1 set of rules worldwide

[mr1303]

It does seem very strange to me that different worldwide organisations have very different rules and regulations regarding permitted bidding systems etc.

 

My local club has a fairly poor standard of player for the most part, and yet somewhere in the region of 80% of the pairs have the multi-coloured 2D on their convention card (true the majority don't have any idea how to use it effectively, but still).

 

These same pairs go on holiday to the USA and they can't play their system any more. Which seems a bit daft to me.

 

In most sports, teams from around the world all pretty much play the same rules. A football match in England is played under (as far as I am aware) the same rules as a football match in Germany, Brazil or anywhere else. Why not in bridge?

 

I am aware that the WBF exists with yet another set of rules, which again seems pointless. Why is it that the major organisations can't have a discussion amongst themselves and agree on 1 set of rules that everyone plays under. How hard can it be?

[hrothgar]

Why is it that the major organisations can't have a discussion amongst themselves and agree on 1 set of rules that everyone plays under. How hard can it be?

 

While they're at it, they should probably also standardize on one language...

[Hanoi5]

And only one government and economic system.

[bluejak]

Which set of rules do you suggest? Do you really want to play by American rules? Or do you honestly think ht Americans are going to follow our rules?

[BunnyGo]

In most sports, teams from around the world all pretty much play the same rules. A football match in England is played under (as far as I am aware) the same rules as a football match in Germany, Brazil or anywhere else. Why not in bridge?

 

Because we also have different rules for football here in the US.

[barmar]

I think this is as likely to happen as getting everyone in the world to believe in one religion. And for pretty much the same reason.

[pran]

From a comic strip with Haggar the Viking in conversation with a Monk:

Monk: There will be no peace until all men learn to understand each other

Haggar: True... true...

Haggar (continues): How are we going to get everybody to speak Norwegian?

 

(I have tried to attach the original strip - it seems to work)

[Vampyr]

Why is it that the major organisations can't have a discussion amongst themselves and agree on 1 set of rules that everyone plays under. How hard can it be?

While it is nice to be able to accommodate foreign visitors, the overwhelming majority of bridge players in any country are the residents. So the system regulations are, and should be, aimed to please the local punters.

[aguahombre]

Because we also have different rules for football here in the US.

 

I smiled.

[mr1303]

I would agree that the regulations should be aimed to please the local punters.

 

Where I disagree is with the premise that the average bridge player would want different rules and regulations

[gwnn]

Nobody wants "different rules". Everybody wants their own rules. Barmar's analogy to the unified world religion seems basically perfect and there's not much to add. Do average churchgoers want "different religions"? Hardly.

[Quantumcat]

Australia is liberal and encouraging of bridge innovations and I would hate for that to change. Nobody here could agree to our regulations becoming restrictive.

 

On the other hand the US is petrified of innovations and won't let you play anything. I don't think anyone could make their fears go away overnight.

 

I don't know where other countries stand but probably somewhere in-between.

 

Maybe there could be a "non-US" set of regulations and a "US" set of regulations. Much like the metric system, invented in 1668, now adopted by the whole world and the US still hasn't caught up to it :-) If world-class internationals start getting used to being able to play their systems wherever and whenever they want to outside the US, and US events stop attracting them, they might be encouraged to relax their regulations!

 

I think americans who are afraid of new systems are only like that because of the culture of the place they learned bridge in. If the culture changes, so will people's attitudes. I think the restrictions only endure because of the mass attitudes, but those attitudes are determined by the regulations... a vicious cycle difficult to get out of!

[Vampyr]

Maybe there could be a "non-US" set of regulations and a "US" set of regulations.

There already is, with respect to a lot of systems and conventions that are popular in various parts of the world.

 

 

If world-class internationals start getting used to being able to play their systems wherever and whenever they want to outside the US, and US events stop attracting them, they might be encouraged to relax their regulations!

And this would be what? A good thing? Because it would suit you, an occasional visitor, rather than the tens of thousands who live in the USA, Canada, Mexico, and Bermuda, and play there every day?

