How to change the disclosure laws?

[Vampyr]

Vamper'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.

 

Vampyr's "suggestion" was intended to highlight one of the drawbacks of your bad idea. Yes, you should alert unless you are sure that the call cannot have an alertable meaning.

 

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.

 

Seriously, Nigel, are you aware of how many people actually read the Blue Book? Announcements would become a severe source of misinformation, with each side thinking that they know what is meant by Reverse BlukBluk.

 

Fair enough. I think more players would prefer one set of global rules.

 

Well, you have not quoted even anecdotal evidence of people who have problems dealing with the regulations in places they travel to to play. I personally have run afoul of the rules once or twice; I particularly remember when I explained my leads as "second and fourth" to a person in whose country this meant low from a doubleton (we were playing in a third country). I thought this was interesting and did not think that players in that country should adopt leading conventions/explanations as they are understood in my country. Another place I regularly play requires alerts for a 1NT opening that is not strong. I dislike that approach, but I play there in one event per year. Why should they change their regulations to suit me?

 

But vampyr could well be right. Perhaps players in each RA prefer to play different games.

 

I think this is obvious. Otherwise the regulations would be experiencing converging evolution. This may happen someday, but so far there is no evidence of it.

[nige1]

.Seriously, Nigel, are you aware of how many people actually read the Blue Book? Announcements would become a severe source of misinformation, with each side thinking that they know what is meant by Reverse BlukBluk.

Perhaps more players would familiarise themselves with the rules if the multitude of current documents were replaced by a single rule-book, with simplified rules that most players and directors could understand.

I think this is obvious. Otherwise the regulations would be experiencing converging evolution. This may happen someday, but so far there is no evidence of it.

Regulations might be slowly converging (e.g. bidding-box) because fair-minded players would prefer a more level playing-field.

 

IMO, however there will always be a vocal minority who favour chauvinist local regulations. Thus.ACBL professionals want to protect their sponsors from:

• Conventions popular in other RAs e.g. Multi :)
• Effective defences. e.g I'm told that many ACBL 2/1 players adopted a short club opening. Unfortunately, their opponents developed artificial defences. Humpty Dumpty ACBL regulators retaliated by redefining 1♣ on a 2-card suit, as "natural". This cunningly rendered many effective defences illegal :)

That might also be the reason that the WBF allow seemingly daft elections from the law-book. A good example is allowing a defender to ask "having none". In theory and ostensibly, this is so partner can check if you've revoked. In practice, when partner asks, it might be hard to ignore the UI that declarer probably has more cards in the suit. Incidentally, In the ACBL and other RAs that chose this election, players now seem to prefer attitude to count signals :)

[blackshoe]

AFAIK, attitude has always been the preferred signal in NA.

[nige1]

AFAIK, attitude has always been the preferred signal in NA.

The ACBL always allowed defenders to ask each other "Having none?".

At one stage, most other RAs didn't permit this potential UI.

[mycroft]

Again with my standard line: this is not a law problem, it's not a regulation problem, it's an education problem and an enforcement problem (and "how to enforce", consistently, is a different education problem). Enforce the current laws and regulations correctly, and this will clear up. Nail the "strong NT, 2/1" players as hard as the "crazy system" players; go after the 2♦ "so what is that?" people as UI when there is exactly one non-Alertable meaning; promote, with examples and articles and pre-game discussions, what correct disclosure entails; make it uncool to be the "oh, he has the card, somewhere" pair; all of the things.

 

But nobody cares enough to make this a priority, especially because "it will drive the C players away". Well, it will if the A players are obnoxious about it, or if they "get away with things" that the C players don't, or if it only applies when the C players explain in a way that the regulars don't understand, but when the regulars explain their system (in a way that you and I would understand) and the C players don't understand it, and refuse to break it down to C level, and the TD says "that's their agreement, what's the problem"...

 

But that's even *more* education.

 

I strongly disagree that new regulations or standardization will help. Nobody plays "standard" anything; the things that require explanation are the odd cases; and nobody else on this thread knows what half of what I play with my partner *is*, and frankly, that's not a bad thing. But it's hard to regulate without regulating the system out of the world.

[Vampyr]

Perhaps more players would familiarise themselves with the rules if the multitude of current documents were replaced by a single rule-book, with simplified rules that most players and directors could understand.

 

No, if the EBU, for example, published a lawbook and included EBU regulations in it, more people would not read it.

