How to change the disclosure laws?

[blackshoe]

IMO the law should be changed to encourage more honest and complete disclosure.

How, precisely, would you do that, Nigel?

[helene_t]

How, precisely, would you do that, Nigel?

Not speaking for Nigel, but one thing that could be done is to get rid of system regulations so that players can be honest about their deviation tendencies (two-way Ghestem, controlled psychs, 1NT with a singleton) without running into system regulation issues.

 

Of course, another possibly effective approach would be just to shoot those who don't disclose adequetely.

[paulg]

Not speaking for Nigel, but one thing that could be done is to get rid of system regulations so that players can be honest about their deviation tendencies (two-way Ghestem, controlled psychs, 1NT with a singleton) without running into system regulation issues.

I don't think this would help, since those who do not disclose fully because they are currently playing illegal methods are probably not at the head of the queue to disclose all their agreements :)

 

Of course, another possibly effective approach would be just to shoot those who don't disclose adequately.

No objection to this, but perhaps a warning slap for a first offence. Or removal of a finger, so that another Director will know of the previous offence.

[nige1]

How, precisely, would you do that, Nigel?

A few suggestions:

• A start would be to remove references to GBK from laws and regulations.
• Descriptive terms such as HCP and so on might be accurately defined, for legal contexts.
• Players might be allowed to describe conventions by name (e.g. Stayman) provided that these conform precisely to official definitions. Any departure would have to be explicitly disclosed.
• Directors might rigorously enforce system-card regulations.
• Clubs might supply standard system-cards for locally popular systems.
• Software might automatically monitor on-line international matches to check system-cards against actual practice (e.g. 3rd-hand openings, no-trump ranges)
• Also collate statistics on psyches and deviations to establish patterns.
• Directors might investigate partnerships who repeatedly employ calls about which they both claim to have no understanding,
• Wolff's suggested offence of convention-disruption might be adopted as law, at high levels.
• I agree with vampyr that players struggle with system-regulations most of which should be binned. 2 levels of competition would suffice:

1. Standard system
2. Anything goes.

[blackshoe]

A few suggestions:

• A start would be to remove references to GBK from laws and regulations.
• Descriptive terms such as HCP and so on might be accurately defined, for legal contexts.
• Players might be allowed to describe conventions by name (e.g. Stayman) provided that these conform precisely to official definitions. Any departure would have to be explicitly disclosed.
• Directors might rigorously enforce system-card regulations.
• Clubs might supply standard system-cards for locally popular systems.
• Software might automatically monitor on-line international matches to check system-cards against actual practice (e.g. 3rd-hand openings, no-trump ranges)
• Also collate statistics on psyches and deviations to establish patterns.
• Directors might investigate partnerships who repeatedly employ calls about which they both claim to have no understanding,
• Wolff's suggested offence of convention-disruption might be adopted as law, at high levels.
• I agree with vampyr that players struggle with system-regulations most of which should be binned. 2 levels of competition would suffice:

1. Standard system
2. Anything goes.

Hm.

• A start would be to remove references to GBK from laws and regulations.
  This would mean that things now considered not necessary to disclose will be considered necessary to disclose, but if that's what you want, okay. I don't see how it makes disclosure simpler, though.
  
• Descriptive terms such as HCP and so on might be accurately defined, for legal contexts.
  "And so on" is pretty vague. And do we really need to define HCP in the laws? Should we mandate that HCP must be used to evaluate hands, or to explain agreements?
  
• Players might be allowed to describe conventions by name (e.g. Stayman) provided that these conform precisely to official definitions. Any departure would have to be explicitly disclosed.
  In the laws? How big a law book do you want?
  
• Directors might rigorously enforce system-card regulations.
  That has nothing to do with changing the laws and regulations and everything to do with changing the culture, especially in clubs.
  
• Clubs might supply standard system-cards for locally popular systems.
  Again, nothing to do with changing laws or regulations.
  