[paulg]

If world-class internationals start getting used to being able to play their systems wherever and whenever they want to outside the US, and US events stop attracting them, they might be encouraged to relax their regulations!

Almost all world-class internationals are professional bridge players and their view of the world is quite different to a non-professional. The US is currently the most lucrative marketplace for them and rates of pay, length of contract, together with the dollar exchange rate for some, feature highest on their list of requirements, not system regulations.

 

The number of foreign professionals attending US events has increased dramatically over the past decade. At the same time, attendance levels seem to be dropping and it seems unlikely that the ACBL will do anything to alienate the vast majority of its members. As you say, they are in a hard place.

[hrothgar]

At the same time, attendance levels seem to be dropping

 

Do you have any firm numbers here?

 

I keep meaning to track attendance over time for the ACBL National, however, I never seem to have the right motivation at the right time...

 

As an example, I have today off from work... I have plenty of time, but zero motivation.

Tomorrow, I'll be back at work and have plenty of motivation (but very little time)

[Quantumcat]

Attendance levels are dropping all over the world. Bridge is a dying game. It would be more interesting if you knew whether attendance levels were dropping faster or slower than in other parts of the world.

[paulg]

Do you have any firm numbers here?

 

I keep meaning to track attendance over time for the ACBL National, however, I never seem to have the right motivation at the right time...

 

As an example, I have today off from work... I have plenty of time, but zero motivation.

Tomorrow, I'll be back at work and have plenty of motivation (but very little time)

No numbers at all. But I don't see organisers boasting that numbers have increased very often.

[Free]

I am aware that the WBF exists with yet another set of rules, which again seems pointless. Why is it that the major organisations can't have a discussion amongst themselves and agree on 1 set of rules that everyone plays under. How hard can it be?

If anyone will come up with rules for the entire world, shouldn't it be the WBF? For example, nobody cares about ACBL rules and the ACBL doesn't care about anybody elses rules, so how can you get everyone on the same line? It's not like all countries come together once a year to discuss system regulations. Imo the only way is to look at a higher level to come up with something, like the WBF.

 

The WBF uses a general set of rules to categorize systems with colour codes. Next to that, every country could create general classes of events, which allow certain colours (for example: A = only green, B = only green and blue,...). Beginner tournaments would certainly get class A for example. So while the basic definitions of colour codes are strict, system restrictions by events are still flexible.

Obviously it's not easy to define all this, but imo the WBF did a good job. The biggest problem I see with the current definitions is Polish Club. It's considered RED, which contains pretty much everything apart from HUM's. So Poland would have to allow pretty much everything at all levels. This is exactly what makes all of this rather difficult: for Poland, Polish ♣ is standard, while in most other countries pretty much nobody plays Polish ♣. As a result most other countries want to allow this only at higher levels.

- Should Polish ♣ be an exception and be considered GREEN? No, because many countries only want to allow this at higher levels.

- Should Polish ♣ be an exception and be considered GREEN only in Poland? No, because now every country will make up it's own definitions of GREEN systems, and we're back at where we are right now.

- Should Polish ♣ be considered RED like currently the definitions? No, because that creates problems for Poland.

I guess there should be another colour code. We have BLUE for strong ♣ systems, perhaps a new colour for multiway ♣ systems (Polish, Swedish, Fantunes,...) could solve the problem.

 

Note that the WBF rules are actually used in some countries, for example Belgium. If more and more countries would pick up these general set of rules, we might converge to fewer sets of system regulations all over the world.

 

EDIT: I don't think 1 set of rules is a good idea, I only wanted to disagree with the statement that WBF rules are pointless. And IF someone wants to get to 1 set of rules the WBF is the way to start imo.

[bluejak]

If anyone will come up with rules for the entire world, shouldn't it be the WBF? For example, nobody cares about ACBL rules and the ACBL doesn't care about anybody elses rules, so how can you get everyone on the same line? It's not like all countries come together once a year to discuss system regulations. Imo the only way is to look at a higher level to come up with something, like the WBF.