Regulations might be slowly converging (e.g. bidding-box) because fair-minded players would prefer a more level playing-field.

 

No RA is prevented from adopting WBF regulations, but there does not seem to be a rush to do so.

 

IMO, however there will always be a vocal minority who favour chauvinist local regulations. Thus.ACBL professionals want to protect their sponsors from:

• Conventions popular in other RAs e.g. Multi :)
• Effective defences. e.g I'm told that many ACBL 2/1 players adopted a short club opening. Unfortunately, their opponents developed artificial defences. Humpty Dumpty ACBL regulators retaliated by redefining 1♣ on a 2-card suit, as "natural". This cunningly rendered many effective defences illegal :)

That might also be the reason that the WBF allow seemingly daft elections from the law-book. A good example is allowing a defender to ask "having none". In theory and ostensibly, this is so partner can check if you've revoked. In practice, when partner asks, it might be hard to ignore the UI that declarer probably has more cards in the suit. Incidentally, In the ACBL and other RAs that chose this election, players now seem to prefer attitude to count signals :)

 

Why is it a a minority who prefer their local regulations? If it were, the regulations would likely change. I agree that defining an opening in your shortest suit as natural is ridiculous, but that's what American players want, so we have different regulations and are both happy.

 

If the system is corrupt and professional players are influencing the RA to issue regulations that their sponsors and nobody else wants, that is another matter entirely.

[paulg]

IMO, however there will always be a vocal minority who favour chauvinist local regulations.

I think Vampyr is much closer to the mark than this.

 

The vast majority, and I'd guess it is close to 99%, of NBO members prefer their local regulations to the regulations of another NBO or RA. I don't see anyone in Scotland asking to use the EBU regulations and I doubt that the EBU members want to play the modified WBF regulations uses in Scotland. People dislike change. Although there is a vocal community on this and other forums complaining about ACBL regulations, they represent about 0.01% of the ACBL membership and is not a representative group (even though I agree with most of their views).

 

I suspect a large group of people who are inconvenienced by differing NBO regulations are Scottish players who play in England. And their main concern is not the alerting rules or system policy, but the fact that they need a different system card. Of course they could use this EBU system card in Scotland, but it wouldn't be very Scottish to do so :) I guess this affects perhaps 20 people!

 

In terms of the number of people who play outside their NBO, I just don't hear anyone complaining about the different regulations.

[barmar]

That might also be the reason that the WBF allow seemingly daft elections from the law-book. A good example is allowing a defender to ask "having none". In theory and ostensibly, this is so partner can check if you've revoked. In practice, when partner asks, it might be hard to ignore the UI that declarer probably has more cards in the suit. Incidentally, In the ACBL and other RAs that chose this election, players now seem to prefer attitude to count signals :)

FYI, it's no longer an RA election. The 2017 Law allows it everywhere.

[nige1]

I think Vampyr is much closer to the mark than this.

The vast majority, and I'd guess it is close to 99%, of NBO members prefer their local regulations to the regulations of another NBO or RA. I don't see anyone in Scotland asking to use the EBU regulations and I doubt that the EBU members want to play the modified WBF regulations uses in Scotland. People dislike change. Although there is a vocal community on this and other forums complaining about ACBL regulations, they represent about 0.01% of the ACBL membership and is not a representative group (even though I agree with most of their views).

I suspect a large group of people who are inconvenienced by differing NBO regulations are Scottish players who play in England. And their main concern is not the alerting rules or system policy, but the fact that they need a different system card. Of course they could use this EBU system card in Scotland, but it wouldn't be very Scottish to do so :) I guess this affects perhaps 20 people!

 

In terms of the number of people who play outside their NBO, I just don't hear anyone complaining about the different regulations.

Judging from what they say to me, EBU and SBU players are unhappy with local regulations but are too apathetic to fight City-Hall. This seems common to other RAs. For example, judging by Bridge-Winners, ACBL members are unhappy too. I accept that players are patriotic, so they wouldn't elect to adopt the rules of another RA. But I think most would be happier with simpler integrated global rules that they could understand. I concede that, until RAs poll members, we're just guessing.

