Does anyone agree?

[Hanoi5]

I might be so wrong I can't even see it.

 

I never meant to say that EVERYBODY HAD TO play the same system, but why can't everybody learn the game with the same system? Why shouldn't there be a standard to which people can refer to when they don't know the particulars of some other systems? What is 'natural'? What is 'artificial'? It might be natural for you to open 1♣ on two cards with 4=4=3=2 but for me that is not correct; you might think 'better minor' means opening with your best quality minor suit holding but I take it as opening with the longest one, regardless of suit quality, and opening clubs when they're both 3-3 in length, 1NT-4♣ means Gerber to you but it shows both Majors at least 5-5 with game playing values for me.

 

After learning the game and knowing how to play standard bidding some people will surely drift towards other systems, and that's fine but they will know what standard means and can play it too, if need be. But how can a LOL from Australia go to the US and try to get a partner only to find out she doesn't play Multi!? Or she isn't even allowed to use the convention with her partner because the LA's have decided it is too much? Worse, how will a foreigner know something is not natural when he didn't learn bridge in that environment? If there was a standard natural system everybody knows it would be easy to say that ANYTHING departing from that system is alertable. Wouldn't it be nice?

[Trinidad]

You are probably right that it is the least of evils. But it is a bit difficult to enforce. There will always be some opps who find 4-card major openings, or 1NT openings that could contain two doubletons, unexpected so some will interpret this as if they should alert everything.

This why it is important to cultivate an attitude that you alert for the opponents and that it is best to be as forthcoming with your alerts as possible. A simple, flexible WBF like rule makes that possible. A complex, rigid rule set makes that impossible.

 

In my view an alert means: "I think that you might want to ask for the meaning." It doesn't mean: "I have to say 'alert' because the regulations prescribe that I say 'alert'."

 

Rik

[hrothgar]

Couple quick points:

 

1. I think that the question itself is moot. Even if you have a consistent set of rules across the world, I don't believe that you are going to be able to ensure consistent enforcement which is what really matters. As a practical example, consider the question of psyches. The right to psyche is enshrined in the laws of bridge which, in theory, should be consistent across the world and yet we see all sorts of regulatory bodies banning psyches. I'm not just talking about the Friday night game down at the old folks home or some silly individual on BBO. There are entire national regulatory bodies (Italy, Austria) that have banned psyches. The WBF has sanction official tournaments run under its auspices that have banned psyches. People are welcome to advance all kinds of ridiculous theories about the way the world should be, but at the end of the day reality bats last.

 

2. As a rule, I think that local National organizations should be able to craft their own regulations. With this said and done, I genuinely believe that the ACBL is so piss poor at this that we would be better off copying what the EBU adopts. I'm not joking here. I am not saying this for effect. The ACBL is grossly incompetent and we'd all be a lot better off if the organization took a bullet to the head.

[euclidz]

Every time a new rule comes in, it is an irritant for a while them it becomes second nature, when partner now opens 1NT my mouth moves uttering the appropriate announcement and I don't even know I've said it.

 

What does irritate me is the requirement to leave the board on the table throughout the game and having to negotiate around it as an obstacle and what REALLY irritates me is that person who, when it is taken away, insists it be returned to the table just because they can.

[campboy]

What does irritate me is the requirement to leave the board on the table throughout the game and having to negotiate around it as an obstacle and what REALLY irritates me is that person who, when it is taken away, insists it be returned to the table just because they can.

There are at least two important reasons to leave it on the table.

1. So that everyone can see the vulnerability.
   
2. To make sure it is the same way round when you come to return cards to the slots.
   

[Vampyr]

I might be so wrong I can't even see it.

 

Well your idea is remarkably bad anyway.

 

I never meant to say that EVERYBODY HAD TO play the same system, but why can't everybody learn the game with the same system?

 

The question remains, who gets to choose the system?

 

The majority of players only ever play the first system they learned. Many have trouble getting their heads round a single bidding system, and could never manage to learn both the "universal" system and the one they want to play. So most people would end up playing this universal system; I can't imagine anything more dreary! But anyway this system would have to be super simple, as it would have to suit everyone including those who prefer to play a very simple system. Maybe you could have initial takeout doubles, Stayman and Blackwood for conventions. But in this case, most people already know the prospective "universal system".

 

What does irritate me is the requirement to leave the board on the table throughout the game and having to negotiate around it as an obstacle and what REALLY irritates me is that person who, when it is taken away, insists it be returned to the table just because they can.

 

What does the board get in the way of? If the dummy is too far away for you to see or to play yourself if you have to, you can shift the board nearer to yourself. It doesn't have to stay dead centre.

 

I would never allow an opponent to remove the board in play from the table, or move it to the corner or in fact anywhere.

[aguahombre]

Every time a new rule comes in, it is an irritant for a while them it becomes second nature, when partner now opens 1NT my mouth moves uttering the appropriate announcement and I don't even know I've said it.

