another pick up bids instead of pass

[aguahombre]

I deplore the fact there are holes in the law-book that local regulators have to plug.

So, you think there should be bid-box rules for jurisdictions without bid boxes? Should the WBF also tell the Australians how to scribble? These are not holes in the lawbook. they are not "Laws" at all if we draw the distinction between laws and local regulations.

[Finch]

So, you think there should be bid-box rules for jurisdictions without bid boxes? Should the WBF also tell the Australians how to scribble? These are not holes in the lawbook. they are not "Laws" at all if we draw the distinction between laws and local regulations.

 

We don't have bid-boxes in the UK, either.

[aguahombre]

We don't have bid-boxes in the UK, either.

Huh? Was Bluejack just talking out of his hat about how rude it is in England to pick up the bid cards?

[RMB1]

Huh? Was Bluejack just talking out of his hat about how rude it is in England to pick up the bid cards?

Oh we have boxes, but more respect for language than to call them "bid-boxes".

[nige1]

So, you think there should be bid-box rules for jurisdictions without bid boxes?

Yes rules for "bid-boxes" (IMO that terminology is fine) , screens, bridge-mates, and so on.

Should the WBF also tell the Australians how to scribble?

Yes although I'm told that bidding boxes are becoming more popular in Australia. Written bidding has it's advantages, but, as Aquahombre implies, legibility can be a problem (see recent thread).

These are not holes in the lawbook. they are not "Laws" at all if we draw the distinction between laws and local regulations

A tautology. I hope there's a change for the better.

[aguahombre]

Oh we have boxes, but more respect for language than to call them "bid-boxes".

I do hope the respectful of language did not misdirect because of the common terminology for the containers. And I know it wasn't my use of the hyphen, since I only used it to make an adjective for "regulations" and not when referring to the bid boxes themselves.

[gnasher]

It's usually unwise to argue with Frances and Robin about language, but I think "bid box" is acceptable as long as "bid" is being used as a noun rather than as a verb. A "bid box" is a box containing bids (cf "biscuit barrel"), and a "bidding box" is a box that we use for bidding.

 

Anyway, both terms are inaccurate: the box doesn't actually contain bids and we don't use the box itself for bidding. A better term would be "bidding-card box".

[Vampyr]

I deplore the fact that there are holes in the law-book that local regulators have to plug.

 

Maybe it would help if you thought about it differently. The Lawbook tells us what is and is not bridge. Its function is not, and should not be, to micro-manage the way the game of bridge is played in clubs and tournaments, nor to anticipate the needs and problems of organisers.

 

Maybe the Laws should specify that alternating red and blue packs of cards are used, to minimise mistakes in replacing stray cards? Or that travellers (yes they still exist) are scored in (preferably heavy) ink to prevent the unscrupulous from changing the scores after the opponents leave the table (yes this has been done). Maybe the Laws should specify how many minutes should be allowed for each board, so that foreign visitors are not inconvenienced by having to play at a quicker pace than they are used to.

 

Your fantasy player poll might well vote in favour of global regulations (sure, why not, seems like a good idea). This would be transformed into howls of outraged protest when these voters learned that this meant that their own regulations would have to change.

 

And bear in mind that the majority of players do not even realise that there are regulations in the world that are very different to the ones that they are used to, so they would not even have any idea of what they might be getting themselves into. Although I think that everyone on these forums knows; it would be ACBL regulations for all.

 

We don't have bid-boxes in the UK, either.

 

Seriously? And there are no sidewalks and you never eat eggplant? I can't see what reason there is to disrespect another region's terminology and pretend you don't know what they are talking about.

[gnasher]

I never eat eggplant.

[Vampyr]

I never eat eggplant.

 

You are missing out.

[nige1]

Maybe it would help if you thought about it differently. The Lawbook tells us what is and is not bridge. Its function is not, and should not be, to micro-manage the way the game of bridge is played in clubs and tournaments, nor to anticipate the needs and problems of organisers.

It's hard to do but it might help us all if we overcame our prejudices and thought more clearly. Laws plus Regulations are the Rules by which we play Bridge. A rule-book that included both laws and regulations would be only a little bigger than the current law-book plus a book of regulations. It could be well-integrated, better structured, internally consistent, and easier for players and directors to consult.

Maybe the Laws should specify that alternating red and blue packs of cards are used, to minimise mistakes in replacing stray cards? Or that travellers (yes they still exist) are scored in (preferably heavy) ink to prevent the unscrupulous from changing the scores after the opponents leave the table (yes this has been done). Maybe the Laws should specify how many minutes should be allowed for each board, so that foreign visitors are not inconvenienced by having to play at a quicker pace than they are used to.