 

Incidentally, decades ago, I was an active member of BLML (The Bridge Laws Mailing List). Instructive and fun. Then, as now, I proposed rule-changes. I enjoyed arguing with Grattan Endicott, Bill (Kojak) Schoder, and other WBF legislators. On BLML, directors earned Browny-points by ridiculing my suggestions. But I also received private emails from members. Many broadly agreed with my suggestions but most proposed alternative treatments or modifications. I replied by asking them to stop writing to me and to post their ideas on BLML, instead. But nobody did. Thankfully, nowadays, more players seem prepared pop their heads above the parapet. :)

[blackshoe]

In practice, when partner asks, it might be hard to ignore the UI that declarer probably has more cards in the suit.

The recipient of UI isn't supposed to ignore it, he's supposed to carefully avoid taking advantage of it. If that's too hard for the recipient to do, his partner shouldn't ask the question. On the other hand, I've said before, and stand by, that one should trust one's partner not to use UI in choosing his calls or plays. On the gripping hand, should we not also trust him not to revoke?

[mycroft]

People like to complain. It seems that a certain other site, apart from a couple of "rah rah" issues, that's all they want to do. I also note that they could care less about the 80% of tournament players who will never win an open event, except to "protect them against all the weird stuff" (they don't want to play against). But I may be biased - I have a different issue with that site. But really, every time I read anything that isn't straight play there, I need a unicorn chaser. It's just so depressing.

 

People like to complain. I don't know anyone who's actually *happy* about their regulations; but I bet if we said in September we're going to [other ZA] regulations, the response would be much more than "not happy". They're okay with it, and they don't like change, even change for the better. Given the number of people who still complain about the stop card used correctly and having to announce 15-17s, I don't think that's ever going to change.

 

Despite the frustration you have here, and others have with your hobby-horses, we (well, I, but I think many) are very happy to have you here, and very happy to listen to your suggestions, as there are nuggets of useful in there. Taking the whole thing - well that would be a jump, and I think there's a shark somewhere. But there *are* good ideas there, and we do think about them and use them in our own arguments and gentle pushes to get change.

 

I just don't think that the sledgehammer solution will work - because every time we try it, it doesn't work. I also think it's overkill, trying to write in law what we want and get people to toe the line because otherwise the cops will get on their back and they'll get speeding tickets. My guess is, without the "can't leave the game" part of normal legislation, that strategy will just lead to people leaving the game - and I have a case study (of innumerable previous mentions) as evidence.

 

But please don't stop with the noticing of issues and attempting to correct them. Like a certain North London Club (someone else's hobbyhorse-corral), and possibly a certain CamelCased mustelid (now whose hobbyhorse could *that* be?) it *is* useful, even if the world won't suddenly have its messianic moment and switch to the obvious right answer for you.

[blackshoe]

People around here don't complain about the stop card, they just ignore it — and get upset and feign ignorance if you call 'em on a BIT.

[nige1]

People like to complain. It seems that a certain other site, apart from a couple of "rah rah" issues, that's all they want to do. I also note that they could care less about the 80% of tournament players who will never win an open event, except to "protect them against all the weird stuff" (they don't want to play against). But I may be biased - I have a different issue with that site. But really, every time I read anything that isn't straight play there, I need a unicorn chaser. It's just so depressing.

People like to complain. I don't know anyone who's actually *happy* about their regulations; but I bet if we said in September we're going to [other ZA] regulations, the response would be much more than "not happy". They're okay with it, and they don't like change, even change for the better. Given the number of people who still complain about the stop card used correctly and having to announce 15-17s, I don't think that's ever going to change.

Despite the frustration you have here, and others have with your hobby-horses, we (well, I, but I think many) are very happy to have you here, and very happy to listen to your suggestions, as there are nuggets of useful in there. Taking the whole thing - well that would be a jump, and I think there's a shark somewhere. But there *are* good ideas there, and we do think about them and use them in our own arguments and gentle pushes to get change.

I just don't think that the sledgehammer solution will work - because every time we try it, it doesn't work. I also think it's overkill, trying to write in law what we want and get people to toe the line because otherwise the cops will get on their back and they'll get speeding tickets. My guess is, without the "can't leave the game" part of normal legislation, that strategy will just lead to people leaving the game - and I have a case study (of innumerable previous mentions) as evidence.

But please don't stop with the noticing of issues and attempting to correct them. Like a certain North London Club (someone else's hobbyhorse-corral), and possibly a certain CamelCased mustelid (now whose hobbyhorse could *that* be?) it *is* useful, even if the world won't suddenly have its messianic moment and switch to the obvious right answer for you.

