ACBL convention chart ideas

[gordontd]

I think Nigel's posts would be more accurate if they had a blanket substitution of "most", "many" or just "players", with "Nigel". Then the many for whom Nigel purports to speak could indicate their agreement with him by means of the "+" button.

[barmar]

I don't understand how you get from "There are overseas visitors at some events." to "Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules". If anything, the presence of overseas visitors at our events suggests that they are happy to play under other countries' rules.

The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. Maybe they just want to play bridge, and they put up with the unfamiliar rules because it's better than not playing at all.

 

By your logic, one could conclude that people like traveling to countries where they don't speak the language. No, they just think it's a necessary inconvenience to visit interesting places.

[gnasher]

The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. Maybe they just want to play bridge, and they put up with the unfamiliar rules because it's better than not playing at all.

 

By your logic, one could conclude that people like traveling to countries where they don't speak the language. No, they just think it's a necessary inconvenience to visit interesting places.

I didn't make any conclusion, and I didn't say anything followed from anything else. "If anything, X suggests Y" allows two possibilities: X suggests Y, or X suggests nothing.

[nige1]

I think Nigel's posts would be more accurate if they had a blanket substitution of "most", "many" or just "players", with "Nigel". Then the many for whom Nigel purports to speak could indicate their agreement with him by means of the "+" button.

Most players whom I've asked would like universal rules. It would be easy for NBA's to poll the views of their members. :).

My experience may be atypical and I could be mistaken but I write what I believe,

I try to echo what people say or write, rather than claim to speak for them.

I read many criticisms of local regulations in discussion groups.

I was told that many foreign teams entered the Spring fours.

I met many foreign players playing at Reading Bridge Club

I try to distinguish opinion from fact

[nige1]

So your "experience" of this problem consists of reading posts in internet forums?

Not "consists of" but "includes"

In any case, I don't see any reason to suppose that unifying regulations will reduce the volume of criticsm. If, for example, we made everybody play under WBF alerting rules, there would be criticism from all over the world.

Good example: The SBU enforces WBF regulations with few problems :)

I don't understand how you get from "There are overseas visitors at some events." to "Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules".

I made no such argument.

If anything, the presence of overseas visitors at our events suggests that they are happy to play under other countries' rules.

Another non sequitor, IMO.

Your solution appears to be that the French Pair should be forced to play under regulations that don't suit them even when they are in France, solely so that they can be better prepared for an encounter with one of the less charming citizens of Reading.

Global rules would prevent their predacament.

Do you actually have any evidence that "fewer foreigners now play Bridge in England"? From a quick look at the list of teams at the Spring Fours, I would say that English events are doing rather better at attracting overseas visitors than they used to.

I made no such claim. I live in Scotland. It was a reply to a point made by Vampyr. The smileys were meant to indicate a jocular rejoinder.

Apart from this French pair who had a bad experience at a provincial bridge club, do you know of any other overseas player who has chosen not to play bridge in England because of the regulations?

I don't even know whether that French pair stopped playing bridge in England..

So you keep saying, but I'm still waiting to hear who these "many" are. You have made what feels like 1000 posts on this subject, but I cannot remember anyone agreeing with you that the regulations across the world should be made uniform. Many of the users of this forum do actually play in multiple juriusdictions. If they were all craving uniformity, don't you think that one of them might have said something by now?

Good point, Gnasher. I get private emails from some with similar views. but fewer than I'd hope. And none can be bothered to pop their heads above the parapet.

 

Incidentally, there are thousands of unresolved on-line disputes about the interpretation of Bridge law and regulation in simple basic cases. Many high-light legal anomalies, some of which are decades old. IMO local regulation makes resolution harder. :(

[barmar]

I didn't make any conclusion, and I didn't say anything followed from anything else. "If anything, X suggests Y" allows two possibilities: X suggests Y, or X suggests nothing.

But I showed how it could also suggest Z, so there are at least three possibilities.

[Mbodell]

Most players whom I've asked would like universal rules. It would be easy for NBA's to poll the views of their members. :).

My experience may be atypical and I could be mistaken

 

I can easily imagine that most players would like universal rules in two conditions:

 

1. The universal rules are exactly the same as their current local rules.

 

2. The only differences between the universal rules and their current local rules are ones they like (I.e., for some players able to play transfers over 1C or multi-landy).

