1 set of rules worldwide

[Vampyr]

 

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)

 

Please be more careful with your attributions. This is not "my" solution. I don't think that it is a good idea for countries to name their own colours, but this is obviously what they would do if there were a scheme for adding more colours to the WBF code, unless the WBF itself made the decisions. (A previous poster suggested that countries could "agree"; it is very difficult to imagine how this would be possible).

 

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.

A hierarchy would be impossible with a system like this. Where would you place, say Polish Club (ORANGE) so that it could be used in Green events in Poland and not BLUE ones in the USA? And Scotland have subtracted things from BLUE and GREEN... How could a colour be placed which disallows some GREEN but allows almost all of BLUE?

 

So Scotland (newly) and Poland already use WBF classifications with modifications. If these were noted in a "plus" and/or "minus" sort of way (this seems simplest), it would be clear to the natives of those countries and to visitors that there are differences, and what nature of differences, between their classifications. Instead there are at least three "GREEN" systems in use. All in the name of trying to adopt "uniform" regulations.

 

GREEN+ is something we actually use in Belgium.

 

I am glad to hear it -- I was sure it was a workable idea!

 

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.

 

I think that it might be possible to use entire systems as exceptions, even if there are several versions. And this is certainly the most practical solution (especially as there are such "GREEN+" classifications already in use) until such time as the WBF add new colours. Especially since that time has a high probability of being "never".

[Vampyr]

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.

 

It might be important if Scots played in another country that used the WBF classification, in an event that permitted only GREEN or BLUE; they would not be prepared for some of the openings they might encounter. Or if visitors came and didn't pre-submit their "RED" systems (though I get the impression that Scotland does not intend to be a stickler about that). Mainly, though, I think that it is better for consistency's sake to either use the WBF scheme wholesale or note that there are differences. If more countries took Poland and Scotland's lead, there could be a proliferation of GREEN systems, and more seriously, in countries where modifications were made to RED, players could suddenly find themselves playing a YELLOW system or even HUM.

[bluejak]

It is difficult to keep a straight face when reading some of these posts. I originally assumed they were just meant as a joke but now I am not so sure. If anyone thinks it solves the alleged problem to change the method of permitting to something different with one hundred and eighteen different colours around the world, I think you are [words fail me ...] :) :D :rolleyes: :lol:

[Vampyr]

It is difficult to keep a straight face when reading some of these posts. I originally assumed they were just meant as a joke but now I am not so sure. If anyone thinks it solves the alleged problem to change the method of permitting to something different with one hundred and eighteen different colours around the world, I think you are [words fail me ...] :) :D :rolleyes: :lol:

David, countries are claiming to adopt the WBF classifications when they are actually using their own home-grown versions. Do you think that this is not a problem? I think it is, and that it will get worse. I personally don't think that adding colours is the solution, but people are just trying things out. Maybe a solution to the problem, which you may not think exists but others do, will emerge.

[paulg]

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.

It might be important if Scots played in another country that used the WBF classification, in an event that permitted only GREEN or BLUE; they would not be prepared for some of the openings they might encounter. Or if visitors came and didn't pre-submit their "RED" systems (though I get the impression that Scotland does not intend to be a stickler about that). Mainly, though, I think that it is better for consistency's sake to either use the WBF scheme wholesale or note that there are differences. If more countries took Poland and Scotland's lead, there could be a proliferation of GREEN systems, and more seriously, in countries where modifications were made to RED, players could suddenly find themselves playing a YELLOW system or even HUM.

A major problem with the WBF regulations is that there is no proper definition of what makes a system GREEN or RED and, as a result, there is already inconsistency in the interpretations of Green and Red even in WBF tournaments. In Scotland we have attempted to provide a more usable level of guidance.

 

BTW you do not have to pre-submit green, red or blue systems in Scotland.

[bluejak]

David, countries are claiming to adopt the WBF classifications when they are actually using their own home-grown versions. Do you think that this is not a problem? I think it is, and that it will get worse. I personally don't think that adding colours is the solution, but people are just trying things out. Maybe a solution to the problem, which you may not think exists but others do, will emerge.

Stephanie, of course there is a problem, the WBF classification is poorly thought out and ill-described. Of course there is a solution: don't use it.

 

Don't confuse my feeling that the posts here are ridiculous with me not thinking there is a problem. It is perfectly possible for both to be true.

[aguahombre]

Don't confuse my feeling that the posts here are ridiculous with me not thinking there is a problem. It is perfectly possible for both to be true.

 

Keep that as a macro, or something. You could plug it into a lot of threads.

[bluejak]

Oh, no, it is very rare. There are quite a few threads where I consider a majority of the posts are wrong, but not ridiculous: it is very rare to find a set of ridiculous posts.

[dburn]

It occurs to me that the bridge world may (unintentionally or otherwise) have provided the first working example of what is known to philosophers as Goodman's Paradox (the rest of you can look it up when you get home).

 

Having regard to the well-documented existence of a very fine American player by the name of [Joe] Grue, it may also be that the bridge world has actually decided the paradox by empirical means. Unless, of course, a very fine player by the name of Bleen arises in the near future...