 

What does irritate me is the requirement to leave the board on the table throughout the game and having to negotiate around it as an obstacle and what REALLY irritates me is that person who, when it is taken away, insists it be returned to the table just because they can.

The requirement is to leave it on the table throughout the hand, not throughout the game. I see nothing wrong with making that board the only one on the table during its play.

[akwoo]

I might be so wrong I can't even see it.

 

I never meant to say that EVERYBODY HAD TO play the same system, but why can't everybody learn the game with the same system?

[snip]

 

If there was a standard natural system everybody knows it would be easy to say that ANYTHING departing from that system is alertable. Wouldn't it be nice?

 

Let's take a single point of this purported standard natural system.

 

Should reverses show extra strength in this system or not?

 

Let's say they DO show extra strength. We have lots of beginners and lifetime beginners who simply are unable to recognize a reverse. That's why they are playing that reverses don't show extras in the first place! Now if you require that reverses not showing extras be alerted, they actually are unable to play the game without breaking the rules several times every session. After all, they can't alert a reverse if they don't know what a reverse is!

 

Let's say they do NOT show extra strength. Then players who do know what they are doing would have to alert constantly, and it would be hard for people who play a reverse bid as having some more unusual, artificial meaning to actually get across the idea that the opponents really have to ask. To some extent this can be solved with announcements, but given how many players in ACBL land (are allowed to) forget to announce their NT range… (Also, for partners of advanced beginners who usually but not always recognize a reverse, we're talking about major UI leakage.)

[barmar]

Should bridge regulations be the same everywhere?

 

I would vote no. Let the different regions act as a laboratory of ideas.

Let the tower of Babel reign free to roam.

The "laboratory" idea makes good sense for a relatively new game that's still undergoing active evolution. But bridge is a century old, hasn't it matured enough that we don't still need to experiment with how to regulate it?

 

I'm not saying that the game itself should stagnate. There's still room for players to experiment with new bidding systems, for instance. But it seems like it should be about time that the regulatory mechanics should have stablized.

 

But I'm also still not arguing for universal regulations. The general philosophy behind system and alert regulations is to accomodate the players. We shouldn't make regulations consistent just for the sake of consistency. This would unnecessarily inconvenience and annoy players in jurisdictions that would have to change significantly.

 

There are situations where consistency is important. Something like the Internet would work well if there were a Tower of Babel of different network protocols (that's what things were like in the 70's, although it wasn't a serious problem because there weren't that many computers yet). But bridge regulations are more like which side of the road you should drive on: it's not a big problem that we drive on the right in the US, while they drive on the left in the UK. It would probably be nice for world travelers if it were consistent everywhere, but is that a good reason to force one group to change?

[aguahombre]

 

It would probably be nice for world travelers if it were consistent everywhere, but is that a good reason to force one group to change?

Every vehicle would have to be retrofitted in the jurisdictions required to change. That joke aside --- I repeat what would be nice for me shouldn't be a criterion for any change. I am willing to live with having to study up before playing the game in another jurisdiction -- be content with my bitching about it.

[mgoetze]

What is 'natural'? What is 'artificial'?

How on earth is adopting BWS as a worldwide standard going to help you answer this question? :P

[Vampyr]

How on earth is adopting BWS as a worldwide standard going to help you answer this question? :P

 

The idea of using BWS is hilarious. This is why I am torn between whether Hanoi's post is a joke or not.

[Vampyr]

Every vehicle would have to be retrofitted in the jurisdictions required to change. That joke aside --- I repeat what would be nice for me shouldn't be a criterion for any change. I am willing to live with having to study up before playing the game in another jurisdiction -- be content with my bitching about it.

 

But what specific jurisdictions have been onerous in learning about? I think it would be nice if Nigel answered this as well. Who is suffering under the status quo, and how?

[helene_t]

I never meant to say that EVERYBODY HAD TO play the same system, but why can't everybody learn the game with the same system?

I could see an advantage of forcing the Americans to use the metric system and the Euro, and even forcing the whole world to use latin script would have advantages although it would be a sick idea.

 

But why on earth should every country have the same standard bidding system? Even if it was feasible to agree on a worldwide standard and even if the transition to wj2020 or wei precision or whatever the standard would be would take place without costs and setbacks in teaching quality I would see it as something that made the game poorer.

 

Suppose the Chinese, French etc were told to abolish their own cuisine because the new world standard is that everyone has to eat indonesian. By removing variation we would remove sources of inspiration so the game would stagnate.

 

I know you are not proposing to make alternative systems illegal but the fact is that alternative systems would be unknown to most players and even most inovators would have limited exposure to alternative systems.

 

When the swedes changed to driving in the right side of the road it had advantages for swedes going abroad. That all beginners in bermuda learn precision has the advantage that everyone can play with everyone. But what problem would it cause if Yorkshire played moscito while Lancashire played acol? Nobody visits another county expecting to be able to partner a local anyway. And as for Yorkshire people failing to alert theit moscito 2c opening when visiting Lancashire ... get over it. It's a non issue.