• Software might automatically monitor on-line international matches to check system-cards against actual practice (e.g. 3rd-hand openings, no-trump ranges)
  I grant that it's a lot easier to collect data in an electronic environment than in a manual one, but again, nothing to do with laws and not much to do with regulations.
  
• Also collate statistics on psyches and deviations to establish patterns.
  See above.
  
• Directors might investigate partnerships who repeatedly employ calls about which they both claim to have no understanding,
  This is one of the purposes of the ACBL's Recorder system, which is, at least in theory, already in place.
  
• Wolff's suggested offence of convention-disruption might be adopted as law, at high levels.
  Yuck.
  
• I agree with vampyr that players struggle with system-regulations most of which should be binned. 2 levels of competition would suffice:

1. Standard system
2. Anything goes.

Fine, so long as "Standard system" doesn't become the only thing available. Unfortunately, that seems to be the trend.

[barmar]

Nigel's idea about standardizing convention names would require all players to read these definitions and analyze their agreements extremely carefully, to determine where they deviate from the standard. I don't think this is likely to happen except at the highest level of the game. Most players now assume that what they learned as Stayman is what everyone plays, and they're not about to read a long regulation to find out if it really is.

[Vampyr]

I agree with vampyr that players struggle with system-regulations most of which should be binned. 2 levels of competition would suffice:

1. Standard system
2. Anything goes.

 

Would you provide a quote, please? I did say that I was extremely disappointed that the EBU, probably uniquely, bans transfer openings, but my thought is that the regulation should be improved, not eliminated.

[sfi]

Nigel's idea about standardizing convention names would require all players to read these definitions and analyze their agreements extremely carefully, to determine where they deviate from the standard. I don't think this is likely to happen except at the highest level of the game. Most players now assume that what they learned as Stayman is what everyone plays, and they're not about to read a long regulation to find out if it really is.

 

Agreed. Let's take Stayman - it's a fairly simple and straightforward convention. How much detail would the "standard" definition have? For instance:

• Does 2C promise a 4-card major?
  
• What if all invites to 2NT go through 2C, so responder doesn't actually care about a major?
  
• If the partnership doesn't play transfers, so hands with 4-5 of the major start with 2C, is it still the same convention?
  
• What if invitational hands with 5 spades start with 2C, but not with 5 hearts?
  
• Is responder allowed to bid this on a weak hand, intending to pass anything?
  
• Is responder allowed to bid this on a weak hand with both majors, intending to bid 2H over 2D?
  
• If the partnership also plays a jump to 3H or 3S as choice of games, showing 4 cards in the other major, is 2C still "Stayman"?
  

 

And so on...

 

If the book definition of Stayman covers all of these variations, it becomes rather less useful. If it doesn't, then there is a large degree of regional and personal bias in defining these things, and it means nobody in many places will be able to use the book definition. And I guarantee people will use it incorrectly because they learn different things in different places.

 

Plus, it requires players to learn a large number of terms that they don't use. It's hard enough to keep up with what other people are calling things that I use, let alone things I don't.

 

IMO, the requirement to describe the meaning of the bid is much better than allowing anyone to rely on a convention name.

[blackshoe]

IMO, the requirement to describe the meaning of the bid is much better than allowing anyone to rely on a convention name.

Totally agree.

[Vampyr]

Agreed. Let's take Stayman - it's a fairly simple and straightforward convention. How much detail would the "standard" definition have? For instance:

• Does 2C promise a 4-card major?
  
• What if all invites to 2NT go through 2C, so responder doesn't actually care about a major?
  
• If the partnership doesn't play transfers, so hands with 4-5 of the major start with 2C, is it still the same convention?
  
• What if invitational hands with 5 spades start with 2C, but not with 5 hearts?
  
• Is responder allowed to bid this on a weak hand, intending to pass anything?
  