[Jeremy69A]

There are quite a few threads where I consider a majority of the posts are wrong, but not ridiculous

 

I look forward to the software for this board moving to a new version where an online red pen is provided so Bluejak can mark our posts with perhaps also a Jeremy Paxman voice going "No. No, you are completely wrong. Don't you know anything"?

[shintaro]

I look forward to the software for this board moving to a new version where an online red pen is provided so Bluejak can mark our posts with perhaps also a Jeremy Paxman voice going "No. No, you are completely wrong. Don't you know anything"?

 

 

 

Doh! Heaven forbid that day ever comes B-)

 

BTW why add the extra 'A' :D

[Jeremy69A]

BTW why add the extra 'A'

 

Some unsuccessful merging of a BBO id and a BBO forum id!

[shintaro]

Some unsuccessful merging of a BBO id and a BBO forum id!

 

 

 

ROFL

 

much prefered the original :rolleyes:

[aguahombre]

Who is "B"?

[the hog]

It occurs to me that the bridge world may (unintentionally or otherwise) have provided the first working example of what is known to philosophers as Goodman's Paradox (the rest of you can look it up when you get home).

 

Having regard to the well-documented existence of a very fine American player by the name of [Joe] Grue, it may also be that the bridge world has actually decided the paradox by empirical means. Unless, of course, a very fine player by the name of Bleen arises in the near future...

 

I read your link and got a headache.

[shintaro]

Who is "B"?

 

 

 

His better half perhaps :rolleyes:

[helene_t]

It occurs to me that the bridge world may (unintentionally or otherwise) have provided the first working example of what is known to philosophers as Goodman's Paradox (the rest of you can look it up when you get home).

 

Say we play the following disjunctive count signals:

 

A suit length is oven if it is even and inferable to declarer, or if it is odd and not inferable to declarer. Conversely, a suit length is edd if it is odd and inferable to declarer, or even and not inferable to declarer.

 

Now we play

high=oven

low=edd

 

Someone wants to submit to the ACBL a query as to whether we can play this. And if not, is it because it would be seen as a coded signal or for some other reason?

[shevek]

Let's aim lower.

How about a world-wide agreement on revoke enquiries by defenders?

 

Also, concerning declining numbers, young people perceive this because they tend to play nights. There is a drift from night to day sessions from the 55+ group. They are healthy and living longer. There were 440 teams at last week's Gold Coast Congress.

[gordontd]

Let's aim lower.

How about a world-wide agreement on revoke enquiries by defenders?

Don't we have that now with the current Law book? I thought that no Regulating Authority had exercised their right to prohibit enquiries by defenders under the current laws - I know Japan had intended to until England decided not to.

[jallerton]

Don't we have that now with the current Law book? I thought that no Regulating Authority had exercised their right to prohibit enquiries by defenders under the current laws - I know Japan had intended to until England decided not to.

 

What about in WBF/EBL events played with screens? Are defenders allowed to ask about possible revokes under the screen?

 

My understanding is that the English Laws & Ethics Committee wanted to continue the previous practice of prohibiting enquiries by defenders, but because (either by accident or design) the 2007 Laws did not specify a remedy in the event of a prohibited enquiry the L&EC decided that it was impractical to reject the new default option.

[Vampyr]

 

My understanding is that the English Laws & Ethics Committee wanted to continue the previous practice of prohibiting enquiries by defenders, but because (either by accident or design) the 2007 Laws did not specify a remedy in the event of a prohibited enquiry the L&EC decided that it was impractical to reject the new default option.

 

I believe that this is the case, but I always wondered why the L&EC did not just decide to make it liable to a PP. However, the practice has not really caught on in England, for which fact I am very grateful. It would have driven me mad.

[shintaro]

I believe that this is the case, but I always wondered why the L&EC did not just decide to make it liable to a PP. However, the practice has not really caught on in England, for which fact I am very grateful. It would have driven me mad.

 

 

rofl into the madhouse with you then :rolleyes:

[nige1]

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

Agree with mr1303: it's a pity that the WBF are so reluctant to publish a complete rule-book (laws + regulations)

• Some local legislatures want local rules for local people, to ensure a local advantage (but the WBF could specify the WBF rules to be defaults that chauvinistic local legislatures could over-ride for local fairy-bridge tournaments, to protect locals from foreign competition).
• There are system-regulation objections. They can be mitigated in various ways. For example, the WBF could define an arbitrary system as standard from which players must disclose departures. This would facilitate global disclosure rules. Again, a local legislature would be allowed to define a local standard to replace the global standard in local competition. IMO, there should be two levels of competition: standard system and anything goes.
• Most players would prefer Bridge-rules that were clear and simple enough for players and directors to learn and to understand. I would prefer them to be less subjective and more deterrent. If Bridge-rules were also complete and the same everywhere, I feel that Bridge could be popular again.
• Luckily, On-line bridge sites, like BBO, are fast converging on a complete rule-set, superior to the current face-to-face morass.

[aguahombre]

morass.

 

If we could just vote on that

[hrothgar]

[*]Luckily, On-line bridge sites, like BBO, are fast converging on a complete rule-set, superior to the current face-to-face morass.

 

What evidence do you see to support this?