 

The WBF uses a general set of rules to categorize systems with colour codes. Next to that, every country could create general classes of events, which allow certain colours (for example: A = only green, B = only green and blue,...). Beginner tournaments would certainly get class A for example. So while the basic definitions of colour codes are strict, system restrictions by events are still flexible.

Obviously it's not easy to define all this, but imo the WBF did a good job.

First, it is not obvious to me at all that they did a good job.

 

Second, their efforts are clearly aimed at higher level players, not unreasonably in view of the tournaments they hold.

 

Third, their rules are a long way from some countries', eg England's, so you are talking of upsetting a very large number of people. Why? What for? So some people can play in other countries? I have played in Australia, Netherlands, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Canary Islands, Sweden, Eire, France, Cyprus, Tunisia, Egypt, USA and South Africa and I see no problem whatever with using other Regulations. I am just not selfish enough to expect to play my own countries' Regulations there.

[Vampyr]

 

- Should Polish ♣ be an exception and be considered GREEN? No, because many countries only want to allow this at higher levels.

- Should Polish ♣ be an exception and be considered GREEN only in Poland? No, because now every country will make up its own definitions of GREEN systems, and we're back at where we are right now.

- Should Polish ♣ be considered RED like currently the definitions? No, because that creates problems for Poland.

I guess there should be another colour code. We have BLUE for strong ♣ systems, perhaps a new colour for multiway ♣ systems (Polish, Swedish, Fantunes,...) could solve the problem.

 

I have another idea. Countries using the WBF regulations (more or less) could add their own colours, which would be clearly defined:

egPURPLE = WBF GREEN + x, y and z.

ORANGE = WBF BLUE + x, y and z.

 

Note that the WBF rules are actually used in some countries, for example Belgium. If more and more countries would pick up these general set of rules, we might converge to fewer sets of system regulations all over the world.

 

Yes, but probably not until the above problem is solved, ie disagreement between countries about which systems should be GREEN or BLUE.

 

 

Actually, new colours should probably be called "BLUE+" or "GREEN+". Much less confusing for people, eg foreigners, who are familiar with the WBF classification system.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Vampyr

[Free]

Third, their rules are a long way from some countries', eg England's, so you are talking of upsetting a very large number of people. Why? What for? So some people can play in other countries? I have played in Australia, Netherlands, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Canary Islands, Sweden, Eire, France, Cyprus, Tunisia, Egypt, USA and South Africa and I see no problem whatever with using other Regulations. I am just not selfish enough to expect to play my own countries' Regulations there.

I never claimed that it's a good idea to get to 1 set of rules. I only wanted to disagree with the statement that WBF rules are pointless. I edited my post to make this clear. :)

[Free]

I have another idea. Countries using the WBF regulations (more or less) could add their own colours, which would be clearly defined:

egPURPLE = WBF GREEN + x, y and z.

ORANGE = WBF BLUE + x, y and z.

 

Actually, new colours should probably be called "BLUE+" or "GREEN+". Much less confusing for people, eg foreigners, who are familiar with the WBF classification system.

That's a poor idea imo, because it doesn't change anything. ACBL can define sayc as GREEN and add the conventions that are allowed with approved defenses to GREEN. They'll even come up with new colours for different flights. There's no point in creating BLUE+ if the '+' means Polish ♣ in one country and MOSCITO in another.

 

Yes, but probably not until the above problem is solved, ie disagreement between countries about which systems should be GREEN or BLUE.

Countries don't have to agree on which colour certain systems get. They should only get to choose which colours they allow at which events. A general classification of systems is the most transparent, but certain systems should get their own class. Like Strong ♣ gets BLUE*, so should multiway ♣ systems get their own colour imo, say PINK (now they're all RED). This way Poland could allow PINK at the lowest events, while ACBL can allow them only at high level events. Everybody happy.

The only thing that countries may have to agree about is wether or not a certain class of systems should get their own colour.

 

* BLUE is defined as strong ♣ with natural continuations AFAIK. I guess the definition should be revised and clarified. A strong ♣ system with 1M natural should be BLUE, while a strong ♣ system like MOSCITO should still be RED imo. Continuations over a strong 1♣ opening shouldn't be considered.