• Is responder allowed to bid this on a weak hand with both majors, intending to bid 2H over 2D?
  
• If the partnership also plays a jump to 3H or 3S as choice of games, showing 4 cards in the other major, is 2C still "Stayman"?
  

 

And so on...

 

If the book definition of Stayman covers all of these variations, it becomes rather less useful. If it doesn't, then there is a large degree of regional and personal bias in defining these things, and it means nobody in many places will be able to use the book definition. And I guarantee people will use it incorrectly because they learn different things in different places.

 

Plus, it requires players to learn a large number of terms that they don't use. It's hard enough to keep up with what other people are calling things that I use, let alone things I don't.

 

IMO, the requirement to describe the meaning of the bid is much better than allowing anyone to rely on a convention name.

 

And this one we actually DO announce by name!

[nige1]

Nigel's idea about standardizing convention names would require all players to read these definitions and analyze their agreements extremely carefully, to determine where they deviate from the standard. I don't think this is likely to happen except at the highest level of the game. Most players now assume that what they learned as Stayman is what everyone plays, and they're not about to read a long regulation to find out if it really is.

I think that suggestion is part of WBF system-card regulations. It might not help those ignorant of the official version but it wouldn't harm them.

• They could still ask questions about a convention, named by an opponent.
• Rather than rely on an official name, they would just describe their own convention in the detail that full-disclosure mandates.

Those partnerships familiar with relevant rules would benefit:

• The official version is likely to be fairly simple, consistent, efficient, and effective compared with most home-grown concoctions. e.g this might be a boon to first-time partnerships.
• Among players familiar with the rules, it would improve disclosure and save the time taken to describe details, normally required.

[nige1]

Agreed. Let's take Stayman - it's a fairly simple and straightforward convention. How much detail would the "standard" definition have? For instance:

• Does 2C promise a 4-card major?
• What if all invites to 2NT go through 2C, so responder doesn't actually care about a major?
• If the partnership doesn't play transfers, so hands with 4-5 of the major start with 2C, is it still the same convention?
• What if invitational hands with 5 spades start with 2C, but not with 5 hearts?
• Is responder allowed to bid this on a weak hand, intending to pass anything?
• Is responder allowed to bid this on a weak hand with both majors, intending to bid 2H over 2D?
• If the partnership also plays a jump to 3H or 3S as choice of games, showing 4 cards in the other major, is 2C still "Stayman"?

 

And so on...

 

If the book definition of Stayman covers all of these variations, it becomes rather less useful. If it doesn't, then there is a large degree of regional and personal bias in defining these things, and it means nobody in many places will be able to use the book definition. And I guarantee people will use it incorrectly because they learn different things in different places.

 

Plus, it requires players to learn a large number of terms that they don't use. It's hard enough to keep up with what other people are calling things that I use, let alone things I don't.

 

IMO, the requirement to describe the meaning of the bid is much better than allowing anyone to rely on a convention name.

The officially named convention would specify only one version. There would be no obligation to know that definition: you could simply explain your variation without using a name; but if you did know the official definition, you could use the name and explain discrepancies, if any, with your version.

[nige1]

And this one we actually DO announce by name!

Better than nothing but falls short of an accurate description, given all the Stayman variants, used by players (see sci-fi's post).

 

I'm suggesting ways to improve disclosure :)

[sfi]

The officially named convention would specify only one version. There would be no obligation to know that definition: you could simply explain your variation without using a name; but if you did know the official definition, you could use the name and explain discrepancies, if any, with your version.

 

But you're not going to stop people describing it as "Stayman" (or in Australia, "Simple Stayman" since "Stayman" refers to the entire family of conventions), no matter which version they are using. All you will do is turn common practice into something that is an actual misdescription rather than merely an incomplete one. I fail to see how this can be viewed as a good thing.