Thank you, Mycroft. And I like 2 of your examples:

1. When the EBU introduced announcements, I was one of the many critics. In fact, the experiment turned out well. For example, it has reduced the frequency of the once-popular Weasel over notrumps. This illustrates that, in spite of initial resistance, beneficial change is welcomed, belatedly.
2. UK bidding-box rules, especially stop-card regulations seem a boon to players. Scandinavian stop-card regulations might be even better. ACBL stop-card regulations, however, seem markedly inferior. In this kind of area, RAs might learn from each other, eventually. But the WBF could accelerate the pace of improvement by cherry-picking best-practice and incorporating it directly into the law-book.

[Vampyr]

People like to complain. I don't know anyone who's actually *happy* about their regulations; but I bet if we said in September we're going to [other ZA] regulations, the response would be much more than "not happy".

As you say, people like to complain rather than count their blessings. Hopefully people complain to stimulate change and not for the sake of it.

 

I complain that the EBU don't allow transfer openings (as far as I can see it is because a tiny but vocal minority of people didn't like them.) I think that the EBU made a poor decision, and not because I personally want to play transfer openings. I don't, but I do want to be exposed to them. (Ditto forcing pass, but I think this might turn off a lot of people, so I understand.)

 

On the other hand, I never have to play in events as restrictive as ACBL's Midchart. So I would have to confess to being "happy" when I compare to what I could have had.

[nige1]

Again with my standard line: this is not a law problem, it's not a regulation problem, it's an education problem and an enforcement problem (and "how to enforce", consistently, is a different education problem). Enforce the current laws and regulations correctly, and this will clear up. Nail the "strong NT, 2/1" players as hard as the "crazy system" players; go after the 2♦ "so what is that?" people as UI when there is exactly one non-Alertable meaning; promote, with examples and articles and pre-game discussions, what correct disclosure entails; make it uncool to be the "oh, he has the card, somewhere" pair; all of the things..

I agree there's an education problem. The rules of Bridge are spread over several documents. More if you play in several RAs. The rules are complex and disorganised. Simpler integrated rules would be easier for players and directors to understand. That might help the education process.

 

But nobody cares enough to make this a priority, especially because "it will drive the C players away". Well, it will if the A players are obnoxious about it, or if they "get away with things" that the C players don't, or if it only applies when the C players explain in a way that the regulars don't understand, but when the regulars explain their system (in a way that you and I would understand) and the C players don't understand it, and refuse to break it down to C level, and the TD says "that's their agreement, what's the problem"... But that's even *more* education..

Bridge rules are too sophisticated and subjective. This results in inconsistent and incomprehensible rulings that put off players and potential players. Especially when rules seem to favour better players. Simpler easy to learn rules might help.

 

I strongly disagree that new regulations or standardization will help. Nobody plays "standard" anything; the things that require explanation are the odd cases; and nobody else on this thread knows what half of what I play with my partner *is*, and frankly, that's not a bad thing. But it's hard to regulate without regulating the system out of the world.

Recent WBF policy avoids simplification and standardisation. Instead it favours sophistication and delegation of powers to RAs and to directors. IMO, simplification would facilitate the education process and is worth a try.

[Vampyr]

The fact that so many cases not adequately covered by the laws appear on these forums is evidence that the laws cannot really be simplified. Though it would be nice if they had chosen to simplify the language.

 

I can understand why some people might think that regulations are "complex and disorganised". I am fortunate to live in England, where this is not the case.

[mycroft]

I go back to my *other* standard line: has anybody here read the Rules of Golf? And the Interpretations? And the annual casebooks? And their local club rules?

How about Baseball? Also, anybody wonder why, if the laws are the same across everywhere, there are no aluminum bats in the majors? or Mercy rules? or...?

Yes, the laws could use better care and handling, but when nobody cares enough to do something more than decennial "review", clearly it isn't important.

Yes, the local regulations could - especially in the ACBL - be better organized, better promulgated, and less vague. And we could have a group of people whose *job* it is to collect corner cases and issue interpretations, and promulgate those as well.

 

But this is not a unique situation, ladies and gentlemen (and others^*). It's common to many competitive games and sports of similar complexity, that are played by world champions and the man in the street. What's different about bridge is how much 99% of the players care about it - including 90% of the world champions.

 

(*) Argh, missing footnote.

"Yes, I know all our members are ladies and gentlemen. What I meant to say is, 'some of you have brought *friends*.' " - Anna Russell