink down to the majority of club players, changing the regulations once per decade makes little sense.

The obvious question is why does it take ten years for regulation changes to "sink down"? Seems to me it would be better to fix that problem than to delay needed changes another five or ten years. After all, there's a good chance that delaying would just result in complaints that twenty years is still too often.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2013-March-22, 04:41, said:

If you play Bridge seriously, you need to know the rules. Especially if directors get a ruling wrong and you're considering an appeal. In Campboy's examples, you may be damaged when unaware that opponents are using an illegal method. AFAIR, a recent World Championship in America was played under an ACBL influenced version of WBF rules. Multi-players had to provide two copies of the ACBL-approved Multi-defences, which opponents were allowed to consult at the table. Opponents also had the option of consulting their own home grown defence, even if it was a 1000 page tome. Players ignorant of this rule suffered but some players, who were aware of it, were able to to use it to considerable effect.

The 2010 World Championship in Philadelphia was played in conjunction with an ACBL Tournament — a Regional, I think, although it might have been a NABC. No one should be surprised that ACBL events at the venue were played under ACBL rules. I find it very surprising that anyone would assert that WBF events were played (illegally, unless the WBF as RA set it up that way, which I find hard to believe) under ACBL rather than WBF rules. Do you have evidence for this assertion?

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-22, 14:34, said:

The 2010 World Championship in Philadelphia was played in conjunction with an ACBL Tournament — a Regional, I think, although it might have been a NABC. No one should be surprised that ACBL events at the venue were played under ACBL rules. I find it very surprising that anyone would assert that WBF events were played (illegally, unless the WBF as RA set it up that way, which I find hard to believe) under ACBL rather than WBF rules. Do you have evidence for this assertion?

I didn't assert that. And I've admitted that I may be mistaken about my actual assertion. I can't find a confirming reference

IMO my point is valid. You can suffer if you're unaware of relevant regulations. And you can profit by knowing them. I may have cited a bad example above but I think restrictive system-regulations create unnecessary problems. I vaguely remember other past controversies over

• The definition of HUM, Brown-sticker, and Encrypted
• Ultra-Weak third hand openings and psychic-controls like Drury.
• Artificial weak twos with a nebulous anchor suit.
• Specific conventions like Raptor or opening 1N with a singleton.

Again, I'm unsure of my recollections, although I think some of these topics have been covered on BBO

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2013-March-22, 08:03, said:

Absolutely, most people would be much happier if everybody used the same set of regulations worldwide. As long as it was the set they currently use.

IMO, players would prefer to play bridge under rules that are simpler and clearer than current rules. Many are unhappy with their local regulations. Others would be happier with global rules, even although their local reguations aren't bad.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-22, 13:51, said:

I assumed Vampyr was correct when she wrote:


to say that players do not alert takeout doubles of 1♠-1NT, because there -just like in the transfer auction- the opposing partnership has shown the spade suit.

I did not say that players do not alert these doubles. They do alert them.

This is different from a transfer accept, because it is a double of 1NT, and the non-alertable meaning is penalty.

Please please read the regulation before posting any more about it.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2013-March-22, 17:35, said:

IMO, players would prefer to play bridge under rules that are simpler and clearer than current rules. Many are unhappy with their local regulations. Others would be happier with global rules, even although their local reguations aren't bad.

Nigel, you are a lovely guy and I really believe that your heart is in the right place. I think you are on to a loser as far as global regulations are concerned, due to the simple fact that "local" players play in their "locality". And making the local players happy, as opposed to the occasional foreigner who may wander in (having not read the regulations), is much more favourable to the interests of bridge in general.

Simpler is good, yes, but I love the Albert Einstein quote from Robin earlier in the thread:

"Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2013-March-22, 17:23, said:

I didn't assert that. And I've admitted that I may be mistaken about my actual assertion. I can't find a confirming reference

It was an incident involving Singapore juniors, who had apparently written out the approved defenses untidily. They weren't ignorant of the regulation, though.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-22, 20:02, said:

It was an incident involving Singapore juniors, who had apparently written out the approved defenses untidily. They weren't ignorant of the regulation, though.

Was this in an ACBL event, or a WBF event?

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-21, 07:09, said:

In England it is very popular to play that over (1♠)-P-(1NT) double is takeout of spades. This treatment will no doubt seem bizarre to you, because the 1NT bid (normally not forcing, so it doesn't conceal a raise) does not express the desire to play in spades at all. Th hand may have a singleton or void in spades. But the principle of doubling for takeout a suit the opponents' partnership have shown is universally accepted. So this informs our actions over acceptances of transfers and similar.

Obviously you do not play this way, and where you play such doubles would not be for takeout. Hopefully this brief explanation can help you to understand why the regulations under discussion are appropriate for the bridge environment for which they are intended.

Vampyr, on 2013-March-22, 19:41, said:

I did not say that players do not alert these doubles. They do alert them.

This is different from a transfer accept, because it is a double of 1NT, and the non-alertable meaning is penalty.

Please please read the regulation before posting any more about it.

You used the above post as argumentation why it was obvious that a takeout double of a transfer accept was not alertable: "After a transfer, the partnership have shown the suit. It is just like a takeout double of 1♠-Pass-1NT." and literally "But the principle of doubling for takeout a suit the opponents' partnership have shown is universally accepted. So this informs our actions over acceptances of transfers and similar."

Are you seriously going to tell me that you wrote this as argumentation to argue that the alert regulations for a takeout double and a transfer accept should be different?

Please please read your own post before posting more about it.

Rik