New EBU regulations

[paulg]

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.

The big change is that the EBU has actually confirmed when they are permitted, rather than leaving it as a voyage of discovery. This is being consistent - those who want the artificial 1M openers banned also cannot cope with the WBF cards.

[hanp]

I don't agree with Helene, I thought the s/sh post was good. And short, that counts for something too!

[gnasher]

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.

This is an internet discussion board. There's no place for opinions like that here.

[helene_t]

You are violating Pooltuna's copyright, gnasher. I will have to report you B)

[jeremy69]

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.

 

The ban on playing 1H and 1S in the way described is at Level 4 and below.

The EBU only uses Level 4 and 5 for its tournaments. Level 2 is for novice events. Level 1 is for simple systems.

Clubs can do as they wish but in practice most stick with an EBU level. It is not true that you can play anything at Level 5. My county decided on events for next season last night and there was no appetite for allowing 1♥ openings to show ♠

 

Gold cup not sure.

The Gold Cup is not an English event. It also involves Welsh and Scottish teams. The Welsh often follow the same regulations. The Scots prefer anything that is not English but it is possible the rules for this will be the same as Crockford's etc principally because it involves longer matches.

 

Gnasher is right in an earlier post about the NICKO. It maybe 24 boards but involves many more club level players and also has occasioned more complaints per board about system than any other 4 events put together. It is to events what Ghestem is to conventions! B)

 

Yes some of this change is driven by those who prefer their comfort zone so a judgement needs to be made on whether something such as this which is restrictive will help. There are many new EBU members(now about 49000 in total, half of them new) the overwhelming majority of whom only play in their club who may in future be attracted to events. It is a sad fact of life that 1♠ showing ♥ won't assist the process

 

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

 

The Tournament Committee received complaints and comments and discussed it. There was a wish by them to become more restrictive and they asked the Laws and Ethics committee to devise a method(The L&E decides method legality, The TC decides what events legal methods may be played at and which ones). The L&E consulted via blog and also via the questionnaires completed at congresses. In general not all that many are completed unless players feel strongly and that might be about anything such as the heating to the cleanliness of fellow competitors. The feedback was such as to suggest there was a case for being more liberal south of Birmingham but more restrictive in the North. The LK&E apprised that the TC required something to happen came up with the proposals that are earlier in this thread. It is to be expected that this decision will offend some of the scientists and a sizeable segment of the "it is our inalienable right to do as we wish" brigade. As a general rule it is my opinion that big boys and girls ought to be able to cope with most things where there are long matches but even in World Championships there are limits set becuase of the onerous nature of playing against HUMS or Brown Sticker conventions. Where the standard is lower,where people go for their holiday and where the number of boards per round is small it is less reasonable to hit them with defending against some of the juvenile efforts to disrupt.

This maybe, of course a boneheaded view and I look forward to several of the "Groove is in the Heart" or similar system proponents standing for the L&E or perhaps the Tournament Committee. If the majority agree it is wrong then the current deluded incumbents will be voted out. :P Nominations in September.

[hrothgar]

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

 

The Tournament Committee received complaints and comments and discussed it. There was a wish by them to become more restrictive and they asked the Laws and Ethics committee to devise a method(The L&E decides method legality, The TC decides what events legal methods may be played at and which ones). The L&E consulted via blog and also via the questionnaires completed at congresses. In general not all that many are completed unless players feel strongly and that might be about anything such as the heating to the cleanliness of fellow competitors. The feedback was such as to suggest there was a case for being more liberal south of Birmingham but more restrictive in the North. The LK&E apprised that the TC required something to happen came up with the proposals that are earlier in this thread. It is to be expected that this decision will offend some of the scientists and a sizeable segment of the "it is our inalienable right to do as we wish" brigade. As a general rule it is my opinion that big boys and girls ought to be able to cope with most things where there are long matches but even in World Championships there are limits set becuase of the onerous nature of playing against HUMS or Brown Sticker conventions. Where the standard is lower,where people go for their holiday and where the number of boards per round is small it is less reasonable to hit them with defending against some of the juvenile efforts to disrupt.

This maybe, of course a boneheaded view and I look forward to several of the "Groove is in the Heart" or similar system proponents standing for the L&E or perhaps the Tournament Committee. If the majority agree it is wrong then the current deluded incumbents will be voted out. B) Nominations in September.

Thanks for taking the time to describe this.

 

I might not like the decision that was reached; however, its comforting to see a reasonable process being used.

