New EBU regulations

[ajm218]

Detailed description here: http://ebulaws.blogspot.com/2010/05/change...august-1st.html

 

Apart from 6 or 7 events a year it will now be necessary for 1♥ and 1♠ opening bids to show that suit.

 

I can fully understand the Laws and Ethics committee's decisions for short round matches where preparing a proper defence, to amongst other previously allowed bids like a 1♥ opener showing 9-15 bal, isn't really practical.

 

My question is - to what extent should less frequent national tournament players be protected by the authorities from the unknown? Its not clear to me indeed that there are any principles behind setting the rules (apart from keeping the majority of the members who would prefer not to play against anything difficult happy)

 

For example I think the following system would be allowable still in the other national events but wouldn't be particularly enjoyable to play against?

 

1♣ = 3♥s or 14+(not unbal with 5major) or 16+(any) or natural

1♦ = 3♠s or nat or 18-19 bal

1♥ = 4+ possible canape

1♠ = 4+ possible canape

1nt = ?

2 level bids = a suit or not the same suit - where the particular suit varies with position and vulnerability (i.e. so you need a matrix to see all possibilities)

 

I'm not claiming this system has great merit but the fact that it is allowed when other stuff has been banned because of the difficulty in defending against perhaps shows why a principles based system is needed? (apologies if any of the system isn't allowed ;))

[hrothgar]

Detailed description here: http://ebulaws.blogspot.com/2010/05/change...august-1st.html

 

Apart from 6 or 7 events a year it will now be necessary for 1♥ and 1♠ opening bids to show that suit.

 

I can fully understand the Laws and Ethics committee's decisions for short round matches where preparing a proper defence, to amongst other previously allowed bids like a 1♥ opener showing 9-15 bal, isn't really practical.

 

My question is - to what extent should less frequent national tournament players be protected by the authorities from the unknown? Its not clear to me indeed that there are any principles behind setting the rules (apart from keeping the majority of the members who would prefer not to play against anything difficult happy)

 

For example I think the following system would be allowable still in the other national events but wouldn't be particularly enjoyable to play against?

 

1♣ = 3♥s or 14+(not unbal with 5major) or 16+(any) or natural

1♦ = 3♠s or nat or 18-19 bal

1♥ = 4+ possible canape

1♠ = 4+ possible canape

1nt = ?

2 level bids = a suit or not the same suit - where the particular suit varies with position and vulnerability (i.e. so you need a matrix to see all possibilities)

 

I'm not claiming this system has great merit but the fact that it is allowed when other stuff has been banned because of the difficulty in defending against perhaps shows why a principles based system is needed? (apologies if any of the system isn't allowed ;))

MOSCITO is banned, once again...

 

Sigh

[gnasher]

I wonder what problem they're trying to solve. It's not as though EBU events are infested with people playing artificial major-suit openings.

[OleBerg]

They are calling a spade a spade, but they have no heart for people who consider bridge a competition, rather than a passtime for the better middle-class.

[nigel_k]

Its not clear to me indeed that there are any principles behind setting the rules (apart from keeping the majority of the members who would prefer not to play against anything difficult happy)

Actually that's the most benign explanation. A more cynical person might suggest that the goal is to protect top pairs who prefer natural methods from those who don't. If you really can't handle a one level bid that has an anchor suit you don't belong in tournament bridge anyway.

[OleBerg]

Its not clear to me indeed that there are any principles behind setting the rules (apart from keeping the majority of the members who would prefer not to play against anything difficult happy)

Actually that's the most benign explanation. A more cynical person might suggest that the goal is to protect top pairs who prefer natural methods from those who don't. If you really can't handle a one level bid that has an anchor suit you don't belong in tournament bridge anyway.

Quite right.

 

And still they wonder why the game cannot attract young people.

 

We tell them, this is a mind-sport, a clash of intellects. And when a young player then thinks: "Oh, maybe it is smart to let 1♥ show spades." They're told told it is a tactic to difficult to defend against. Mind-sport???

 

A real hilarious one is this one:

 

The opponents open 1♦/1♥/1♠, and you bid 2♣ showing excactly 25 hcp, 3-3-3-4 or 3-3-4-3, and a sure doublestopper in their suit. Sorry, not allowed. To difficult to defend against.

[bluecalm]

We really need movement which will promote clear rules instead of what such and such committee fancy to ban at one time or another.

Many such rules were proposed, most of them would be much simpler and easy to understand than today policies of ACBL or EBU.

Bannig constructive opening which show anchor suit is just retarded. I think short sighted is too mild of an description. Big shame on that people :rolleyes:

[Finch]

Just to be clear:

 

This is not a Laws & Ethics Committee decision.

This is a Tournament Committee decision.

 

It's all the EBU, I realise that, but when you it on one committee and not the other it becomes more important to get the attribution right!