 

We have trouble getting people to properly classify their systems according to the WBF colour scheme, which is really simple and there are only four options (I'm looking at all of you playing red systems that try to tell me they are green or blue). Apart from my not buying into the end goal, achieving consistency in something more complicated seems doomed to fail.

[sfi]

Of course, another possibly effective approach would be just to shoot those who don't disclose adequetely.

 

Tasers are less messy and don't foul up the movement. And if they don't learn, then the directors can each have a turn.

[sfi]

More on topic, is this really such an issue in most places? We have a few pairs in Australia who are not good about disclosure, but the vast majority over-explain rather than under-explain. And I can't remember a situation where an opponent complained when I asked further questions.

 

As an example from the weekend, when I asked about the auction 1NT-2C; 2D-3NT (and yes, you have to ask about this here), my opponent mentioned that it was simple Stayman and guaranteed a four-card major, but that 1N-3M was available to offer choice of games, so this auction suggested both majors, a hand that might want to look for slam with a fit, or a hand with weakness in a major that wanted to hide it. And this level of detail isn't unusual here.

[nige1]

Hm.

• A start would be to remove references to GBK from laws and regulations.
  This would mean that things now considered not necessary to disclose will be considered necessary to disclose, but if that's what you want, okay. I don't see how it makes disclosure simpler, though.
• Descriptive terms such as HCP and so on might be accurately defined, for legal contexts.
  "And so on" is pretty vague. And do we really need to define HCP in the laws? Should we mandate that HCP must be used to evaluate hands, or to explain agreements?
• Players might be allowed to describe conventions by name (e.g. Stayman) provided that these conform precisely to official definitions. Any departure would have to be explicitly disclosed.
  In the laws? How big a law book do you want?
• Directors might rigorously enforce system-card regulations.
  That has nothing to do with changing the laws and regulations and everything to do with changing the culture, especially in clubs.
• Clubs might supply standard system-cards for locally popular systems.
  Again, nothing to do with changing laws or regulations.
• Software might automatically monitor on-line international matches to check system-cards against actual practice (e.g. 3rd-hand openings, no-trump ranges)
  I grant that it's a lot easier to collect data in an electronic environment than in a manual one, but again, nothing to do with laws and not much to do with regulations.
• Also collate statistics on psyches and deviations to establish patterns.
  See above.
• Directors might investigate partnerships who repeatedly employ calls about which they both claim to have no understanding,
  This is one of the purposes of the ACBL's Recorder system, which is, at least in theory, already in place.
• Wolff's suggested offence of convention-disruption might be adopted as law, at high levels.
  Yuck.
• I agree with vampyr that players struggle with system-regulations most of which should be binned. 2 levels of competition would suffice:

1. Standard system
2. Anything goes.

Fine, so long as "Standard system" doesn't become the only thing available. Unfortunately, that seems to be the trend.

Thank you, Blackshoe, for your critiguue. IMO..

 

• My concern is that GBK is often used as an excuse for non-disclosure.
• The law should facilitate disclosure by providing official definitions of commonly used terms. e.g. Milton Work HCP is a crude but useful measure of high-card strength, understood by most players. It aids communication. (A partnership is free to use some other measure to communicate with each other). Other useful concepts, for concise communication are LTC and EBU rule of n
• Official convention-cards for popular systems (as provided by BBO) would also help.
• I concede that the current law book addresses few of my disclosure concerns. I think it should: the rules of bridge (laws, regulations, minutes, etc) should be collated in one rule-book. This would save paper by eliminating redundancy. And would be easier for directors and players to understand. The rule-book should specify how to facilitate disclosure and to monitor/penalise lapses.

[blackshoe]

But you're not going to stop people describing it as "Stayman" (or in Australia, "Simple Stayman" since "Stayman" refers to the entire family of conventions), no matter which version they are using. All you will do is turn common practice into something that is an actual misdescription rather than merely an incomplete one. I fail to see how this can be viewed as a good thing.

