[Hanoi5]

The 'card' mentioned in the last two posts refers to the paper printed with lines and information to be filled by players? Can I have the link to the EBU and WBF cards?

[mgoetze]

 Hanoi5, on 2015-March-31, 20:55, said:

The 'card' mentioned in the last two posts refers to the paper printed with lines and information to be filled by players? Can I have the link to the EBU and WBF cards?

Google will be happy to provide you with them.

[campboy]

 Hanoi5, on 2015-March-31, 20:55, said:

The 'card' mentioned in the last two posts refers to the paper printed with lines and information to be filled by players? Can I have the link to the EBU and WBF cards?

Sample completed EBU card: here.
Sample completed WBF card: here.

Personally I find the EBU card much easier to read, but maybe that's just because it's what I'm used to.

[helene_t]

Rik I don't quite understand why you think the detailed level of the ebu regs is a disadvantage. Is it that you think it is a vaste of resources to write it or is it that you think it instiles the misguided belief in club players that they have to read enormous amounts of papers before they are allowed to play?

In the Netherlands a weak jump shift is probably nonalertable while a weak non-jump shift probably is alertable. After a 1nt opening I would guess that a twolevel freebid is alertable if forcing while a threelevel freebid is never alertable as long as its natural.

Probably the rules are very similar to the ebu rules. It is just that the ebu rules are spelled out so if for example a pair that plays very unusual natural methods insists that their methods are normal then the td has a document to refer to so he can speak with some authority. A weak inexperienced td could easily be bulied by card sharks who are cluless about standard methods.

When I came to England I found it very helpful that I could just read the regs. In the Netherlands there is a general clause that the forcing character of a bid doesn't make it alertable which leads many dutch players to believe that this is always the case.

Shogi is a wl so he should know what is alertable but even he finds it difficult. Some opps got upset when weddon't alert wjs while others get upset when we do. So at some point he started asking at the beginning of a tm if they want us to alert nonstandard weak jumps which makes even more people annoyed. It has even happened that the wife wanted us to alert them while the husband wanted us not to. The same happens in England but there at least we have peace of mind if we just follow the regs and then if opps don't know the regs it is their problem.

I don't want to let it sound as it is a big deal because the vast majority of players are relaxed about it but the ebu regs are a help occasionally.

[paulg]

 campboy, on 2015-April-01, 00:47, said:

Personally I find the EBU card much easier to read, but maybe that's just because it's what I'm used to.

I hate the EBU card and find it very difficult to read, but luckily I only need it for one tournament a year. I much preferred the previous card (EBU20A) because I could see all the opening bids on one side and could glance at it to see what people were playing.

The WBF provides a lot more information but takes a lot more effort to complete and, in England, is unfamiliar to the vast majority of players. In Scotland a significant proportion of tournament pairs use a WBF card and it will also be seen regularly in the bigger clubs. In my small local club, 50% of the system cards are WBF (ie mine). Familiarity removes fear.

[mgoetze]

 paulg, on 2015-April-01, 01:20, said:

The WBF provides a lot more information but takes a lot more effort to complete

I don't necessarily agree. People will happily accept WBF cards without supplemental sheets but the included supplemental notes section on the EBU card feels like it wants you to do a lot of very small writing, and of course you must select what and how to present there, of the things that have a clearly defined place on the WBF card. Could be a matter of familiarity, of course, but I considered it quite a chore to complete the outside of the EBU card for one tournament, and then of course one gentleman had to call the TD to complain that I had not managed much of the inside. Naturally, I ignored the TD's instruction to spend my entire lunch break completing the card, which I will probably never use again.

[Trinidad]

 helene_t, on 2015-April-01, 01:05, said:

Rik I don't quite understand why you think the detailed level of the ebu regs is a disadvantage.

It is because it is poor communication. It puts the emphasis of the document on definition, rather than on what it should achieve. And it isn't geared to the audience it should be meant for.

I'll exaggerate to make my point. It is like a book that teaches children traffic rules containing text like: "If you approach a device emitting photons with a wavelength between 650 and 700 nm, you will have to reduce your velocity to 0 to leave a constant distance between you and said device, until said device will emit photons with a wavelength between 500 and 550 nm, at which point in time you are supposed to accelerate (i.e. increase your velocity in forward direction) to pass said device.".

A simple "Red STOP. Green GO!" works so much better. In a school class every kid will understand that. If you use the text that I wrote above, in a class of 12 year old kids, one kid will have the potential to understand it. Unfortunately, he will be focusing his attention on wondering why the wavelength of green light is shorter that the wavelength of red light the next time he sees a traffic light...

The engineer designing the light in the traffic light will need specifications on wavelength and emitted light intensity as a function of the emittance angle, and probably a lot more. So, yes, without a doubt, somewhere there are documents specifying all that. But they are not mentioned in the traffic code and they are certainly not mentioned in the children's book.

The regulation is meant for the players. The language should be of the kind: "Red STOP. Green GO!"