[Finch]

Its not clear to me indeed that there are any principles behind setting the rules (apart from keeping the majority of the members who would prefer not to play against anything difficult happy)

Actually that's the most benign explanation. A more cynical person might suggest that the goal is to protect top pairs who prefer natural methods from those who don't. If you really can't handle a one level bid that has an anchor suit you don't belong in tournament bridge anyway.

The more cynical might suggest that, but they'd be wrong.

The drive behind this change in the regulation did NOT come from the top players.

[paulg]

It's all the EBU, I realise that, but when you it on one committee and not the other it becomes more important to get the attribution right!

There is a missing 's' or 'sh' in this sentence.

[OleBerg]

Just to be clear:

 

This is not a Laws & Ethics Committee decision.

This is a Tournament Committee decision.

 

"The L&E and the Tournament Committee have met to discuss possible changes to licensing in the wake of comments received about 1H and 1S openings."

 

L&E = Lions and Elephants?

 

 

It's all the EBU, I realise that, but when you it on one committee and not the other it becomes more important to get the attribution right!

I agree.

[OleBerg]

Its not clear to me indeed that there are any principles behind setting the rules (apart from keeping the majority of the members who would prefer not to play against anything difficult happy)

Actually that's the most benign explanation. A more cynical person might suggest that the goal is to protect top pairs who prefer natural methods from those who don't. If you really can't handle a one level bid that has an anchor suit you don't belong in tournament bridge anyway.

The more cynical might suggest that, but they'd be wrong.

The drive behind this change in the regulation did NOT come from the top players.

It's almost to trivial to bother, but needing to procrastinate, here goes:

 

It is not even a secret:

 

The most common introduction to a great lie is: "A survey has shown that..."

 

It doesn't require a genius to see, that there is often many drives to change things, and that those in power can choose to support the drives they like.

 

And it is so easy to make a survey give the result you desire! I have no idee how the mentioned comments were recieved, but important questions should be:

 

Which questions was asked?

Who was asked?

How importent was the questions presented to be?

Was the possible impact of the answers made clear?

What was the context? (Lead up questions etc.)

 

 

Furthermore; even if all criteria were met for a balanced survey, it doesn't nescesarily make the decision right. The refrence to "Not top players" obviously plays the "democracy-card". But decissions to target something specific, as opposed to a general rule, is often considered undemocratic. (And it is written into many constitutions, that it cannot generally be done, but only in extreme circumstances, and with great care.)

 

 

Now bridge is not life, and few people, if any, will go to bed hungry, because they were denied to open 1M without the suit. And if we don't like the game we can leave it and take up another hobby. (For me chess, model-railwaying and soccer springs to mind.)

 

 

But claiming that because "of comments received about 1H and 1S openings.", the decision is fair and obvious, is nonsense.

[Free]

MOSCITO is banned, once again...

My thoughts exactly...

[nige1]

MOSCITO is banned, once again...

My thoughts exactly...

Me too :P :( :(

It's all the EBU, I realise that, but when you it on one committee and not the other it becomes more important to get the attribution right!

There is a missing 's' or 'sh' in this sentence.

:) :) :)

[Cyberyeti]

I can understand this change for many events, but in long board teams matches particularly once you get reasonably far into national KOs, these should be allowed. Permitting them in the upper reaches of the ranked masters where you may only be playing 3 board rounds seems silly though.

 

We played against a pair (of semi regulars on these boards) who IIRC played some of these openers in some positions and vulnerabilities. They didn't really cause us any problems, and we enjoyed facing something new, but I can see that this would be daunting to some LoLs.

 

This change at least might accomplish what was set out. The only one like this that has caught me was that we used to play 1C as C or bal or D/M canape, with 1D as D or bal or C/M canape when the rule was that it could be "clubs or diamonds or balanced". This was changed to "1C may be clubs or balanced or a hand where diamonds is the longest suit", meaning we had to invert the bids, which actually meant we had the suit bid less often, and hence made it possibly marginally more difficult to defend against.

[ajm218]

Apologies Frances - I should have been more accurate. It would be interesting (though perhaps politically impossible) to find out what the orange book (the bidding rule book in UK) would look like if the L&E committee were drafting it today from a blank sheet and did not have to bend to allow for historic factors.

[Hanoi5]

I see they talk about Level 4 (where the regulation will take place) and about Level 5 (where you can play anything). They say there are no changes to the Levels below (does that mean that you can use 1♥/1♠ to show something else?) and that clubs and county associations can elect to continue doing what they were doing previously.

 

So if the previous paragraph is right I don't see why there has to be so much fuss about it. I'm sure some places will allow you to play what you want and then you'll go and play in those places, as easy as that, right?