[Vampyr]

There's no point in creating BLUE+ if the '+' means Polish ♣ in one country and MOSCITO in another.

 

Yes there is. BLUE+ and GREEN+ would be satisfactory for the lower-level competitions in the countries in question, and visitors could find out what the "+" stood for in a given place.

 

 

They should only get to choose which colours they allow at which events. A general classification of systems is the most transparent, but certain systems should get their own class.

 

This would be a very strong disincentive to adopting WBF regulations. Basically it would mean that it would never happen in most countries. I have no opinion on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Just sayin'.

 

Like Strong ♣ gets BLUE*, so should multiway ♣ systems get their own colour imo, say PINK (now they're all RED). This way Poland could allow PINK at the lowest events, while ACBL can allow them only at high level events. Everybody happy.

 

Sure, a country could define PINK and GREEN+Polish Club. I was thinking that GREEN+ would be clearer, because then visitors and others could know what the basic standard was, and could then find out the small list of additions. Also the locals would know which parts of their eg GREEN+ were not allowed in ordinary GREEN classified events.

 

The only thing that countries may have to agree about is wether or not a certain class of systems should get their own colour.

 

No, countries would decide on their own. There might be a danger of running out of colours, though, and a question of whether the colours would mean anything to anybody outside that country.

[Free]

No, countries would decide on their own. There might be a danger of running out of colours, though, and a question of whether the colours would mean anything to anybody outside that country.

Most parts are discussable, like GREEN+ is something we actually use in Belgium. It's basically a list of conventions that are allowed (simple example: Landy defense against 1NT). For local orgranizations it's easy, but globally it may cause problems or abuse.

Entire systems are difficult to use as an exception, every time I played against Poles, they all said they played Polish Club, but they all played another version of their 1♣ opening and/or responses.

 

But letting countries choose their own colours is a very bad idea! The UK can define PURPLE as strong ♣ with transfer openings, but another country can define PURPLE as all systems with 4 forcing openings (like Fantunes). You'd basically ruin the entire concept, because the colours are the part that should be the same everywhere.

 

Suppose with your solution:

- PURPLE in the USA is a system with at least 4 unlimited and forcing openings (like Fantunes)

- PURPLE in Poland is a system with a forcing 1♣ opening which contains at least 2 types of hands (like Polish Club)

- PURPLE in Belgium (where I live) is a system containing transfer openings at 1-level (like MOSCITO)

 

USA allows GREEN+ and PURPLE ; Poland allows GREEN+, BLUE and PURPLE ; Belgium allows everything except YELLOW and BSC. When I play MOSCITO in Belgium, it's classified as a PURPLE system, so when I look at other countries I would expect to be able to play my PURPLE system also in the USA and Poland, but that's not the case.

 

Compare on the other hand with general colour codes:

- PURPLE is a system with at least 4 unlimited and forcing openings (like Fantunes)

- ORANGE is a system with a forcing 1♣ opening which contains at least 2 types of hands - balanced/natural/strong (like Polish Club)

 

Now, the USA may allow GREEN+ and BLUE ; Poland could allow GREEN+ and ORANGE ; Italy could allow GREEN+, BLUE and PURPLE ; Australia would allow everything ; ... This is transparent and easy for everyone. When I play a BLUE system, I can play in the USA, Italy and Australia. MOSCITO is RED, so I can't play it anywhere except Australia. Simple and efficient.

 

EDIT: note that in my 2 definitions above, Fantunes can be classified as both PURPLE and ORANGE. So I guess we'd need some hierachy like we have now with GREEN < BLUE < RED < YELLOW.

[paulg]

Scotland uses the WBF system regulations but provides greater clarification of what it expects in a GREEN or BLUE system. The effect of these clarifications are to push a large number of vaguely natural modern systems into the RED classification, including a number of strong club variants that use artificial two-level openers.

 

However the classification is not very important as GREEN, RED and BLUE systems are permitted in all national tournaments, and most regional ones, except events that are specifically for beginners and novices. This means that it is the HUM and BSC classifications that are the important part of the regulations - avoid these and the colour does not matter.