Before starting to draft any text that is meant for the players the authors should start by writing "Dear Millie, dear Bob". After all, those are the people whom they are writing to. The rest of the text should fit that start.

Rik

[helene_t]

(Rik compared to traffic light signal explained in term of wavelength)
Sorry but I don't grasp that analogy at all.

It's not like the EBU regs use technical terms not understood by players. If they were based on lots of obscure conventions refered to by their name ("Rexford 2NT is alertable but xrumpensohl 2NT is not") the analogy would be good. But I believe anyone who can read an intermediate level bridge textbook can read the ebu regs also.

I can see two issues with them:

- They are too long for the average player to read. I would argue that that isn't an issue as long as people are aware that it only means that they are spelled out in more details. So EBU players are no worse off than they would have been with shorter regs as long as shorter wouldn't mean "simpler" but just "less spelled out" and as long as players are aware that they don't have to read all the details of regs.

- They are too "technocratic", i.e. making for example doubles alertable on the basis of mechanistic rules rather than unexpectedness. This may induce a secretary bird mentality in some players: I follow the rules so it is not my problem that opps were left with a completely warped picture of my partner's hand. For example, I know several pairs who have the agreement to open the weak minor in order to inhibit the lead, and believe this is not alertable because it is a natural bid and the regs don't say explicitly that it is alertable.

But I think that could happen everywhere. It certainly happens in the Netherlands as well. And in the Netherlands there are mechanistic rules also, for example making artificial 4-level bids alertable if and only if they take place after the first round.

I am a bit split on this issue. I used to think that it would be better with a simple "alert if an only it is artificial" rule so that it would for example be an infraction to alert even the most bizare natural treatment such as for example Lorenzo twos. Then I gave up on that position because
1) ordinary club players don't understand what "natural" means. Actually it is quite difficult to define "natural". For example, 1♦-(pass)-1NT* shows clubs so it is artificial in my opinion but of course that is ridicolous.
2) Tournament playes are better served by opps alerting certain natural treatments such as for example the 0-7 points shifts in the Looier system.

I think the EBU rules are generally fine. The general principle is as it should be, namely "alert unexpected meanings". Then there are exceptions for certain low level penalty doubles but I think those are very sensible. I think EBU is the only organization that has made a serious efort to define alertability of doubles. Most club players don't follow the regs at this point but they are in a difficult situation because they generally don't have agreements about doubles, and if they have it is a little vague if it is more GBK or table feel than real partnership understanding.

There are some things that could be debated. Maybe the rules for alertability of 4-level and higher doubles are too complicated and it would be better just to say "never alert a double at the 4-level" or "only alert it in first round". Maybe. I am not sure.

But that EBU provides such a long list of what "unexpected" should mean can only be a good thing.

[Trinidad]

 helene_t, on 2015-April-01, 03:25, said:

I can see too issues with them:

- They are too long for the average player to read.

- They are too "technocratic"

I thought that I said more or less the same thing, in my own particular way.

Rik

[barmar]

ACBL regs are of the "Red STOP, Green GO" variety. 'Nuff said?

[mycroft]

Actually, ACBL regs have a lot of the "yellow: DO WHAT IS NECESSARY" in them.

They also have a lot of the "standard system which needs no Alert" in them.

Unfortunately, that standard system is "mostly 1975 SA, plus a few things that are 'more helpful to Alerting side than the opponents', plus a bunch of things that are familiar to almost all tournament players - so we'll make them not Alertable, but not a bunch of other things that are 'familiar to almost all tournament players'."

They work - as do the EBU rules, as do the DBV rules. They all have their strengths and their weaknesses; and some of their strengths would be weaknesses in different jurisdictions with different bidding metagames.

[Vampyr]

 helene_t, on 2015-April-01, 03:25, said:

- They are too "technocratic", i.e. making for example doubles alertable on the basis of mechanistic rules rather than unexpectedness.

Of course the trouble here is the variability of what is 'unexpected' by different players.

Quote

This may induce a secretary bird mentality in some players: I follow the rules so it is not my problem that opps were left with a completely warped picture of my partner's hand. For example, I know several pairs who have the agreement to open the weak minor in order to inhibit the lead, and believe this is not alertable because it is a natural bid and the regs don't say explicitly that it is alertable.

I agree that this should be alertable, perhaps it will appear in a future edition of the Blue Book.

Quote

There are some things that could be debated. Maybe the rules for alertability of 4-level and higher doubles are too complicated and it would be better just to say "never alert a double at the 4-level" or "only alert it in first round". Maybe. I am not sure.

Neither am I.

In the clubs I play in, the better players and some of the weaker/less experienced players follow the rules. But this is true about many things eg sensible bidding, accurate explanations etc.

[blackshoe]

 paulg, on 2015-April-01, 01:20, said:

In my small local club, 50% of the system cards are WBF (ie mine). Familiarity removes fear.

