[axman]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-10, 02:26, said:

There is no "WBF Standard" that I know about; the WBF is not in the business of developing bidding systems. So a standard system would be one that is already in use.



No, alert systems are based on what is familiar in a particular bridge culture. Here beginners are taught basic Acol, and they can learn and play for quite a long time before they begin playing something that requires an alert. A much bigger memory burden would occur if beginners had to learn both the "standard system" and the one they were going to play.



It's not so much "adapting"; local standard practice is the only thing they learn. And quite appropriately, too.



So players can adapt when playing in different cultures than their own; whether online or in foreign countries.



Yes, and teachers would be happy to suspend their teaching while they themselves learnt a new system just to teach people who aren't even going to play it. Not.



There are already no-fear and simple system tournaments, as well as individuals. There is at least one of the latter per month in London, plus two nights a week of playing fairly restricted systems, and this is just in one club.

I'm sure that there are simple system events in Scotland, too. How often are they held? How well regarded are they by the better players? How many tournaments are run this way? If the answers are often, very well, and very many, then that is evidence that people like to play in events where everyone plays the same system. If the answers are something else, then maybe people want to use and to play against a variety of systems.

It is true that it can be difficult to form a pickup partnership if the two bridge cultures the players come from have little common ground; but this mostly happens online, where there are standard cards you can adopt. If you happen to be travelling in a foreign country and show up at a duplicate event without a partner, you can (if you have decided to play natural methods) agree on a notrump range, how to play 2-bids, what 2/1 forces to and whether you play checkback. You can pretty much wing it from there. And if something goes wrong, you can have fun and learn something.

Many years ago I lived in Moscow, and had played no organised bridge at all outside the US and Canada. One of my first hands at the local duplicate club, I opened 1♥, partner responded 2♦, and I, with a good suit and a 17-count, rebid 2♥, secure in the knowledge that 2/1 promises another bid. I was rather disappointed when partner passed -- but I learned something, and later learned very many other things, and had fun doing it.

BLACKSHOE:


Word.

A few comments on Standard System.

The appropriate view of a standard system within the context of bridge contests includes that it is a solution to problems such as slow play, UI, and MI. In this vein it would have the characteristics of efficacy for all players- the beginner and accomplished. As L1 and L77 are presently constructed, it would be dubious to believe that a standard system could achieve the desirable outcomes that would be available with appropriate L1 and L77.

On that basis, the standard system could perform three functions:
1. to penalize and remedy pairs that overly delay, improperly misinform
2. to provide pickup (sic) partnerships a known system voluntarily without discussion
3. to provide a foundation for a partnership‘s honed system

It would be dubious to make a single system contest [as evidenced by the failed attempt of SAYC games or lack thereof in the ACBL].

Ultimately, the value of a standard system is realized via #1. By requiring as a matter of CoC all players know the SS [not forced to adopt it (sic)] then for the opponents of players who are using SS there will be no valid reason for asking questions during the hand. Outcome: no time spent asking or answering questions during the hand as the agreements are already fully disclosed, no UI from inferences of asking questions as well as their phrasing, no UI from the responses to questions, no MI; further benefit to the partnership being the knowledge of which page they are on.

In other words, a pair that is unduly slow as by trying to remember what they forgot, figuring out how to use ‘complicated information’ from their system, creating UI thereby, and/or a pair that has too many MI episodes should be penalized by requiring them to bid according to the SS.

While such measure may at first appear extreme, the crimes being remedied are heinous; and for players that take the interest and make the investment to play fairly there would be no effect. It is noteworthy that the characteristic of the SS is that it is fundamental for beginners the ‘additional’ headwork of say 80 hours to learn it [most players spend hundreds of hours learning their first system] the time investment is worth it both from a bridge skill perspective and from the moral perspective of playing fair with opponents.

That is not to say that construction of a useful SS would be easy; as the details depend upon the particulars of L1 and L77.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-March-10, 23:32, said:

you miss the point, and that is one reason I abandoned the idea

But what was the point? And what happened to the people who were being harassed?

