Stayman may or may not have 4cM

[blackshoe]

LAW81 THE DIRECTOR

B. Restrictions and Responsibilities

1. The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament. He has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer.

2. The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws.

Other than "omissions of the Tournament Organizer", I don't see where the laws allow TDs to make rules.

 

Law 80A. The Regulating Authority

1. The Regulating Authority under these laws is:

(a) for its own world tournaments and events, the World Bridge Federation.

(b)the respective Zonal Authority for tournaments and events held under its auspices.

(.c) for any other tournament or event, the National Bridge Organization under whose auspices the tournament takes place.

How would you improve this law?

[blackshoe]

I'm being quiet here for reasons (that most of you can figure out trivially). But Blackshoe, I request you pay attention to *all* of what PesceTom said in that bit you quoted.

Are you referring to this bit: "sometimes even courageous directors need firmer regulations or at least sure support of the regulatory body and organisation"? If so, I'd agree that it's probably a valid complaint. A RA that won't back its directors is not good for the game.

[pescetom]

Well, the ACBL regulation has its faults, but it's a good start. Or would be, if directors enforced it (NB: some do; the problem is that some don't).

It has this specific fault.

Why not state penalty of (say) 10 IMPs (or equivalent in MP) for any pair without a valid card.

This would take the pressure off directors (and conformant players) and onto miscreants.

[blackshoe]

It has this specific fault.

Why not state penalty of (say) 10 IMPs (or equivalent in MP) for any pair without a valid card.

This would take the pressure off directors (and conformant players) and onto miscreants.

I don't disagree, although I might suggest a smaller penalty. What's the equivalent in MP? A full board? More?

[pran]

It has this specific fault.

Why not state penalty of (say) 10 IMPs (or equivalent in MP) for any pair without a valid card.

This would take the pressure off directors (and conformant players) and onto miscreants.

I don't see lack of valid cards to be any real problem in the top A-level (say) 10% of all bridge arrangements.

 

But what do you prefer for the less formal events where players assemble just to play bridge for the fun of the game?

Participation generally reduced by 90% because you will lose all those players who do not bother too much about their declaration cards? (They just want to play bridge)

[sanst]

It has this specific fault.

Why not state penalty of (say) 10 IMPs (or equivalent in MP) for any pair without a valid card.

This would take the pressure off directors (and conformant players) and onto miscreants.

Here is a new pair, that has just learned to play bridge and comes to your club for the first time. They, with some help, find out what’s expected of them and during the first round the TD arrives, find out they have no CC, and penalize them. Do you really believe these will become members or even continue to play bridge in an affiliated club?

In general, if you penalize people who are playing for fun, they won’t come again. It’s far more sensible to explain the why of the rule they violated and if necessary, warn them not to do it again.

[blackshoe]

Do you really think any TD worth his salt would do that? OTOH, the second or third time they need to be penalized. If that's not going to happen, then there should be no requirement for system cards for anyone.

[jillybean]

I don't see lack of valid cards to be any real problem in the top A-level (say) 10% of all bridge arrangements.

 

But what do you prefer for the less formal events where players assemble just to play bridge for the fun of the game?

Participation generally reduced by 90% because you will lose all those players who do not bother too much about their declaration cards? (They just want to play bridge)

 

Which other rules is it ok to not bother too much about and who decides when and which laws to apply?

 

Obviously, the requirement to have a full system card is not applied to the full extent for newer players, but wouldn't it be a good opportunity to provide some education and guidance so when these players do become experienced club players and tournament players they are comfortable filling in a card and it's normal to have one.

 

If only the top A level players are using system cards, and that's ok, then we should have the law rewritten to say it only applies at top A level competition. You can't arbitrarily decide when to adhere to the laws and when you won't.

[pran]

I don't see lack of valid cards to be any real problem in the top A-level (say) 10% of all bridge arrangements.