[nige1]

Who is suffering under the status quo, and how?

Recently, Fantunes were caught out by the ACBL regulation about opening 1N with a singleton. Players have had to abandon Multi because they could not borrow or print the official ACBL defence. EBU regulations about rule of "x", keeping open a Multi, and alerting have caused problems.

We might get a better idea of attitudes if players were polled on such matters. Many players seem happy with local Bridge variants but I feel that others would prefer a global game with simpler rules. It's encouraging that so many play on-line.

[Vampyr]

We might get a better idea of attitudes if players were polled on such matters. Many players seem happy with local Bridge variants but I feel that others would prefer a global game with simpler rules. It's encouraging that so many play on-line.

 

There is a poll at the top of this thread.

[Zelandakh]

There is a poll at the top of this thread.

But does it ask the right question? I have already pointed out a way that regulations might not be the same everywhere but would address some of the questions Nigel is raising.

[Vampyr]

But does it ask the right question? I have already pointed out a way that regulations might not be the same everywhere but would address some of the questions Nigel is raising.

 

Well, your idea of using WBF regulations for top-level events is nothing new. There is a league around here that has system restrictions that are at least as liberal as the WBF's (eg, forcing pass is allowed), and the same is true for many clubs.

 

The WBF regulations are there, and anyone who wants to can use them. The only conclusion to draw from that is that people don't want to.

[Zelandakh]

The WBF regulations are there, and anyone who wants to can use them. The only conclusion to draw from that is that people don't want to.

The idea of World Peace is there and anyone that wants to can follow it. The only conclusion to draw from that is that people don't want to. :blink:

[Vampyr]

The idea of World Peace is there and anyone that wants to can follow it. The only conclusion to draw from that is that people don't want to. :blink:

 

That is for sure!

[Siegmund]

I would like the Laws to be the same everywhere. (They almost were, a few editions of the book ago - not much besides inquiring about a defender's revoke was different between ACBL and non-ACBL laws then -- but now we're on different planets with Law 12, among others. I can't help feeling the law book hit a high water mark in 1987 and has been creeping backward since.)

 

But that's not what Vampyr asked: the regulations are supposed to suit local needs. provided they don't conflict with the laws. Would be silly to expect the same regulations in a novice game and a world championship (use of screens, amount of disclosure needed, etc.)

[rhm]

Standards are good, provided the regulations itself are good.

For example I would not want the ACBL regulations.

 

As things stand I think different regulations and competition between those are better.

 

This is a common problem.

For example a common market can increase economic wealth.

But it requires common rules and standards, which may require compromise in the first place and once agreed it can then get very difficult to change these rules and standards .

Progress may then get very difficult.

 

Often it is better to have competition between smaller entities and live with some initial inefficiencies and see what works better.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[nige1]

I would like the Laws to be the same everywhere. (They almost were, a few editions of the book ago - not much besides inquiring about a defender's revoke was different between ACBL and non-ACBL laws then -- but now we're on different planets with Law 12, among others. I can't help feeling the law book hit a high water mark in 1987 and has been creeping backward since.)

 

But that's not what Vampyr asked: the regulations are supposed to suit local needs. provided they don't conflict with the laws. Would be silly to expect the same regulations in a novice game and a world championship (use of screens, amount of disclosure needed, etc.)

Global rules don't imply the same rules for all levels of play. Or for all kinds of game (e.g. MP pairs, Swiss teams, Knockout teams, etc), Also rules differ depending on the availability of appropriate equipment (for example screens, computers, bridge-mates, bidding-boxes, etc). Finally, global rules would not have to be ACBL rules.

 

mike777 and rhm point out that different regulators can try different bridge variants in order to decide on optimal practice. This experiment might have worked better had the results been properly monitored and collated.

[nige1]

After learning the game and knowing how to play standard bidding some people will surely drift towards other systems, and that's fine but they will know what standard means and can play it too, if need be. But how can a LOL from Australia go to the US and try to get a partner only to find out she doesn't play Multi!? Or she isn't even allowed to use the convention with her partner because the LA's have decided it is too much? Worse, how will a foreigner know something is not natural when he didn't learn bridge in that environment? If there was a standard natural system everybody knows it would be easy to say that ANYTHING departing from that system is alertable. Wouldn't it be nice?

On BBO, without discussion, most players employ a similar version of 2/1, saving time and encouraging an enjoyable game. Hence, Hanoi5's idea has obvious merit.

[barmar]

On BBO, without discussion, most players employ a similar version of 2/1, saving time and encouraging an enjoyable game. Hence, Hanoi5's idea has obvious merit.

Do they really? A common complaint is that in Individual tournaments that specify 2/1 as the standard system, many players just play whatever they feel like.