[Vampyr]

axman, on 2011-March-11, 09:09, said:

By requiring as a matter of CoC all players know the SS [not forced to adopt it (sic)] then for the opponents of players who are using SS there will be no valid reason for asking questions during the hand

There wouldn't be a club duplicate in the country if every player were required to know a single system (ie their own) let alone an additional system. Anyway a system so fully realised that no questions were ever necessary would require scores if not hundreds of pages of system notes.

Quote

In other words, a pair that is unduly slow as by trying to remember what they forgot, figuring out how to use ‘complicated information’ from their system, creating UI thereby, and/or a pair that has too many MI episodes should be penalized by requiring them to bid according to the SS.

So... a pair that cannot remember the agreements they have worked on and had experience playing should be required to play a system is entirely unfamiliar to them? The utility of this seems limited...

[bluejak]

Cascade, on 2011-March-10, 19:31, said:

I don't follow why that is so.

If there is a difference in expectations then I would imagine it is mostly learned because different conditions have been imposed on the different groups of players rather than that they fundamentally want something different.

Absolutely not. It is because expectations of different players in different places have created different regulations in the first place, and people do not want to base their alerting and permitted systems on some other countries' ideas.

The idea that regulation makers enforce things that peopled do not want is silly. I know that a small minority here [and everywhere] believe this but it is not a sensible idea, and it has no basis in fact. Of course there will be some bias created by the people who do the work's own ideas, but the idea that the regulations in San Jose are deliberately based on what San Jose players do not want, and in Ayr is what Ayr players do not want is just beyond belief.

I still think enforcing American ideas on alerting and permitted systems on players in Ayr will be unpopular, to put it mildly.

[Vampyr]

axman, on 2011-March-11, 09:09, said:

It is noteworthy that the characteristic of the SS is that it is fundamental for beginners the ‘additional’ headwork of say 80 hours to learn it [most players spend hundreds of hours learning their first system] the time investment is worth it both from a bridge skill perspective and from the moral perspective of playing fair with opponents.

In this country a beginner can, after a year of lessons, hold his own playing a basic form of Acol. The above is a bit incoherent, but it seems that axman is suggesting that it is reasonable for a beginner to spend an additional 80 hours (40 weeks @2 hours per week) memorising another bidding system before being set loose at a club duplicate or novice tournament?

This regime should suit axman's stated aims nicely; it is self evident that the lack of arses on chairs will reduce, and eventually eliminate, UI and MI (and all slow play, including the negligible proportion caused by incidents in the auction).

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-March-11, 17:43, said:

Absolutely not. It is because expectations of different players in different places have created different regulations in the first place...

It's not quite as simple as that, David -- it is more of a two-way street. Players' expectations largely reflect what they are familiar and comfortable with.

Quote

The idea that regulation makers enforce things that peopled do not want is silly.

True... but that does not mean that the regulation makers do not sometimes get it wrong.

The ACBL's system regulations, for example, probably suit the majority of ACBL players. But this may be a short-sighted approach, because that majority is rapidly ageing. Younger American players have long complained of the restrictiveness of the regulations, and it is quite likely that many have left the game due to the lack of scope for innovation.

[bluejak]

No doubt correct, but changing it to a different set of system regulations based on other countries' ideas is hardly a solution to that.

[axman]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-11, 16:55, said:

There wouldn't be a club duplicate in the country if every player were required to know a single system (ie their own) let alone an additional system. Anyway a system so fully realised that no questions were ever necessary would require scores if not hundreds of pages of system notes.



So... a pair that cannot remember the agreements they have worked on and had experience playing should be required to play a system is entirely unfamiliar to them? The utility of this seems limited...

Most sanctioned bridge demands, with severe penalties if the player fails to satisfy the rule, to bid using 2 bidding systems- one of which is quite alien to him. As such, the condition exists that players already are doing what you complain about. And just what is the standard system to which I refer? The Alert Procedure.