So you and one other player in your club (not your partner) have system cards? <g, d, & r>

[paulg]

 blackshoe, on 2015-April-01, 16:47, said:

So you and one other player in your club (not your partner) have system cards? <g, d, & r>

Four players typically have system cards, my partner and I being two of them. The rest don't bother since they all play basically the same system. Everyone seems happy and there's been no push to change the situation (and it's been the same for the last ten years).

[Trinidad]

 barmar, on 2015-April-01, 09:18, said:

ACBL regs are of the "Red STOP, Green GO" variety. 'Nuff said?

No, they aren't. They are just as "woolly" and unclear as the EBU regulations... and a bit sloppier.

There is one thing from the ACBL that is of the "Red STOP, Green Go" variety (quite literally): It is the color coding for alerts on the convention card (black: don't alert, red: alert, blue: announce).

THe ACBL convention card gets a lot of criticism, and much of it deserved. But the color coding of alertable bids works very well. (At least it did when I was playing in the ACBL.)

So, No the ACBL regs are not at all of the "Red STOP, Green Go" variety, except for one aspect of one document. And precisely that "Red STOP, Green Go" element is about the only element of ACBL documents that doesn't get any complaints.

Rik

[barmar]

 Trinidad, on 2015-April-02, 04:22, said:

No, they aren't. They are just as "woolly" and unclear as the EBU regulations... and a bit sloppier.

Maybe I didn't understand what you meant by that (you weren't very precise, either). I thought you meant having a relatively small number of easily recognized categories of alertable and non-alertable bids, rather than trying to address so many different cases that players can't keep them straight.

[Trinidad]

 barmar, on 2015-April-02, 09:41, said:

Maybe I didn't understand what you meant by that (you weren't very precise, either). I thought you meant having a relatively small number of easily recognized categories of alertable and non-alertable bids, rather than trying to address so many different cases that players can't keep them straight.

I mean two things:

1) The entire text of the regulation needs to be easy to interpret and apply for the players. (The color coding on the ACBL CC serves that purpose very well). That means: a short document, with text that is easy to read (in 14 point font ).

2) I think it is very difficult to write a short, easy to read text explaining a complex regulation. Therefore, it is a good idea to have the set of rules that construct the regulation as simple as possible. You call that "having a relatively small number of easily recognized categories of alertable and non-alertable bids". For ultimate simplicity (and since it is impossible to build an airtight detailed alert regulation anyway) I would prefer that "relatively small number" to be equal to 2: "potentially unexpected meaning: alert; opponents can't go wrong: don't alert".

These regulations are supposed to be written for Aunt Millie and Uncle Bob. The authors of the Dutch alert regulation clearly had Millie and Bob in mind when they wrote the regulation. That is easy to see when you put the Dutch alert regulation (for Millie and Bob) next to their screen regulation (for Brink-Drijver and their team captain). The EBU and ACBL alert regulations were not written with Milie and Bob in mind. You can see that from the contents of the regulation (the actual rules) and from the text/style/format of the regulation.

Rik

[barmar]

 Trinidad, on 2015-April-02, 14:21, said:

For ultimate simplicity (and since it is impossible to build an airtight detailed alert regulation anyway) I would prefer that "relatively small number" to be equal to 2: "potentially unexpected meaning: alert; opponents can't go wrong: don't alert".

While that may be "simple", it's practically impossible to implement and enforce because it's too vague. That's not Red=Stop/Green=Go, that's getting rid of stop lights entirely and replacing them with the rule "If you notice other cars or pedestrians in the intersection, don't hit them."

In fact, I suspect that early alerting regulations were much like that (or like EBU's old regulation: artificial=Alert, natural=Non-alert), but they've become more complicated because that didn't work well. Just like stop signs and traffic lights evolved as traffic increased.

[paulg]

 barmar, on 2015-April-03, 09:37, said:

That's not Red=Stop/Green=Go, that's getting rid of stop lights entirely and replacing them with the rule "If you notice other cars or pedestrians in the intersection, don't hit them."

Which is a rule that works in one jurisdiction where they have four-way STOP signs, but none of us believe it would work in Italy.

[barmar]

 paulg, on 2015-April-03, 09:52, said:

Which is a rule that works in one jurisdiction where they have four-way STOP signs, but none of us believe it would work in Italy.

It works acceptably at low-traffic intersections (AIUI, there's a rule that the car on the right has right-of-way -- you only get deadlock if cars arrive from all 4 directions simultaneously), but if you have a high-traffic intersection it needs to be replaced with a stop light.

Diversity in bidding systems and experience of opponents is such that this is more like the high-traffic intersection. We can't leave it to individual judgement about what needs to be alerted. So it's a matter of striking the right balance between detail and understandability/memorability in the alerting regulations. ACBL has gone the "low detail" route, by giving some general rules and examples and expecting players and directors to extrapolate from them, along with overarching "highly unusual and unexpected bids should be alerted" and "when in doubt, alert"; that's why their regulations fit on a few sheets of paper, and can be summarized in a 1-page chart and the color-coding on the Convention Card.