[gwnn]

They ban submarine club but not vuvuzelas :P

[gnasher]

I can understand this change for many events, but in long board teams matches particularly once you get reasonably far into national KOs, these should be allowed.

They are allowed in national knockouts.

[hrothgar]

One quick comment from an non EBU member:

 

This seems like a rather drastic change in the system by which regulations are apporoved. The committee in question has banned broad classes of systems in Level 4 competition.

 

I'd be interested in knowing the process by which this decision was reached.

[Cyberyeti]

I can understand this change for many events, but in long board teams matches particularly once you get reasonably far into national KOs, these should be allowed.

They are allowed in national knockouts.

Crockfords yes, NICKO no (why not from last 16 or 32 on for example), Gold cup not sure.

 

The GC has an odd set of regs, certainly something we fell foul of was that you're not allowed to play different systems at different positions and vulnerabilties which you can do in EBU long board matches. This was prohibited by accident in the past as the clause that was designed to stop a pair switching to something really random when behind said "A pair may not play 2 systems" and this was deemed to cover the other situation when we checked. This was a few years back, not sure if it's changed.

[Cyberyeti]

They ban submarine club but not vuvuzelas ;)

I need to work on a system called vuvuzela involving making a lot of noise so nobody can make sense of anything, hang on isn't that what I play already ...

[RMB1]

I'd be interested in knowing the process by which this decision was reached.

Although involved in the "Orange book process", I only know what happens in the committees from their minutes.

 

At some time the EBU abandoned level 3 for it own competitions (although continuing to document it for other tournament organisers) and all proper competitions became level 4.

 

In 2008, there were complaints about conventional 1 level openers being allowed in (pairs) competitions with short rounds. These complaints found some sympathy with some on the L&E and tournament committees.

 

In 2009, a pair played a system with artificial 1M openers through out the Autumn congress: pairs, swiss pairs and multiple teams. More complaints were received. My impression is the complaints were from the middle of the field, who expected to be able to enjoy the congress without being taken too far outside their comfort zone.

 

There was "consultation exercise" via the website and questionnaires ("tournament review forms"). The tournament committee decided change was needed and asked L&E to propose a solution.

 

The L&E solution is detailed in their recent minutes. Effectively to split level 4 into "old level 4 but 1M natural" and "old level 4 with 1M artificial" and rename these as level 4 and level 5. The majority of events are now new "level 4" and some events are now "level 5".

 

As I understand it, the "level 5" banner has allowed various other restrictions to be lifted for a defined set of events: WBF convention cards, different systems at different positions/vulnerabilities for 6/7 board rounds.

[gnasher]

Crockfords yes, NICKO no (why not from last 16 or 32 on for example), Gold cup not sure.

"NICKO" stands for "National Inter-Club Knockout". It doesn't seem unreasonable that the methods allowed in this event should be restricted to those that club players are comfortable with.

 

I'd be very surprised if the Gold Cup regulations became more restrictive than they are at present. Given that, of the five major knockouts, the three that matter most - Gold Cup, Crockfords and Spring Fours - will all have the least restrictive regulations, and only the NICKO and the Hubert Phillips (a mixed event) will not.

 

As far as knockout events go, that seems a reasonable balance.

Edited June 15, 2010 by gnasher

[helene_t]

Sounds fair enough to me. OK, as a system regulation anarchist I would personally have preferred artificial major suit openings to remain legal but if they have received multiple complaints I suppose it's understandable that it outweighs the interests of the very small minority who want to play such systems and who without doubt can play some system with natural majors suits openings also.

 

Maybe it would have been better to only ban certain artificial major systems. I don't think many people would have problems with a strong heart system (beyond those who would also have problems with a strong diamond system). Then again, I don't really know which artificial major systems have been played at level 4 events and which of them have caused complaints so I suppose I shouldn't really comment on this.

 

Frankly I think we should appreciate that there are some (unpaid) board members who do this unthankful work, and trust that they are reasonably intelligent people who do their best to come up with solutions that please the majority of EBU members. I think the gut reactions from my fellow system anarchists quite a nuisance I must say. Paul's remark about "s"/"sh" is funny but maybe it would have been better to spare it for a less flammable discussion as I can imagine that some people don't find it funny in this context.

 

BTW what's that change about WBF cards? At the level 4 events I have played many pairs had no system cards so I would say that a pair who has a WBF card is above average. I see in the 2009 version I see that WBF cards are allowed at unusual systems events (?) and other level 4 events at the discretion of the organizer. It wouldn't occur to me when going to events abroad that I would have to use the local system cards, for example when Shogi and I went to India we didn't bring Indian system cards but just used our normal ones. I can certainly understand why organizers would like everyone to use the same format so that opps will know where to look for what info. Just worried that if it is a requirement that a specific template be used then even more people would not bother to fill in system cards.