 

I suspect the answers would be different if you asked them:

 

Would you like the rules to be the same everywhere, where this same is completely different from what you are used to or think is appropriate?

 

How would people in Europe feel if multi wasn't allowed? How would people in Poland feel if polish club wasn't allowed, or was greatly restricted? How would people in the ACBL feel if multi was allowed, destructive methods were allowed over a "could be short" "American natural" one club? How would folks in Australia or New Zealand feel about no forcing pass and no moscito? How would people in the US feel about alerting many doubles they don't today? Or alerting stayman?

 

So I think it is a nice idea to imagine the rules the same everywhere, but it is impossible to agree to without having some idea of what these rules are. Personally, I think it is much more important to have the rules be as good as possible in as many places as possible (especially where I play or am likely to play).

[nige1]

I can easily imagine that most players would like universal rules in two conditions:

1. The universal rules are exactly the same as their current local rules.

2. The only differences between the universal rules and their current local rules are ones they like (I.e., for some players able to play transfers over 1C or multi-landy).

I suspect the answers would be different if you asked them:

How would people in Europe feel if multi wasn't allowed? How would people in Poland feel if polish club wasn't allowed, or was greatly restricted? How would people in the ACBL feel if multi was allowed, destructive methods were allowed over a "could be short" "American natural" one club? How would folks in Australia or New Zealand feel about no forcing pass and no moscito? How would people in the US feel about alerting many doubles they don't today? Or alerting stayman?

So I think it is a nice idea to imagine the rules the same everywhere, but it is impossible to agree to without having some idea of what these rules are. Personally, I think it is much more important to have the rules be as good as possible in as many places as possible (especially where I play or am likely to play).

As I understand it, most Olympic sprorts have the same rules everywhere, so agreement should be possible with good-will and compromise. In the case of Bridge, even if the principle of universal rules were acceptable, I agree with Mbodell that detailed agreement would be a major stumbling block. IMO, at least to begin with, rules should be kept as simple as possible, starting with just two levels of competition

1. Anything goes: (Encrypted bids and signals, Magic diamond, Little major, Forcing pass, EHAA, Moscito, Polish club, you name it -- even 2/1 at a pinch :)
2. Simple system (e.g. WBF standard): Everyone plays the same system card. You can delete items from it but not otherwise alter or add to it.

[Cthulhu D]

 

How would people in Europe feel if multi wasn't allowed? How would people in Poland feel if polish club wasn't allowed, or was greatly restricted? How would people in the ACBL feel if multi was allowed, destructive methods were allowed over a "could be short" "American natural" one club? How would folks in Australia or New Zealand feel about no forcing pass and no moscito? How would people in the US feel about alerting many doubles they don't today? Or alerting stayman?

 

I wish someone would tell me where in Australia where exactly you can play a HUM because it's pretty much impossible. The real reason to harmonise system regulations is they are currently absurd.

 

If a 1NT for takeout is a brown sticker in the world championship, the number of which you can use are strictly regulated, why is it permitted without written defences in the lowest level US competitions? It's nuts. The same argument applies for 2D as both majors in the EBU compared to 2H as both majors. One is allowed in novice games and the other is not.. and it's the harder to defend one that is allowed in novice games.

 

Australia's regulations have some of the same problems, but are very simple so the absurdities are less noticeable, and the majority of tournament games are in a very deregulated environment (HUMs are banned only). But they have the same - if my system would be illegal in the world championships (which it is), why is it legal for club games here? Someone is going badly wrong somewhere.

 

I suspect the solution would be 6 or 7 levels of system regulation, in line with the EBU. Based on WBF guidelines they could be something like:

 

Note - example is totally made up off the cuff.

 

 

Orange Stickers added for multiway club systems

 

1: Green or NBO approved systems only.

2: Green + Blue systems only.

3: Green + Blue + Orange - Multi can be grandfathered in by NBOs.

4: Green + Blue + Orange + Red, Ban brown stickers - Multi can be grandfathered in by NBOs.

5: Cap Brown stickers

6: Uncapped brown stickers, no HUMs - so we're banning one level wonder bids and 0-7 openers.

7: No holds barred, HUMs allowed.

 

 

Impose a requirement that world championship qualifiers must be level 6+, then let NBOs run to whatever levels they want. Most will settle on a level without many problems. Australia will allow level 6 and cap at 4 for club games, while the UK will settle for 5 and 3 or whatever.