I don't view it as a good thing, but both incomplete descriptions and actual misdescriptions are mis-information, so I don't see what difference it makes.

[blackshoe]

Thank you, Blackshoe, for your critiguue. IMO..

 

• My concern is that GBK is often used as an excuse for non-disclosure.
• The law should facilitate disclosure by providing official definitions of commonly used terms. e.g. Milton Work HCP is a crude but useful measure of high-card strength, understood by most players. It aids communication. (A partnership is free to use some other measure to communicate with each other). Other useful concepts, for concise communication are LTC and EBU rule of n
• Official convention-cards for popular systems (as provided by BBO) would also help.
• I concede that the current law book addresses few of my disclosure concerns. I think it should: the rules of bridge (laws, regulations, minutes, etc) should be collated in one rule-book. This would save paper by eliminating redundancy. And would be easier for directors and players to understand. The rule-book should specify how to facilitate disclosure and to monitor/penalise lapses.

[*]My concern is that GBK is often used as an excuse for non-disclosure.

One reason we have directors is to deal with this kind of thing.

[*]The law should facilitate disclosure by providing official definitions of commonly used terms. e.g. Milton Work HCP is a crude but useful measure of high-card strength, understood by most players. It aids communication. (A partnership is free to use some other measure to communicate with each other). Other useful concepts, for concise communication are LTC and EBU rule of n

The current approach is to leave that kind of thing up to the RA. I don't see a problem, notwithstanding the fact that different RAs may do things differently. And I don't think the law book is the right place to discuss hand evaluation.

[*]Official convention-cards for popular systems (as provided by BBO) would also help.

Or not. The ACBL tried that with SAYC. Epic fail.

[*]I concede that the current law book addresses few of my disclosure concerns. I think it should: the rules of bridge (laws, regulations, minutes, etc) should be collated in one rule-book. This would save paper by eliminating redundancy. And would be easier for directors and players to understand. The rule-book should specify how to facilitate disclosure and to monitor/penalise lapses.

Is there redundancy now? I don't think there is. I also don't think expanding the current law book by a factor of 2 or 3 (at least) would make it easier to understand. More likely it would make it less likely to be read at all. I think the EBU has the right approach: Law Book + White Book + Blue Book seems to cover most of your complaints. I don't know what the SBU does in this area. I do know that the ACBL's approach basically sucks.

[sfi]

I don't view it as a good thing, but both incomplete descriptions and actual misdescriptions are mis-information, so I don't see what difference it makes.

 

In the first, the other side know not enough information was given and can ask for clarification. In the second, it may not be clear when they need to ask further questions.

[nige1]

The law should facilitate disclosure by providing official definitions of commonly used terms. e.g. Milton Work HCP is a crude but useful measure of high-card strength, understood by most players. It aids communication. (A partnership is free to use some other measure to communicate with each other). Other useful concepts, for concise communication are LTC and EBU rule of n

The current approach is to leave that kind of thing up to the RA. I don't see a problem, notwithstanding the fact that different RAs may do things differently. And I don't think the law book is the right place to discuss hand evaluation.

IMO it's easier to communicate with words having mutually agreed meanings. Disclosure is especially important when you're unfamiliar with opponents' methods. Players tend to be more familiar with local RA systems than with systems played in other RAs.

Official convention-cards for popular systems (as provided by BBO) would also help.

Or not. The ACBL tried that with SAYC. Epic fail.

I like the rule that partnerships must display identical completed system-cards. Some RAs like the ACBL don't enforce this rule. If they did, then standard official cards (like SAYC) would be in demand. Some players might be put off by the obligation to divulge their methods. But, IMO, most would view it as a considerable improvement.

