[mycroft]

I am reminded in certain cases of my relatively frequent comment with one partner.

After 1♦-2♦; 2♥, partner Alerts. p-something, and there's a long pause, with several gestures from his LHO.

After a while, I mention that "if you need an explanation of the Alert, you'll need to ask. He can't see you waving." - he's left-eye blind, and covers it very well when he can expect to see something over there. When he *doesn't* expect something, however...

So the issue with the card is "if they didn't hear/see the Alert/Announcement, it hasn't been made." And unless you know about these people (or they are "auto-Announcements" that they'll expect to hear/see something no matter what the meaning), you may get caught someday.

Similarly, for those hard of hearing, an only-said Alert can be "didn't happen". That's why the ACBL regulation, spottily-adhered-to as it is, is the way it is.

Having said all of that, the relevant card, provided it's written large enough (I also remember the pre-Alert card one pair had that they, and I, could read - but was still in 8-point type and just a wave of black-on-yellow to many 60-year-olds) is probably a good thing.

[aguahombre]

I feel a recommendation emerging from the above: The Alert Card should be displayed while making a verbal announcement?

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2013-April-02, 09:50, said:

I feel a recommendation emerging from the above: The Alert Card should be displayed while making a verbal announcement?

alert procedure said:

Using bidding boxes, an Alert is made by tapping an Alert card on the table or by tapping the Alert strip on the side of the bid box. In addition, the Alerter must say "Alert"… An announcement is one word or a short phrase which tells the opponents directly the meaning of partner's call. When bidding boxes are used, the "Alert" strip is tapped also.

I think this regulation suffers from poor editing - when announcing, one should tap "an Alert card on the table or the Alert strip on the side of the bid box". But since it doesn't literally say that, most TDs will simply ignore it, and if, as is almost always the case around here, there is no Alert strip, the fact that the Alert card is not used (if it's even there) will also be ignored, so that in practice there is no requirement to tap an Alert strip or Alert card, whatever the regulation says.

Frankly, given the frequency with which most ACBL regulations, not to mention the laws, are ignored, at least at club level, I often wonder why we have them at all.

[bluejak]

 nige1, on 2013-March-29, 15:39, said:

Many EBU members who contribute to this forum are administrators and directors. You wouldn't expect them to rock the boat.

Not true. While a lot of the EBU members who contribute are neither, more to the point administrators and TDs have a perfect right to speak their mind and often do, whether it is pro or anti- the EBU position.

Furthermore, in my case, I play a lot of bridge, probably more than almost anyone else here, and in many different jurisdictions. So I see things from the players' point of view in many places. Where I disagree with the EBU I am happy to say so: who do you think introduced Announcements to England from the ACBL and South Africa? They are now used in four-fifths of the British Isles. Even when I played in Scotland a month ago we agreed to announce our no-trump openings at a few tables where opponents wished us to do so.

The reason why I agree with the EBU's position on alerting over yours is because I am quite sure you are completely wrong, not because I am unwilling to rock the boat.

 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.

Not a chance. Ok, for lesser players, simpler and clearer, for example "It is perfectly ok to cheat by using any method of communication between partners you like", but as pointed out several times, global, not a chance.

 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.

Of course they do, because they do not see the problem. Then, when I play in Scotland, and the bidding goes 1♠ (2♥) dbl they feel something is wrong when they later discover that the double shows clubs, or 1♣ (1♦) dbl when they discover I have shown four hearts.

The reason why regulations designed for top level players behind screens work in Scottish clubs is primarily because few people play much complicated, but players there do suffer agaisnt pairs that do. Then they probably complain at the methods or the people, not the bad alerting regulations.

[nige1]

 bluejak, on 2013-April-18, 08:54, said:

Not true. While a lot of the EBU members who contribute are neither, more to the point administrators and TDs have a perfect right to speak their mind and often do, whether it is pro or anti- the EBU position. Furthermore, in my case, I play a lot of bridge, probably more than almost anyone else here, and in many different jurisdictions. So I see things from the players' point of view in many places. Where I disagree with the EBU I am happy to say so: who do you think introduced Announcements to England from the ACBL and South Africa? They are now used in four-fifths of the British Isles. Even when I played in Scotland a month ago we agreed to announce our no-trump openings at a few tables where opponents wished us to do so.

+3 so far Anyway, I agree with Bluejak about the merits of announcements. In this thread, I suggested that doubles be announced as "penalty" or "take-out". Elsewhere, I've suggested that announcements should replace all alerts.

 bluejak, on 2013-April-18, 08:54, said:

The reason why I agree with the EBU's position on alerting over yours is because I am quite sure you are completely wrong, not because I am unwilling to rock the boat.

I feel that Bluejak may be mistaken. I'm certain about little

 bluejak, on 2013-April-18, 08:54, said:

Not a chance. Ok, for lesser players, simpler and clearer, for example "It is perfectly ok to cheat by using any method of communication between partners you like", but as pointed out several times, global, not a chance.

Great example of a "Strawman" Anyway, again, I still think players (not just lesser players) would prefer simpler clearer rules. A player-poll on global and comprehensive rules would also be useful.

 bluejak, on 2013-April-18, 08:54, said:

Of course they do, because they do not see the problem. Then, when I play in Scotland, and the bidding goes 1♠ (2♥) dbl they feel something is wrong when they later discover that the double shows clubs, or 1♣ (1♦) dbl when they discover I have shown four hearts. The reason why regulations designed for top level players behind screens work in Scottish clubs is primarily because few people play much complicated, but players there do suffer agaisnt pairs that do. Then they probably complain at the methods or the people, not the bad alerting regulations.

IMO, like most Bridge laws and rules, SBU and EBU regulations can be improved e.g. the rules about doubles.

[lamford]

I have not read this long thread from start to finish, but a simple rule is best. I think never alerting take-out doubles and always alerting any other doubles at any level would do. My second choice would be that no doubles are alerted. Apologies if the same points have been made earlier.

[Vampyr]

 lamford, on 2013-April-20, 16:51, said:

My second choice would be that no doubles are alerted.

Really? Would you enjoy asking about every double? I think the current regulations are excellent.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2013-April-20, 17:35, said:

Really? Would you enjoy asking about every double? I think the current regulations are excellent.

"Excellent" is a bit of a stretch, IMHO, but "a reasonable compromise for practicality" seems appropriate.