 

But what do you prefer for the less formal events where players assemble just to play bridge for the fun of the game?

Participation generally reduced by 90% because you will lose all those players who do not bother too much about their declaration cards? (They just want to play bridge)

 

 

Which other rules is it ok to not bother too much about and who decides when and which laws to apply?

 

Obviously, the requirement to have a full system card is not applied to the full extent for newer players, but wouldn't it be a good opportunity to provide some education and guidance so when these players do become experienced club players and tournament players they are comfortable filling in a card and it's normal to have one.

 

If only the top A level players are using system cards, and that's ok, then we should have the law rewritten to say it only applies at top A level competition. You can't arbitrarily decide when to adhere to the laws and when you won't.

 

Do you want more members in your club or don't you care?

[nige1]

Which other rules is it ok to not bother too much about and who decides when and which laws to apply? If only the top A level players are using system cards, and that's ok, then we should have the law rewritten to say it only applies at top A level competition. You can't arbitrarily decide when to adhere to the laws and when you won't.

The problem is that players and TDs have individual likes and dislikes among Bridge laws, regulations, etc. As JillyBean points out, In a fuzzy legal framework, once the rot has started, it's hard to stop.

 

 

 

[nige1]

Do you want more members in your club or don't you care?

Many don't care but some want to play a game according to it's rules.

[jillybean]

Do you want more members in your club or don't you care?

I can only infer from your reply to my question is that the person(s) with the most influence will decide which rules to follow based on personal whims, financial gains or favorite friend of the day. So let's stop the nonsense, stop issuing and charging for master points and play for fun.

 

It's a common argument that enforcing the laws will drive people away, I don't buy that. If players were gently taught, and clubs gently enforced the laws from day 1, it becomes a normal part of the game.

 

The problem is that players and TDs have individual likes and dislikes among B[/size]ridge laws, regulations, etc. As JillyBean points out, In a fuzzy legal framework, once the rot has started, it's hard to stop.

The rot is well under way.

[mycroft]

I thought masterpoints was "playing for fun"?

 

And that's a lot of the problem. Regulation is hard and thankless work, and in most RAs, unpaid. Given that, not expecting the kind of annual review document put out by say, Canadian Baseball or the PGA is probably the way to go. Get better? That would be good, yes.

 

But if you're expecting an administration - any administration - to pay more attention to what's important to you than what's important to them ... you poor naïve beauty. Expecting the people in the middle to pay more attention to what's important to you than what's important to the administration is also naïve. So if you think something should be taken more seriously by the directors - talk to management. It won't work, but it'll work better than not doing it.

 

Complaints that boil down to "why are you not listening to *ME*?, "this isn't important, why do *I* have to follow the rules?" and, later, "I got penalized for X [and that was unfair]. My opponents are doing X, you have to punish them, too, or *it's even more unfair to me*" are endemic in bridge (witness the last 18 months here, and, well, *forever* on That Other Site). Change actually happens two ways - convince the people actually able to make the change, or put in the work to become one of them.

 

Playing "who's the bastard in the black", while enjoyable, is neither.

 

And I 100% see myself in what I just said. I am not innocent by any means (despite occasionally *being* the bastard in the black, quite literally). In fact, just yesterday I was made aware of a change to the ACBL Alert Procedure that means we have to Alert something that we explicitly were told not to before, and which I think is stupid. And I feel personally attacked. I get it.

[pran]

The problem is that players and TDs have individual likes and dislikes among B[/size]ridge laws, regulations, etc. As JillyBean points out, In a fuzzy legal framework, once the rot has started, it's hard to stop.

I believe it is high time to realize that this discussion is not about the laws of bridge, instead:

Each partnership has a duty to make its partnership understandings available to its

opponents. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this is done.

(My enhancement)

 

and:

The Regulating Authority:

(i) is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any

special partnership understanding.

(ii) may prescribe a System Card, with or without supplementary sheets, for the prior

listing of a partnership’s understandings, and regulate its use.