For quite some time I have had the inkling that there is a nearly universal mood that prefers UI accusations, MI accusations, ethical accusations, and the foul rulings that arise therefrom- not pronouncing judgment on the state of affairs, mind you, but observing the state of affairs. And from my observations I have given effort to understand the underlying mechanisms and constructed alternatives. It is quite clear that you desire things as they are and that your fervor will lead others to close their minds from constructive alternatives.

What I had set forth above was the appropriate use of a SS. Albeit, it is the only feasible and equitable solution [read remedy] for the pair that causes ‘too much’ UI and or MI and or improper delay of contest due to ‘biting off more than they can chew fairly’.

[bluejak]

In other words, a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

If there were severe problems, no doubt they would be dealt with. But several of the things mentioned here with "solutions" are not real problems except in the minds of a minority of people who want a theoretical approach to the game rather than the practical approach of doing good for the game and not worrying that there are infractions: whatever we do, there will always be infractions.

[axman]

bluejak, on 2011-March-14, 07:06, said:

In other words, a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

If there were severe problems, no doubt they would be dealt with. But several of the things mentioned here with "solutions" are not real problems except in the minds of a minority of people who want a theoretical approach to the game rather than the practical approach of doing good for the game and not worrying that there are infractions: whatever we do, there will always be infractions.

How to begin?

The worst way to disclose during a hand is by questions and answers.

The primary reason lies in the ramifications of L16/L73/L74/L12. questions during the hand entail communicating with partner. Answers during the hand entail communicating with partner.

Which leads to inquiring: if if Q&A are the worst methods should they be permitted at all?

Once disclosure during the hand is the rule, then it becomes necessary to accommodate [remedy] the occasions when a party falls short. And in such cases the practical route is via Q&A. As such, it is necessary to accommodate breaches with Q&A [but as the last resort only].

So, if not Q&A then what?. The system card. In fact, the SC is the only satisfactory method of disclosing during the hand that makes it possible to disclose without the ramifications of L16/L73/L74/L12.

Experience has found that not all relevant things can be lodged the SC. And this experience suggests this is where the threshold should be for invoking Q&A ought to be [when the relevant call is missing].

Many will claim that players can’t be bothered to complete such a SC in a fair manner. Well, when the leaders tell everyone that it is ok to not be bothered it would follow that that would be the attitude they will take. So, if the leaders can’t be bothered and the players can’t be bothered….. is that really such a good state of affairs?

I happen to know that people being people, that some number will not be bothered; and as such, there needs to be an appropriate remedy for they that furnish unsatisfactory SCs, and answers to questions, and improperly delay the proceedings due to biting off the wrong things.

Which circles back to the fact that people that pilot jets can’t be bothered to master a tricycle. A very understandable state of affairs.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-March-13, 15:41, said:

No doubt correct, but changing it to a different set of system regulations based on other countries' ideas is hardly a solution to that.

No, of course it isn't.

[Vampyr]

axman, on 2011-March-14, 12:16, said:

Many will claim that players can’t be bothered to complete such a SC in a fair manner. Well, when the leaders tell everyone that it is ok to not be bothered it would follow that that would be the attitude they will take. So, if the leaders can’t be bothered and the players can’t be bothered….. is that really such a good state of affairs?

I happen to know that people being people, that some number will not be bothered; and as such, there needs to be an appropriate remedy for they that furnish unsatisfactory SCs, and answers to questions, and improperly delay the proceedings due to biting off the wrong things.

In the EBU, incomplete or improperly filled out convention cards are dealt with pretty severely. Pairs without complete or identical CCs can be made to play "Simple Systems" until they have complied with the requirement. I was once fined .5 VP for having one of my footnotes misnumbered (however, penalties like this are not consistently applied, and they should be).

As for UI and MI, a reader of this forum will think that they are generated all the time, but let us not forget that cases end up here because they are noteworthy. Delays are inevitable when there is a director call, but in my experience a table that has had the director there normally catches up by the next round.