Rule-makers may deem such advice excessive (but it may well be useful, if concisely expressed). Dropping unnecessary rules, simplifying existing rules, and devising new rules, (e.g. making bridge a properly timed game) are well-worth considering as a separate exercise from integrating current laws and regulations.

Your fantasy player poll might well vote in favour of global regulations (sure, why not, seems like a good idea). This would be transformed into howls of outraged protest when these voters learned that this meant that their own regulations would have to change. And bear in mind that the majority of players do not even realise that there are regulations in the world that are very different to the ones that they are used to, so they would not even have any idea of what they might be getting themselves into. Although I think that everyone on these forums knows; it would be ACBL regulations for all.

Before a poll, players should be told the main arguments on both sides; also the results of a poll are influenced by the way it is phrased; but a (reasonably) fair poll of a (roughly) representative sample of duplicate players would suffice to test opinion.

[blackshoe]

I never eat eggplant.

 

You are missing out.

Possibly. I remember years ago having a dish of Eggplant Parmesan that was outstanding. Since that one time I've not had any eggplant dish (including several tries at Eggplant Parmesan, both at home and in restaurants) that was worth eating. :ph34r:

[StevenG]

Before a poll, players should be told the main arguments on both sides; also the results of a poll are influenced by the way it is phrased; but a (reasonably) fair poll of a (roughly) representative sample of duplicate players would suffice to test opinion.

In retrospect it might be a good idea. It would be nice to get rid of that pesky multi-2♦ (at least at club level).

 

Of course, having to alert everything that wasn't Polish Club might be a bit annoying.

[Zelandakh]

Nige might be onto something - at the same time we could also add to the Laws a universal bidding and cardplay system so we can remove the whole set of regulations for alerts, announcements, MI and (the equivalent of) BSCs and HUMs. Perhaps we could go a stage further and regulate the size of the tables. Gone will be the days of not knowing where to place your coffee mug/beer glass. Perhaps we could also regulate a minimum number of hcp for every player to receive during a session - I am sure that would go down well with players who always feel they get bad hands. The possibilities are endless.

[aguahombre]

Possibly. I remember years ago having a dish of Eggplant Parmesan that was outstanding. Since that one time I've not had any eggplant dish (including several tries at Eggplant Parmesan, both at home and in restaurants) that was worth eating. :ph34r:

In addition to abusing language, I also abuse recipes. The basic ingredients of Moussaka can be used to make a delicious lamb stew. Eggplant is an essential taste.

[nige1]

In retrospect it might be a good idea. It would be nice to get rid of that pesky multi-2♦ (at least at club level). Of course, having to alert everything that wasn't Polish Club might be a bit annoying.

:)

Nige might be onto something - at the same time we could also add to the Laws a universal bidding and cardplay system so we can remove the whole set of regulations for alerts, announcements, MI and (the equivalent of) BSCs and HUMs. Perhaps we could go a stage further and regulate the size of the tables. Gone will be the days of not knowing where to place your coffee mug/beer glass. Perhaps we could also regulate a minimum number of hcp for every player to receive during a session - I am sure that would go down well with players who always feel they get bad hands. The possibilities are endless.

:) Mostly strawmen :) I wouldn't expect anything so radical :)

I confess, however, that I'd prefer a new rule that allowed only two tiers of system-agreement:

• Standard system card: You wouldn't be allowed to augment or to amend but you could cross-out.
• Anything goes: BSCs, HUMs, encrypted calls/signals, and so on (adequately disclosed and with officially approved defences).

Also, I'd like a new rule to replace alerts with announcements (as explained in other threads). Benefits include simple universal disclosure regulations :)

[aguahombre]

I think "bid box" is acceptable as long as "bid" is being used as a noun rather than as a verb. A "bid box" is a box containing bids (cf "biscuit barrel"), and a "bidding box" is a box that we use for bidding.

 

Anyway, both terms are inaccurate: the box doesn't actually contain bids and we don't use the box itself for bidding. A better term would be "bidding-card box".

Call box was taken.

[Finch]

 

 

Seriously? And there are no sidewalks and you never eat eggplant? I can't see what reason there is to disrespect another region's terminology and pretend you don't know what they are talking about.