(iii) may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a

partnership’s methods.

(iv) may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the

auction or play following an irregularity committed by the opponents.

(v) may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.

[jillybean]

The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this is done.

Where does the ACBL, and other RA specify this?

[mycroft]

But remember, Pran, that Nigel believes that is the fundamental problem. We should not be granting these rights and responsibilities to RAs. Which would mean a change to the Laws, which means talking to the people who can make *that* change, an even harder task than talking to the SBU... In this case, using "the Law says" as an argument gets you "well, the Law is an ass". While I (massively) disagree with his opinion, it is a valid argument to have, and answering "it shouldn't aughta be that way" with "but that's the way it is" won't solve anything.

 

The failure mode of Nigel's thinking, which has been pointed out before, is that everybody would love to have the same regulations the world over, from the novice game to the world championship - as long as it's the ones they are used to (with the fixes to them that *they* consider important). Which isn't something that *any* sport has done (although chess has come close). There's a reason for that - the flexibility is required to have any hope of a good environment for all (or even most).

 

Does that mean that I don't think we should look at unifying some of these things that currently are regulated 100 different ways by 100 different RAs? No, we definitely should look. But be prepared for the answer to be "no" or "it won't work" on *a lot of* them.

[PeterAlan]

Where does the ACBL, and other RA specify this?

RAs publish their regulations, typically always on their websites (I haven't made any sort of comprehensive check to validate this assertion, but every time I've had occasion to look a website search has worked), and frequently as printable PDF version.

 

Here in EBU's jurisdiction, for example, the regulations that players need to be aware of are in the Blue Book, now supplemented for online play by the SkyBlue Book.

 

There is also a simple Announcing and Alerting Summary and the Best Behaviour code, both of which many clubs will have on display.

 

These cover all that players normally need. Further comprehensive guidance for TDs, and some more specialised material such as the screen regulations, are published in the White Book. There are also some other special regulations, for example regarding matches played privately, and other supplementary material: a full list is here.

[pran]

Where does the ACBL, and other RA specify this?

Silly question.

In their publications of course - where else?

[pran]

But remember, Pran, that Nigel believes that is the fundamental problem. We should not be granting these rights and responsibilities to RAs. Which would mean a change to the Laws, which means talking to the people who can make *that* change, an even harder task than talking to the SBU... In this case, using "the Law says" as an argument gets you "well, the Law is an ass". While I (massively) disagree with his opinion, it is a valid argument to have, and answering "it shouldn't aughta be that way" with "but that's the way it is" won't solve anything.

 

The failure mode of Nigel's thinking, which has been pointed out before, is that everybody would love to have the same regulations the world over, from the novice game to the world championship - as long as it's the ones they are used to (with the fixes to them that *they* consider important). Which isn't something that *any* sport has done (although chess has come close). There's a reason for that - the flexibility is required to have any hope of a good environment for all (or even most).

 

Does that mean that I don't think we should look at unifying some of these things that currently are regulated 100 different ways by 100 different RAs? No, we definitely should look. But be prepared for the answer to be "no" or "it won't work" on *a lot of* them.

I cannot see any reason whatsoever why a Regulating Authority or Tournament Organizer should be deprived of their privileges as given in Laws 80 and 81?

 

There are probably sensible reasons if 100 different RAs have adopted 100 different regulations, none of which is in conflict with the laws, and who could be in a position to convince any RA that it is wrong?

[jillybean]

Peter Alan, thank you! I have had a quick browse through these publications. The Blue Book appears to be full of useful information, written for players, the Alert Chart Summary is 2, well laid out and comprehensible pages, and I'm sure perfectly adequate for any regular player. The EBU have obviously done a commendable job on writing this material.

 

 

Pran, not so helpful. I believe I am actually trying to do the right thing here. My original question was to clarify which bid I should alert, my subsequent comments about Convention Cards were in response to a reply

Aren't these situations that CCs **address. ** #@?%^##ought to/#!%$@

.

