[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-23, 05:22, said:

Here is one although it involves a change of mindset and some outlay. Place under the table before each player a mobile device. Thia device consists of a touchscreen and a link to the other machines. The touchscreen consists of buttons describing common calls - "natural", "conventional", "transfer", "takeout", etc. After partner makes a call you touch the approrpiate sections and these are displayed on the opponents' displays. Very simple, easy and intuitive. Nige has also suggested something along these lines, albeit without the tech. Of course, even if everyone thought this would be a good idea it would be a very long time before anyone would even consider introducing it - and no doubt many would object to such an approach. But an answer using technology is not so difficult. It says something of the mindset of the bridge authorities that such ideas seem to be a million miles from the table; whereas in most other major activities the idea of innovation and/or technology is discussed much more actively. That seems to me to be a mistake....but then at under 50 I practically count as a junior player!

Like video and other technology in football, this will be booted into touch on the grounds of cost, and of slowing down the game.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2015-March-23, 07:40, said:

Like video and other technology in football, this will be booted into touch on the grounds of cost, and of slowing down the game.

Because browing through the Blue Book is much faster...

Rik

[Lanor Fow]

You don't have to look through it each time you make a call

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2015-March-23, 01:11, said:

The reason why a short and simple regulation works better is that it communicates.

What do we want to achieve with an alert regulation? That people disclose their agreements and warn their opponents if there is something they might not know.

If that is your goal for an alert regulation, then just say so. Communicate exactly that, loud and clearly, and nothing more. Anything more is merely fogging up the message.

That's not ALL we want. We also want to minimize the amount of UI transmitted between partners when they're alerting and explaining. So the alert procedure is a compromise.

This was the reason for the change last year in ACBL's alerting of Puppet Stayman. Alerting the asking bid was felt to be more useful to the bidder (it reminds him that they're playing Puppet, or if there's a failure to alert he knows that his partner forgot that they're playing Puppet) than the opponents (what are they going to do differently based on knowing whether responder is asking for a 4-card or 5-card major?). So now we don't alert until opener answers the question, because the meaning describes his hand and that's important information for the opponents to know. And by that time, if opener has forgotten their agreement, it's too late to be reminded.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2015-March-23, 18:20, said:

That's not ALL we want. We also want to minimize the amount of UI transmitted between partners when they're alerting and explaining. So the alert procedure is a compromise.

This was the reason for the change last year in ACBL's alerting of Puppet Stayman. Alerting the asking bid was felt to be more useful to the bidder (it reminds him that they're playing Puppet, or if there's a failure to alert he knows that his partner forgot that they're playing Puppet) than the opponents (what are they going to do differently based on knowing whether responder is asking for a 4-card or 5-card major?). So now we don't alert until opener answers the question, because the meaning describes his hand and that's important information for the opponents to know. And by that time, if opener has forgotten their agreement, it's too late to be reminded.

Glad you said that. You don't have to cite your sources for stating the obvious intent, like I was challenged to do when I said that.