 

Why was my comment in any way disrespectful? Why do think it suggests that I don't know what they are talking about? In fact, if I (wanted to pretend) I didn't know, I would be asking what a bid box was.

[GreenMan]

Why was my comment in any way disrespectful? Why do think it suggests that I don't know what they are talking about? In fact, if I (wanted to pretend) I didn't know, I would be asking what a bid box was.

 

For us to believe that you weren't being snidely superior, we'd have to believe that you were saying that there are no bidding boxes in the U.K. Is that, in fact, what you were saying?

[Vampyr]

Possibly. I remember years ago having a dish of Eggplant Parmesan that was outstanding. Since that one time I've not had any eggplant dish (including several tries at Eggplant Parmesan, both at home and in restaurants) that was worth eating. :ph34r:

 

It's a shame you have not had my Eggplant Parmesan.

[Vampyr]

Rule-makers may deem such advice excessive (but it may well be useful, if concisely expressed).

 

And where does it end? Should the Laws stipulate whether running scores should be shown on a screen? This will place at a disadvantage visitors wo are used/unused to estimating their results. Likewise showing the percentages on the Bridgemates. What is the solution if two teams are tied at the end of a 32-coard match? Should foreigners be allowed to play in non-unlimited masterpoint events? Should the club bar carry sparkling rosé?

[blackshoe]

It's a shame you have not had my Eggplant Parmesan.

Send me the recipe. :-)

[nige1]

And where does it end? Should the Laws stipulate whether running scores should be shown on a screen? This will place at a disadvantage visitors wo are used/unused to estimating their results. Likewise showing the percentages on the Bridgemates. What is the solution if two teams are tied at the end of a 32-coard match? Should foreigners be allowed to play in non-unlimited masterpoint events? Should the club bar carry sparkling rosé?

I've answered this question before :) The rule-book would just integrate current laws, WBF correction minutes, and regulations. Rule-makers would pick and choose. Thus, I'm afraid that they might omit your Orange Book regulation that mandates what rosé the bar must carry :( But they might include topics like tie-splitting, for example :) IMO the integrated rule-book would be easier for players and directors to understand and consult but be no more bulky than current laws plus regulations :) As icing on the cake, rule-makers might elect to restructure, drop unnecessary rules, simplify existing rules, and add some new ones :)

[gordontd]

I've answered this question before :) The rule-book would just integrate current laws, WBF correction minutes, and regulations. Rule-makers would pick and choose. Thus, I'm afraid that they might omit your Orange Book regulation that mandates what rosé the bar must carry :( But they might include topics like tie-splitting, for example :) IMO the integrated rule-book would be easier for players and directors to understand and consult but be no more bulky than current laws plus regulations :) As icing on the cake, rule-makers might elect to restructure, drop unnecessary rules, simplify existing rules, and add some new ones :)

Good luck with this project, Nigel! I'll look forward to being invited to the launch party.

[nige1]

Good luck with this project, Nigel! I'll look forward to being invited to the launch party.

Thank you, Gordon :)

I hope something is done before bridge is on its last legs. Bridge is already in decline -- mainly due to factors outwith our control. But the morass of unclear, complex, fragmented, laws, regulations, minutes and COC is an unnecessary turn-off.

 

The basic mechanics of Bridge are simple. The problem is over-complexity and inconsistency in defining and coping with infractions.

• The long learning curve deters would-be players from learning Bridge.
• Beginners can get a nasty shock when they venture from class into a club. Irate opponents call the director who rules against them. The ruling is correct in law. The director takes time to explain it. A bright beginner may even understand some of it. But he feels the game is not worth all the hassle.
• Experienced players can't understand the rules. When the director is called, they complain that they're being accused of cheating. They threaten they will never come back again if ruled against. In spite of the efforts of the director to mollify them, they feel victimised. Sometimes they make good their threat.
• Experts want consistent rulings. On identical facts, directors give different rulings. Judgement is subjective so some inconsistency is inevitable. Unfortunately (but unsurprisingly in view of the chaotic structure), few directors know all relevant Bridge rules. Few directors and fewer players understand them. Different directors interpret sophisticated (arguably over-sophisticated) rules differently. Also, bridge law-makers make a positive virtue of reliance (arguably over-reliance) on the subjective judgement of directors. For example, often (arguably too often), rule-makers expect the director to divine a player's thoughts. Hence experts complain about "Bum rulings". Experts are unlikely to give up the game but their dissatisfaction puts others off.

Criticism of the above argument is welcome :) Less welcome is the usual army of straw-men :(