New EBU regulations

[gnasher]

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.

We could also have a level pi, for people who don't want play complex methods themselves, but do like to complain ad infinitum about the complextity of their opponents' methods.

[helene_t]

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.

We could also have a level pi, for people who don't want play complex methods themselves, but do like to complain ad infinitum about the complextity of their opponents' methods.

I think complex methods should be allowed only at levels x+yi, where y is postive.

[hrothgar]

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.

We could also have a level pi, for people who don't want play complex methods themselves, but do like to complain ad infinitum about the complextity of their opponents' methods.

Is there something specific about the number pi per see or is the defining characteristic the "irrational" nature of pi...

[NickRW]

Level 5 is not mystical. It is well defined

 

Think you should re-read the Orange book - there is one scant reference to level 5. If that is "well defined", I am the monkey's uncle.

 

 

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.

 

Yes, I am quite well aware of that - and I am also well aware of the above 'EBU style' gloss on that decision. However, it woefully fails to address the issue of what will fly versus what is wanted in the real world. The EBU, with its tournament avant guarde and the wishes of international selectors in mind, quite properly in my view, wants "serious" competition to be as unfettered and as much like what will be found in European/World competition as possible. Fair enough. But the EBU also wants money - and that means attracting club players - and that means some of them will be out of their depth - and a few of those will complain rather than take getting beaten up as a learning experience.

 

Now there are various approaches to at least attempting to ameliorate this imbalance, none of which, probably, will be fully successful. However, defining a level 3 - which is what clubs generally use (if unstated by them) and then washing your hands of it for EBU competitions was sweeping the issue under the carpet and bound to end in tears.

 

Nick

[jeremy69]

Think you should re-read the Orange book - there is one scant reference to level 5. If that is "well defined", I am the monkey's uncle.

 

 

I don't think so. Said uncle is rarely, if ever, offensive. However the point I was making was that the revised book would contain a clear definition. I agree that the current one does not as it was rarely used.

 

But the EBU also wants money - and that means attracting club players - and that means some of them will be out of their depth - and a few of those will complain rather than take getting beaten up as a learning experience.

 

You are entitled to your opinion but clubs can do as they wish and if they wish to play Level 3 or anything else they can. In my experience most clubs in my area either play level 4 or do not state any level but effectively that is the same thing and there is never the slightest problem. That is certainly not because they are all top players or anything like. I think some people make problems where there aren't any.

[nige1]

…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.

I didn't contradict myself. My repeated thesis (snipped by Blackshoe) is that you can't please everybody all the time.

 

Current local system-regulations (like the Orange book) are so complex and labile, that many players don't comply with them. Paradoxically, ignorance of them often confers an advantage, because they're so rarely enforced.

 

Hence, accepting that many will object to any solution, legislators may as well implement a simple one that players can understand and directors can enforce.

[paulg]

Current local system-regulations (like the Orange book) are so complex and labile, that many players don't comply with them. Paradoxically, ignorance of them often confers an advantage, because they're so rarely enforced.

 

Hence, accepting that many will object to any solution, legislators may as well implement a simple one that players can understand and directors can enforce.

This is the ACBL approach and we've endlessly debated what their single page means. Just goes to show that it is not easy.

[helene_t]

I think the EBU regulations are easy to interpret. OK they are quite long but I'd rather have a long coherent text than a short piece of gibberish like the WBF HUM definition.

 

Ideally, we would have a short and coherent text, but that would then necessarily have to rely on some technocratic computer-code-style criteria which I would personally be happy with but most players (to the extent that they care about the issue at all) probably wouldn't.

[nige1]

Current local system-regulations (like the Orange book) are so complex and labile, that many players don't comply with them. Paradoxically, ignorance of them often confers an advantage, because they're so rarely enforced. Hence, accepting that many will object to any solution, legislators may as well implement a simple one that players can understand and directors can enforce.

This is the ACBL approach and we've endlessly debated what their single page means. Just goes to show that it is not easy.

If the ACBL approach is simple for players to understand and for directors to enforce, then why the endless debate?

[helene_t]

If the ACBL approach is simple for players to understand and for directors to enforce, then why the endless debate?

LOL. It is simple to enforce, just like the following rule is simple to enforce: whenever there is a dispute between two parties, flip a coin!

[Finch]

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.

I realise that this post was (probably) intended as humour, but since I've been on the L&E committee

(i) the most I would have claimed for expenses for attending committee meetings would be two zone 1 oyster card bus fares per meeting

(ii) as it happens I have never made an expense claim for attending the L&E meetings

 

I have in my life made one expense claim to the EBU, for travel expenses (second class train travel) for being an on-site referee at the ladies' trials.

[gnasher]

Only "probably"? I won't give up the day job then.

[pooltuna]

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.

I realise that this post was (probably) intended as humour, but since I've been on the L&E committee

(i) the most I would have claimed for expenses for attending committee meetings would be two zone 1 oyster card bus fares per meeting

(ii) as it happens I have never made an expense claim for attending the L&E meetings

 

I have in my life made one expense claim to the EBU, for travel expenses (second class train travel) for being an on-site referee at the ladies' trials.

You accepted expense money!!!!! When you could have walked!!! :)

[jeremy69]

the most I would have claimed for expenses for attending committee meetings would be two zone 1 oyster card bus fares per meeting

 

The aim is that you're on the committee long enough to give up the Oyster and pick up the Freedom pass but at least 5 years to go I think ;)

[wank]

the ebu seems to be pandering to the lowest common denominator at the moment. luckily we've got a long way to go until we get as bad as the acbl with all this stratificated rubbish and the conventionphobia, but the organisational changes are very muppet-friendly.

[jeremy69]

the ebu seems to be pandering to the lowest common denominator at the moment

 

I expect you mean the mass of its market. Not allowing a 1♠ to show ♥ in short rounds and lower level congresses is hardly pandering by my definition.

[paulg]

I expect you mean the mass of its market. Not allowing a 1♠ to show ♥ in short rounds and lower level congresses is hardly pandering by my definition.

Popular, not lower level.

[paulg]

It appears that Scotland, that currently requires 1♥ and 1♠ openers to be natural in all competitions, is going the other way and it will soon be the wild, wild North up here.

[gnasher]

I understand and accept the argument that weaker players are entitled to be protected from the more exotic methods, but that doesn't explain why this restriction has been applied to the top flight of the small number of flighted events that we have, like the Swiss Teams at Easter and Christmas.

 

It suggests that a portion of the masses want to have their cake and eat it: they don't want to play against exotic methods, but they do want to play against the players who espouse these methods. That doesn't seem particularly fair.

[gerry]

Hopefully this will increase migration of intelligent people down here to Australia or New Zealand.

 

We don't jump every time wankers and wowsers complain in this part of the world. Ignore the complaints and people will learn to adjust.