 

Off the cuff possibility though.

[Vampyr]

• [*]In discussion groups. many foreigners criticise EBU regulations (e.g. fielding, alerting doubles) and ACBL regulations (e.g. convention card, stop-card, systems).[*]

 

All regulations will attract some grumbling -- none can suit everyone. People will be unhappy that in country A (or anywhere in the world) they can't play X, Y and Z, and probably there are people who also wish they didn't have to play against X₁, Y₁ and Z₁, although they don't post on these forums and most of us don't know any of them! At least when the regulations are controlled by NBOs, people can, if they wish, lobby for change, and the history of the Orange Book shows that this has been done successfully many times. Generally, changes that are popular among an NBO's players can be made fairly easily, as players/authorities all over the world do not have to be consulted. A set of "global regulations", even an imaginary one that was popular around the world, would be extremely difficult to ever change. That would stifle innovation for sure.

[gnasher]

But I showed how it could also suggest Z, so there are at least three possibilities.

Did you? I can't see how "There are overseas visitors at some events" could possibly lead to the conclusion that overseas players dislike playing under EBU regulations.

 

I'm not saying that they don't dislike EBU regulations, I'm just saying that you can't infer it from their presence at our events.

[gnasher]

I made no such argument.

The conversation appears to have been:

 

Nigel: "Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules."

 

Me: "Is that true?"

 

Nigel: [after quoting my question] "In the recent Spring Fours.I'm told that many of the teams were from Scotland and elsewhere. When I played at the Young Chelsea, there were many foreigners. Reading Bridge Club also had many foreign visitors (but I admit we did have an open-door systems policy)."

 

Me: I don't understand how you get from "There are overseas visitors at some events." to "Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules".

 

 

But perhaps I misunderstood.

[mjj29]

As I understand it, most Olympic sprorts have the same rules everywhere, so agreement should be possible with good-will and compromise. In the case of Bridge, even if the principle of universal rules were acceptable, I agree with Mbodell that detailed agreement would be a major stumbling block. IMO, at least to begin with, rules should be kept as simple as possible, starting with just two levels of competition

1. Anything goes: (Encrypted bids and signals, Magic diamond, Little major, Forcing pass, EHAA, Moscito, Polish club, you name it -- even 2/1 at a pinch :)
2. Simple system (e.g. WBF standard): Everyone plays the same system card. You can delete items from it but not otherwise alter or add to it.

You'd like to think that those two would be fine, but recently in the EBU strong feedback from tournaments lead to the tournament committee banning transfer openings to the majors in most EBU congresses. It's clear from this that EBU tournament players would not be happy with 'anything goes'. On the flip side, I encounter many many systems at EBU congresses which are not 'simple systems'. Thus it's equally clear they would not be happy with the latter option. The devil is in the details.

 

In response to your other point about 'local regulations making things harder to enforce' - many of the ambiguities stem from the Laws themselves, not from the local regulations and a lot of (at least the EBU) regulations are about ways to resolve those ambiguities, thus making them easier to apply in the EBU. I'm not claiming it's necessarily a strict gain, or even a net gain, but it's certainly not a strict loss.

[gordontd]

I try to echo what people say or write, rather than claim to speak for them.

When you frequently write things like:

Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules but they can't in the current tower of Babel.

it seems that you do claim to speak for them.

[barmar]

Did you? I can't see how "There are overseas visitors at some events" could possibly lead to the conclusion that overseas players dislike playing under EBU regulations.

 

I'm not saying that they don't dislike EBU regulations, I'm just saying that you can't infer it from their presence at our events.

And I'm saying you can't infer that they DO like it, either.

 

You wrote "If anything, the presence of overseas visitors at our events suggests that they are happy to play under other countries' rules.". I countered that it could suggest this, or it could also suggest that they're willing to play brige under almost any rules, but they're not necessarily happy about it.

 

Actually, I think I see where we may be getting confused. If playing bridge in any way makes them happy, then you could say that they're happy to play under these rules. But I distinguish the happiness they get from playing bridge in general from happiness with the rules they're playing under.

[nige1]

I try to echo what people say or write, rather than claim to speak for them.