 

And now I am hoping to understand how RA's can change the CC requirements, and where I find details of RA specifications. How, as a player, do I know what the RA have specified under Law 40A1(b) ?

[Cascade]

Are you referring to this bit: "sometimes even courageous directors need firmer regulations or at least sure support of the regulatory body and organisation"? If so, I'd agree that it's probably a valid complaint. A RA that won't back its directors is not good for the game.

 

A RA that does back its directors even when they are outside the laws or other powers given to them is also not good for the game.

[Cascade]

ACBL and NZ Bridge

 

Playing 4 way transfers after a 1nt opening, the balanced invitation goes via 2C stayman.

 

1NT 2C* Stayman or general invite

2x 2NT Invitational, may or may not have 4cM

 

Which bid should be alerted? 2C or 2NT

 

My understanding in NZ (and Australia as they have similar if not identical regulations on this point) is that the 2♣ bid needs an alert. Certainly, that has been my practice for many years and I believe the practice of most tournament players that play those methods.

 

There is confusion when the regulations refer to "simple Stayman" but do not define that term. I do not even know what the intended boundary is between "simple" and "non-simple" Stayman but I believe that then intent is that a non-promisory Stayman is not simple. However, I do not know, for example, if Stayman promises a major but can be garbage whether that is "simple Stayman" or indeed whether if your Stayman cannot be garbage whether that is "simple".

 

A finer and related point, given that 2♣ is alerted, assuming my interpretation and experience to be accurate, I think that an artificial 2♦ rebid by opener denying a major should also be alerted if not playing "simple Stayman". Otherwise when the bidding goes 1NT 2♣-alert; 2♦ ... the non-alert makes it look like 2♦ is natural. Whereas 1NT 2♣-no-alert 2♦ looks like a normal response to the "simple Stayman" 2♣ enquiry.

[mycroft]

Things are in fact getting better.

 

I have pointed the thread at the NZB Manual earlier. The ACBL has a "charts and regulations" page (plus the codification, which is frequently more political than technical, but does have current bylaws including the technical ones). The EBU has a "laws and ethics" page with all the documents.

 

So now we have got to the point where "the info is there". The next task is "the info is available in a way that your average member would find it, and written in a way that said member will understand that they've found what they need". We're getting there, as well, but it takes time. This is actually a very hard thing to do, because "it's obvious where this is" after having read it 100 times and found it 30.

 

And pran, I can't see any reason why a lot of the scope for RA regulation needs to be there instead of in the hands of the WBF. Not saying it's wrong for it to *be* in the RA's hands, but a lot of it wouldn't matter one way or the other.

 

As I said last time, I don't agree with Nigel about how far to go - do remember that with the current rules for WBF committee membership, it is very likely that if there is going to be a single regulation, it will be the ACBL's current one. So if he likes his EBU 20B or SBU cards, or opening Multi in his National Pairs Championship, he probably wants to keep this in the hands of the RA :-). But he's not wrong that some of this should be looked at. Especially with the ability to play events "in other countries" opened up to non-world-travellers by the world being online these days, having fewer surprises waiting for people wouldn't be a bad thing.

[pran]

..........

And pran, I can't see any reason why a lot of the scope for RA regulation needs to be there instead of in the hands of the WBF. Not saying it's wrong for it to *be* in the RA's hands, but a lot of it wouldn't matter one way or the other.

..........

Until a signifant majority of RAs agree upon a unified and universal set of regulations without reservations from the rest of RAs I believe they will want Laws 80 and 81 to remain as they are today. I, for one, have not noticed any serious complaints against RAs exercising the power given to them in these laws.

 

Experience tells us that these laws work well within the World Bridge Federation as a whole.

[blackshoe]

Where does the ACBL, and other RA specify this?

In system regulations, alert regulations, and conditions of contest regulations.