I concede that the current law book addresses few of my disclosure concerns. I think it should: the rules of bridge (laws, regulations, minutes, etc) should be collated in one rule-book. This would save paper by eliminating redundancy. And would be easier for directors and players to understand. The rule-book should specify how to facilitate disclosure and to monitor/penalise lapses

Is there redundancy now? I don't think there is. I also don't think expanding the current law book by a factor of 2 or 3 (at least) would make it easier to understand. More likely it would make it less likely to be read at all. I think the EBU has the right approach: Law Book + White Book + Blue Book seems to cover most of your complaints. I don't know what the SBU does in this area. I do know that the ACBL's approach basically sucks.

IMO There's a lot of redundancy. Some claim there are discrepancies. A few claim that RA regulations are illegal. When the rules of a game are spread among several books (even with pretty covers) such problems are likely. It's worse when each RA duplicates this unnecessary effort. IMO, we should concentrate on producing one simple set of Bridge-rules that most can understand That novel project would be a hard enough task for rule-makers to undertake; but it would improve players' enjoyment,

[nige1]

Another attempt to improve disclosure law:

 

Alerts cause unnecessary problems.

• Each RA has different rules about what to alert and when. In practice players alert calls that they shouldn't and fail to alert calls that they should
• Arguably some "natural" calls, not currently alerted, should be, because of nuances that some opponents might not expect. (e.g. subtle local meanings that many call "GBK").
• How often should you ask? If you never ask, then alerts don't help you much. If you ask when you are thinking of bidding, then you convey UI to partner. It's hard to ask "randomly" and not very effective. If you always ask then it would be better if the law were changed as follows:

1. Announce the meaning of every call by partner.
2. To avoid disturbing neighbouring tables, each table would have a card with boxes for common meanings. For most explanations, you would just point to relevant boxes. Excessive use of the "No understanding" box would be discouraged.
3. The purpose of these announcements would be to divulge the meanings of calls to opponents. If opponents judged that this might help you more than them (or for any other reason) they could switch-off your announcements.
4. At the end of the auction, you would offer to explain your bidding to opponents.
5. They could also ask "What have your partner's calls told you about his hand?"

This disclosure law is short, simple and universal. The WBF could still allow RAs to opt out; and to keep their own voluminous and idiosyncratic alert-rules; but sensible RAs would save reams of paper by electing to scrap them.

 

The tempo of the game would improve: it would save the time taken in waiting for alerts and then asking questions.

[Vampyr]

IMO There's a lot of redundancy. Some claim there are discrepancies. A few claim that RA regulations are illegal. When the rules of a game are spread among several books (even with pretty covers) such problems are likely. It's worse when each RA duplicates this unnecessary effort. IMO, we should concentrate on producing one simple set of Bridge-rules that most can understand That novel project would be a hard enough task for rule-makers to undertake; but it would improve players' enjoyment,

 

Whose enjoyment would it improve? I wouldn't enjoy playing under ACBL regulations, and ACBL members would not, on the whole, enjoy playing under EBU regulations. The EBU regulations are far from perfect in my view, but are in general my favourites, and that is no coincidence. The EBU exists to please me and others like me. Pleasing ACBL or ABF or FFB members is not part of their remit, and that is how it should be. I play most of my bridge in England, because that is where I live. This is true for all players, except, perhaps, top internationals.

 

As for your other ideas, your announcements and pointing boards would serve little purpose, since, as has been pointed out, most conventions have variations. If it went 1♠-2NT (GF raise) would the card have, for a 3♣ rebid: shortness? Any minimum? Balanced non-minimum? Natural? Relay? Now imagine a Multi with defences and continuations, Precision with full relays...The pointing board would quickly cover the whole table, if not the whole room.

 

Anyway why not follow as best you can by reading it on their convention card? I do agree that people should have them. Also this pointing thing would generate way too much UI, especially in cases where there is no firm agreement, unless you could somehow prevent your partner from seeing what you were pointing to. Reminds me of the late unlamented two-way 4NT, which was Blackwood if partner alerted it.