[OleBerg]

For those of you who wondered why I even bothered:

 

I thought it was the European Bridge Union. :D

[ajm218]

Thanks for the detailed explanation Jeremy - I'm sure the counties (in their infinite wisdom) would never let a "GITH" exponent anywhere near the L&E committee :D

[paulg]

The Gold Cup is not an English event. It also involves Welsh and Scottish teams. The Welsh often follow the same regulations. The Scots prefer anything that is not English but it is possible the rules for this will be the same as Crockford's etc principally because it involves longer matches.

The current Gold Cup uses the EBU system regulations and it will continue to do so - presumably they'll now have to decide whether to use Level 4 or 5 but I guess 5. It was only the possibility that the Orange Book would be put in an EBU members-only area that threatened this, as far as I am aware.

 

The Scots actually prefer to do as little as possible and look for ways to reduce even this, and copying WBF policies is one way of achieving that. The EBU system regulations are seen as too complex to maintain given the smaller bridge population here.

[nige1]

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.

This is an internet discussion board.  There's no place for opinions like that here.

:) :) :)

They ban submarine club but not vuvuzelas :P

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 ...

:) :) :)

[Finch]

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.

There are some other national KOs than the ones you mention.

 

The NICKO and also the Garden Cities (a sort-of KO event) are being slightly re-forumulated to aim them more squarely at genuine club teams so it's hardly surprisingthis approach is taken for both. The idea being that both events are dominated by teams who simply recruit all the best players from the neighbouring three counties to put together a really strong team, rather than them being for the best playing members of each club.

 

There's also the Hubert Phillips, which is an excellent and extremely high standard KO event for mixed pivot teams. However, the pivot nature does mean it will be harder for people to have ready-made defences to complex systems, because they need them for (at least) three different partnerships. Many of the teams who enter do not have detailed systemic agreements across all their pairs.

 

I thought the biggest mistake was not making the Brighton weekends and the Portland Bowl "level 5". (The Portland Bowl is the inter-university championship).

[gnasher]

I thought the biggest mistake was not making the Brighton weekends and the Portland Bowl "level 5". (The Portland Bowl is the inter-university championship).

I agree about the part of the Brighton field where you'd expect to encounter Frances. However, the field encompasses a wide range of abilities and experience, and it might be unreasonable to expect players at the lower end to put up with the Garvey Spade opening.

 

The obvious answer is to split the field into flights, with different system regulations for the two flights.

 

(In case any non-English reader is wondering what we're talking about, the two weekend events at Brighton are a 14-match Swiss teams and a 14-match Swiss Pairs, each with one large field.)

[paulg]

I presumed (from afar) that protecting Brighton (in the sense of attendance and hence income) was one of the real reasons to introduce this change, because flighting has never been popular in the UK.

[NickRW]

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.

Yes, well, rather than say on the one hand that (nearly) all (supposedly) serious events will be level 4, as the EBU did (and it seems as good as imposed on the counties), then, on the other hand, ban something at level 4 contrary to the publications of the Laws and Ethics people (while saying that [supposedly really] serious other things can be this mystical undefined level 5), it might have been better to admit the fact that a lot of club players play in these (supposedly) serious events and clubs are, by default, level 3 - even though most don't actually say it in so many words.

 

But that would take admitting that the decision to go blanket level 4 was wrong in the first place. Hmm. Or that it needed a level 3.5 - or whatever.

 

Anyway, appreciate you taking time to explain - even if I think it is potty.

 

Nick

[hanp]

I presumed (from afar) that protecting Brighton (in the sense of attendance and hence income) was one of the real reasons to introduce this change, because flighting has never been popular in the UK.

That's not what we learn in history classes.

[RMB1]

But that would take admitting that the decision to go blanket level 4 was wrong in the first place.  Hmm.  Or that it needed a level 3.5 - or whatever.

I think it is true that the L&E had to reverse the decision for one level for (almost) all events, and that they were reluctant.

 

There were suggestions to splitting level 4 into 4(restricted) and 4(not restricted) or 4-/4+ or 3.5/4.5 or some such; but we had "restricted" before and no one knew if the events were restricted or the agreements.

 

So two numerical labels were needed, and level 3 was still needed (and still much different from "new" level 4). There had been a level 5 previously and it had been withdrawn for some years, so "level 5" was an available label.

 

It looks awkward to "relabel 4 as 5 and introduce a new 4" but it can be spun as "restrict level 4 (to meet the wished of the membership) and introduce a new level 5 (for the big events)". :)

[jeremy69]

Yes, well, rather than say on the one hand that (nearly) all (supposedly) serious events will be level 4, as the EBU did (and it seems as good as imposed on the counties), then, on the other hand, ban something at level 4 contrary to the publications of the Laws and Ethics people (while saying that [supposedly really] serious other things can be this mystical undefined level 5), it might have been better to admit the fact that a lot of club players play in these (supposedly) serious events and clubs are, by default, level 3 - even though most don't actually say it in so many words.

