ACBL convention chart ideas

[nige1]

One example you gave of these people's dissatisfaction with EBU regulations is that they don't like the alerting rules for doubles. A great many of us here like them, and think that the EBU have got this one right. Why do you feel that those of us who play week in, week out and attend all of the congresses should be forced to give up something we like to satisfy people who come over once or twice a year?

 

Does the objection of others matter to you, or are these proposed universal regulations intended for your sole benefit? Obviously you intend to write them, along with the standard WBF system. Or are you prepared for these things to be things that you hate?

IMO, few non-directors have a kind word to say about EBU regulations. Some years ago, I attended a popular seminar at the EBU National Summer Congress. Mark Horton asked if anybody had read the Orange Book. He, like most of his large audience, had not.

[paulg]

IMO, few non-directors have a kind word to say about EBU regulations. A few years ago, I attended a popular seminar at the EBU National Summer Congress. Mark Horton asked if anybody had read the Orange Book. He, like most of his large audience, had not.

Unless suffering from insomnia it is hard to think of a good reason to read the Orange Book. On the other hand, it is easily the best reference document of its ilk that I have seen and it is a shame that other NBOs have not invested the time and effort to produce something similar. It is also to the EBU's credit that it is updated annually and they even produce a simplified version of it.

 

A lot of people may not have read it, but I expect the huge majority of the EBU tournament players know that it exists. In terms of convention charts, it is complex but everyone knows where to look to establish whether their pet conventions are permitted.

 

Interestingly the Scottish equivalent is a lot shorter but also provides good information. But a lot of players will not have read it and many will not know of its existence.

[nige1]

Regulations which conflict with the laws are illegal.

There are so many regulators, It must be hard to avoid inconsistencies. I concede that its a matter of interpretation but, IMO, rules and regulations conflict internally and with each other. Directors are welcome to supply more and better examples but I vaguely remember ...

• The "Endicott fudge" that effectively banned some natural bids and psychs.
• Asking "having none" seems to conflict with laws about communication between partners being restricted to calls and plays.
• Choosing an option after an irregularity that triggers a change in agreement is another example of dubiously legal partnership communication.

.

[aguahombre]

Apparent conflicts, IMO, should be viewed as exceptions to the more general rule rather than conflicts. I realize that they could be more helpful by tagging every conflict as an exception to whatever; but, that is unlikely to happen.

[Vampyr]

IMO, few non-directors have a kind word to say about EBU regulations. Some years ago, I attended a popular seminar at the EBU National Summer Congress. Mark Horton asked if anybody had read the Orange Book. He, like most of his large audience, had not.

 

What are you hoping we should conclude from this? That there shouldn't be a set of regulations at all? That everyone should use the WBF Code of Practice, since at least we have all read that?

 

I haven't read the criminal statute books for the country where I live, but I do not think that there should not be laws.

 

from paulg:

 

it is easily the best reference document of its ilk that I have seen and it is a shame that other NBOs have not invested the time and effort to produce something similar.

 

Yes, I find it shocking every so often when an ACBL forum member finds a regulation stored in the scoring program. Even if the program is free, I would not describe the regulations as easily accessible by the members.

[mycroft]

IMO, few non-directors have a kind word to say about EBU regulations. Some years ago, I attended a popular seminar at the EBU National Summer Congress. Mark Horton asked if anybody had read the Orange Book. He, like most of his large audience, had not.

Ah well, If I did the same thing at our regional coming up, asking about the GCC, or Alert Procedure, I bet I'd get the same reaction (except, of course, that I *have* read it).

 

The GCC is one page. The Alert Procedure is 5. Their system notes are 50. It's not the size, or the organization, or the completeness or not of it; bridge books that tell them how better to play are interesting - legality is not.

 

"I could never read All Those Laws in the book; just tell me what to do." - when I tell them that the Laws of Bridge would fit quite comfortably in the *INDEX* of a rulebook for a game I play (where better knowledge of the rules, and edge cases that are legal, are considered very much an honourable play skill, not "rules lawyering"). Granted, ASL is a stupid crazy case, but still.

[mjj29]

There are so many regulators, It must be hard to avoid inconsistencies. I concede that its a matter of interpretation but, IMO, rules and regulations conflict internally and with each other. Directors are welcome to supply more and better examples but I vaguely remember ...

• The "Endicott fudge" that effectively banned some natural bids and psychs.
• Asking "having none" seems to conflict with laws about communication between partners being restricted to calls and plays.
• Choosing an option after an irregularity that triggers a change in agreement is another example of dubiously legal partnership communication.

.

I'm not sure what you wanted to point out with those examples, but none of them are in conflict with the laws. They are, infact, explicitly allowed by the laws (The Endicott fudge was restricting the other calls, not the natural bids - although now it's unneccessary, since NBOs can specify anything as a 'special partnership understanding' and regulate it (L40B1.a)). Choosing options after an irregularity is L40B3 and asking "having none" is L42B1 and L61B3.

 

You may argue that this part of the laws is in conflict with the other parts, but of course the law contains general rules and specific exceptions. How else would you write a set of regulations?

[TimG]

Currently, players who wish to play or watch Bridge must cope with rules peculiar to the relevant jurisdiction. Different sets of local-rules conflict with each other and with WBF laws. They waste effort. They disadvantage foreigners. They undermine fair International competition. Some local players like them but they seem to be a minority.

Just last night, I umpired a softball game between two teams of 10-12 year-old girls. I held a brief pre-game conference at which I discussed with the coaches the league-specific rules which deviated from ASA rules. There was brief discussion about one rule, we all agreed a solution, then we played ball.

 

It's just a fact of life that not everyone will like the rules of a national organization or world organization and will come up with local rules that serve their purposes. Those purposes are going to differ from place to place; we are still a diverse community even though today's technology allows us all to function as virtual neighbors. A few years ago, the US Government made some misguided attempts to make school curriculum uniform throughout the country. The effort, perhaps apocryphally, resulted in students in NYC being required to learn Eskimo poetry.

 

I believe that in ACBL-land, a club could use WBF system regulations -- clubs in the ACBL are given great latitude -- I doubt any have adopted the WBF system regulation in an effort to homogenize the bridge world.

[nige1]

It's just a fact of life that not everyone will like the rules of a national organization or world organization and will come up with local rules that serve their purposes. Those purposes are going to differ from place to place; we are still a diverse community even though today's technology allows us all to function as virtual neighbors. A few years ago, the US Government made some misguided attempts to make school curriculum uniform throughout the country. The effort, perhaps apocryphally, resulted in students in NYC being required to learn Eskimo poetry. I believe that in ACBL-land, a club could use WBF system regulations -- clubs in the ACBL are given great latitude -- I doubt any have adopted the WBF system regulation in an effort to homogenize the bridge world.

Scotland has adopted WBF regulations and they work well but they seem geared more to high-level competition than to club-level. Better would be more comprehensive global regulations suitable for different levels of competition, integrated with the laws into a single comprehensive rule-book.

 

Players don't mind local improvements to the rules of a game. That is how wonderful new games like Rugby, Auction Whist and Contract Bridge originate. The current laws of bridge are incomplete, however, and local jurisdictions produce regulations to plug the gaps. Different local legislatures have different ideas. IMO that is the main reason for different rules about biidding-boxes, system-cards, and so on.