 

And you can use a convention name, but only if you play the "official version"? How do know if your opponents are, in fact, playing the "official version"? if there were an "official version" (who would decide this?) how would players know what it was? You are a proponent, I know, of forcing people to learn systems other than what they themselves play. A lot of club players would give up bridge rather than comply with such a requirement. Also the most common and popular versions of conventions change with time.

 

Incidentally, none of this would change my practice of asking the meaning whenever an explanation consists of a convention name.

 

I think that there are many people who never play in RAs other than their own. Probably most ACBL members. In fact, possibly most EBU members if you exclude London. And even then some of them play only in EBU abroad events. Those who go to tournaments in other countries are motivated enough to find out what the regulations are. Is there anyone besides you who finds different countries' regulations an unnecessary burden? Do you go often enough for it to affect your life? This year I am going to tournaments abroad three times, and I don't feel that learning the regulations in force is a problem.

[helene_t]

More on topic, is this really such an issue in most places? We have a few pairs in Australia who are not good about disclosure, but the vast majority over-explain rather than under-explain. And I can't remember a situation where an opponent complained when I asked further questions.

Same in the UK (at the club level). Lot's of players will say something like "I am not sure but I take it as ....".

 

In the Netherlands, I frequently run into club players who have the mistaken belief that the regulations protect their concealed agreements. For example, when dbls and redoubles were not alertable, it was a widespread belief that you can't ask questions about the meaning of a dbl or rdbl either. I have even had to call the TD once to get an opponent to explain their answer to Blackwood.

[nige1]

As for your other ideas, your announcements and pointing boards would serve little purpose, since, as has been pointed out, most conventions have variations. If it went 1♠-2NT (GF raise) would the card have, for a 3♣ rebid: shortness? Any minimum? Balanced non-minimum? Natural? Relay? Now not a Multi with defences and continuations, Precision with full relays...The pointing board would quickly cover the whole table, if not the whole room.

The "pointing-board" is just a convenience to players. It lists common meanings like "Natural", "5+ cards", "S/O", "Invite", "F1", "F/G", Penalty", "T/O", and so on. For most of partner's calls, you could point to the meanings that describe partner's bid. You would vocalise meanings not covered by the pointing-board.

 

Anyway why not follow as best you can by reading it on their convention card? I do agree that people should have them. Also this pointing thing would generate way too much UI, especially in cases where there is no firm agreement, unless you could somehow prevent your partner from seeing what you were pointing to. Reminds me of the late unlamented two-way 4NT, which was Blackwood if partner alerted it.

Vampyr's suggestion is good: If possible, preventing partner from seeing the meanings to which you're pointing.

IMO, under current rules, you should alert most calls about which you are unsure of your agreements.

 

And you can use a convention name, but only if you play the "official version"? How do know if your opponents are, in fact, playing the "official version"? if there were an "official version" (who would decide this?) how would players know what it was? You are a proponent, I know, of forcing people to learn systems other than what they themselves play. A lot of club players would give up bridge rather than comply with such a requirement. Also the most common and popular versions of conventions change with time. Incidentally, none of this would change my practice of asking the meaning whenever an explanation consists of a convention name.

The official versions of popular conventions would be an appendix to the rules. Again, it's just an optional convenience for players to facilitate full disclosure and speed up explanations. If you want, then you can explain the meanings of your bids in the ordinary way. And you can ask questions, as usual.

 

I think that there are many people who never play in RAs other than their own. Probably most ACBL members. In fact, possibly most EBU members if you exclude London. And even then some of them play only in EBU abroad events. Those who go to tournaments in other countries are motivated enough to find out what the regulations are. Is there anyone besides you who finds different countries' regulations an unnecessary burden? Do you go often enough for it to affect your life? This year I am going to tournaments abroad three times, and I don't feel that learning the regulations in force is a problem.

Fair enough. I think more players would prefer one set of global rules. But vampyr could well be right. Perhaps there are players in each RA who prefer to play different games.