 

Level 5 is not mystical. It is well defined i.e. WBF category 3 plus a few bits from a long time ago that are technically brown sticker but have always been allowed at level 4e.g. 3D showing a major suit pre-empt which is brown sticker for the WBF.

 

The L&E decided to stop using Level 3 some 3 or 4 years ago but left it in the Orange book for those clubs who wished to adopt it or smething similar which some clubs do.

 

My county has no difficulty in setting a level and does not feel "pressured" by the EBU. I doubt whether anyone would actually want to play 1♠ showing ♥ in the County Mixed Pairs but if they did they now can't.

 

In the days when some events were level 3 and some level 4 that had two fundamental disadvantages which were a. there were some differences for the unwary that could leave then not sure what to do from one event to the other and sometimes led to a change from one day to another of a Swiss weekend necessitating two convention cards which wasn't very customer friendly and b. it empowered the barrack room lawyers. Level 5 will only be played in smallish number of top tournaments and will, IMO, make playing in a congress more enjoyable for the majority who want to live in their comfort zone.

[WellSpyder]

Level 5 is not mystical. It is well defined i.e. WBF category 3 plus a few bits from a long time ago that are technically brown sticker but have always been allowed at level 4e.g. 3D showing a major suit pre-empt which is brown sticker for the WBF.

And WBF category 3 is.....???

 

In trying to understand this I came across a WBF definition of Highly Unusual Methods and Brown Sticker conventions, but I didn't find an explanation of how these were used in defining category 3. Is the assumption that anything that isn't a HUM or brown sticker is allowed?

[nige1]

Once a local jurisdiction starts to go down the route of system restriction, it is inevitable that whatever regulations they devise, there will always be unhappy groups of players. At any level, some will always deem regulations to be too restrictive; others too permissive. Most players feel that methods are simple and natural if they like them and are accustomed to them. Anything else is poison gas. It doesn't help to keep adding more and more licensing levels because there are so many different tastes. In the end, the simple solution is two levels: standard system and anything goes. To begin with, there might be protests but probably fewer than the current morass of regulation engenders.

[gnasher]

This is really the fault of the L&E committee from the 1990s. If they'd had the foresight to number the levels 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50, it would have been simple to create a new level 45. Or they could have used colours; if, for example, the top two levels were "green" and "blue", we could have inserted a "turquoise" level.

 

That's the trouble with having bridge run by committees of amateurs - they spend so much time trying to screw the maximum out of the expenses system and making up rules to suit themselves that they don't have time to think of elementary precautions like this.

[OleBerg]

That's the trouble with having bridge run by committees of amateurs - they spend so much time trying to screw the maximum out of the expenses system and making up rules to suit themselves that they don't have time to think of elementary precautions like this.

I thought this thread was about the English Bridge Union, but you describe the Danish Bridge Federation.

 

Disclaimer: A few notheworthy exceptions can be made, but that would make me a kiss-ass

[blackshoe]

…it is inevitable that whatever the system of regulations that they devise, there will always be unhappy groups of players…In the end, the simple solution is two levels…

You contradict yourself. Your "solution" will not solve the problem — some players will be unhappy with it. You cannot make everyone happy on this question.

[jeremy69]

This is really the fault of the L&E committee from the 1990s. If they'd had the foresight to number the levels 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50, it would have been simple to create a new level 45

 

You shouldn't restrict blame to committees from the 90's (the good old days) as Level 4+ was a working name at one stage. fortunately the L&E's marketing sub committee got to work and came up with a better name but they forgot to get sponsorship for it.

 

There is an SF book by (I think) Mordecai Richler called Level 7 which revolves around the furthest level underground after a nuclear holocaust. Slowly those on Levels 1-4 die and the remainder are under threat. Will Level 7 survive. you'll just have to read the book? A variant could, of course, be that those playing the simpler systems die out and gradually the world is reduced to those playing Strong Heart and transfer weak two's.

[helene_t]

This is really the fault of the L&E committee from the 1990s.  If they'd had the foresight to number the levels 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50, it would have been simple to create a new level 45.  Or they could have used colours; if, for example, the top two levels were "green" and "blue", we could have inserted a "turquoise" level.

There could still be a level 4+, or 4B, or 4.5 or w/e. As long as nobody requires a transfinite number of levels. In that case, the "favorite function" thread might become relevant.

 

FWIW I don't think adding more levels would help, though. There are already too many. In an ideal World, I would vote for Nigel's two levels.

[jeremy69]

And WBF category 3 is.....???

 

You mean you want more detail than is seen on the WBF site viz Brown Sticker and HUMS not allowed?

 

They don't need an orange or tangerine book! Perhaps all Categories and descriptions could go into the Satsuma Book. <_<