When you frequently write things like: "Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules but they can't in the current tower of Babel." it seems that you do claim to speak for them.

GordonTD said that I should write "Nigel" instead of "Many" or "Most". I protested that I try not to misrepresent the views of others. If an NBO seriously disputes the quoted contention, it is easy for it to poll its members. The statement is based on what people I ask tell me. It seems to accord with common sense: How many people enjoy changing their methods, filling in new convention cards, and learning new regulations, for each country that they visit? If some like doing this, IMO, they are the exception.On reflection, I don't feel that I'm a lone Don Quixote tilting at windmills. Others like cthulhu openly express their similar views in these discussion groups. I suspect that local regulators and directors have a slightly different agenda from ordinary players.

[nige1]

The conversation appears to have been:

Nigel: "Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules."

Me: "Is that true?"

Nigel: [after quoting my question] "In the recent Spring Fours.I'm told that many of the teams were from Scotland and elsewhere. When I played at the Young Chelsea, there were many foreigners. Reading Bridge Club also had many foreign visitors (but I admit we did have an open-door systems policy)."

Me: I don't understand how you get from "There are overseas visitors at some events." to "Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules".

But perhaps I misunderstood.

:( I apologise for the confusion. My comments on the English scene were in response to what Vampyr wrote in support of Gnasher. (I quoted them both). I should be clearer. Sorry :(

[bluejak]

The same argument applies for 2D as both majors in the EBU compared to 2H as both majors. One is allowed in novice games and the other is not.. and it's the harder to defend one that is allowed in novice games.

Novices do not have a difficulty bidding over a 2♥ bid that shows hearts, but conventional bids put them off. You may think that it is easier to defend against a 2♦ opening showing the majors than a 2♥ opening, but a novice does not - so it is reasonable to allow in novice games the one that does not upset novices.

[aguahombre]

Now that the flames have subsided over who speaks for foreigners re: EBU regs ---let's kindle one about who speaks for novices in EBU. That would be only fair to explore in a thread about ACBL convention chart ideas.

[nige1]

In response to your other point about 'local regulations making things harder to enforce' - many of the ambiguities stem from the Laws themselves, not from the local regulations and a lot of (at least the EBU) regulations are about ways to resolve those ambiguities, thus making them easier to apply in the EBU. I'm not claiming it's necessarily a strict gain, or even a net gain, but it's certainly not a strict loss.

IMO, mij29 is right but, IMO, local regulations introduce unnecessary complications Some even claim that local regulations contradict WBF laws, although which make less sense is often a moot point. Recent examples:

• EBU regulations on fielding and red psychs (one strike and you're out).
• EBU regulation that you should have a "bridge reason" (e.g considering a bid) for asking a question during the auction.
• ACBL Cub Directors Hanbook advice "Players are generally well advised to take the action they would have taken had there been no huddle."

[gnasher]

:( I apologise for the confusion. My comments on the English scene were in response to what Vampyr wrote in support of Gnasher. (I quoted them both). I should be clearer. Sorry :(

 

No, it's my fault. If i'd bothered to read all of what you had quoted, I would have understood.

[gnasher]

• EBU regulation that you should have a "bridge reason" (e.g considering a bid) for asking a question during the auction.

 

So far as I know there is no such regulation - it's just a myth.

 

The relevant EBU regulations (3E in the Orange Book) explain in detail how asking questions can create UI, and at one point they offer what some regard as rather poor advice. They don't, however, place any actual restrictions on asking questions.

[Cthulhu D]

Novices do not have a difficulty bidding over a 2♥ bid that shows hearts, but conventional bids put them off. You may think that it is easier to defend against a 2♦ opening showing the majors than a 2♥ opening, but a novice does not - so it is reasonable to allow in novice games the one that does not upset novices.

 

Please define novice. I've been playing for ~8 months and we're coming last in the club teams comp, so I probably count ;)

[Vampyr]

You may think that it is easier to defend against a 2♦ opening showing the majors than a 2♥ opening, but a novice does not - so it is reasonable to allow in novice games the one that does not upset novices.

 

I am interested in knowing why this method has been disallowed at virtually all EBI events. I think that it was a very poor decision.

[gnasher]

I am interested in knowing why this method has been disallowed at virtually all EBI events. I think that it was a very poor decision.

 

Assuming you mean "EBU", it's allowed at levels 3 and 4