Once when I was in the US, I played against an extremely fat man who was sitting with his legs apart. His convention card was under him on his chair, sticking out at his crotch. I do not remember whether the pair had another convention card, but there was certainly no way I was ever going to look at that man's card. Another time I played against a woman who kept snatching her card back from me whenever I picked it up. In Europe, it is very common for players, even in serious competitions, to have no convention card at all. However, in England, people are pretty good about exchanging convention cards, or placing them within the opponents' easy reach, at the beginning of a round. It sounds as if better regulations and/or better enforcement in other parts of the world is badly needed.

[blackshoe]

The problem in the ACBL, or part of it, is that the back of the SC is a private score. Even if a player isn't using just the one sheet, he'll have, usually, a plastic holder with a bunch of SCs in the pocket on one side, and some private scores on the other.

[mycroft]

which, of course, should be laid out flat on your right corner, under the bidding box, pointed at the opponents, when you aren't actively writing in it.

But that means it won't fit in your pocket or purse, and is cluttering up a bit of "your" space, so it never happens (unless, of course, you're me or a few others for whom the hyphen in anal-retentive is required).

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-15, 11:34, said:

The problem in the ACBL, or part of it, is that the back of the SC is a private score. Even if a player isn't using just the one sheet, he'll have, usually, a plastic holder with a bunch of SCs in the pocket on one side, and some private scores on the other.

I realise that, but this is a problem that is easily solved. If the player is using a plastic holder, he can keep either the private score or the convention card out of it. When a player is using one sheet it is a little more inconvenient, but he can quickly borrow back his convention card after each hand is completed to write the score on the other side. With decent regulations and decent enforcement, better habits could take hold.

Of course the miniature-sized usable part of the CC in the US (not to mention the space taken up by unused check boxes on non-customised cards) is a problem when it comes to trying to glean anything from it.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2011-March-15, 13:42, said:

which, of course, should be laid out flat on your right corner, under the bidding box, pointed at the opponents, when you aren't actively writing in it.

But that means it won't fit in your pocket or purse, and is cluttering up a bit of "your" space, so it never happens (unless, of course, you're me or a few others for whom the hyphen in anal-retentive is required).

The card would take up less room if it were folded. What is the harm in that?

[axman]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-15, 13:46, said:

The card would take up less room if it were folded. What is the harm in that?

It occurred to me that if the CC wasn't on the table at all, it would not interfere [be a source of mistakes] with bidding, playing the cards, or seeing the cards. Not to mention avoiding the ruckus of picking it up to inspect- and so forth. In fact, if it were suitably propped on the knee you could glance at it at a propitious moment to find out what you want to know- most of the time without causing a UI stir.

[gordontd]

axman, on 2011-March-15, 15:38, said:

It occurred to me that if the CC wasn't on the table at all, it would not interfere [be a source of mistakes] with bidding, playing the cards, or seeing the cards. Not to mention avoiding the ruckus of picking it up to inspect- and so forth. In fact, if it were suitably propped on the knee you could glance at it at a propitious moment to find out what you want to know- most of the time without causing a UI stir.

I know several people who routinely do just that.

[nige1]

In the context of this thread, all the different system-card formats and protocols are a non-problem.
Universal rules would specify system-cards and protocols that would rapidly become familiar to everybody.

[bluejak]

Rapidly?

In your dreams!

In a country like Great Britain which believes in following regulations, ones that follow currently accepted views take two or three years to be accepted. Ones based on different cultures probably would take a lot longer.

In a country like the USA where it is assumed that the only reason for regulations is to annoy bridge players, changes would take five or seven years or more to be accepted - or possibly never. Look at the mandatory skip bid announcement, first introduced into the ACBL. It took British players a few years to accept it: North American players never did so they had to change th interpretation of th regulation to make it non-mandatory.

Remember what happened in North America when players were told they could no longer ask their partners "Having none?"?