[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2012-May-20, 15:31, said:

A matter of opinion. IMO: Good for some locals. Bad for innovators. Bad for foreigners. Bad for a level playing-field. Bad for global competition. Bad for the game.

It is true that most sets of regulations stifle innovation -- I consider it a real shame that, for example, transfer openings are not allowed in the EBU. But consider this: if "world regulations" were introduced, what would they be modeled on? Just maybe the ACBL's, which are probably the most restrictive in the world? This would be a lot worse for innovators than the present conditions.

Apart from that, regulations are designed to suit the players who play under them. This is normal and desirable. Why would it ever be right to try to please anyone except your own punters?

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-22, 00:12, said:

Apart from that, regulations are designed to suit the players who play under them. This is normal and desirable. Why would it ever be right to try to please anyone except your own punters?

Reductio ad absurdum: Should the ACBL then come clean and just ban foreigners from winning its domestic competitions?

[ArtK78]

nige1, on 2012-May-20, 12:18, said:

Law-makers' objection to odd-even signals is that they are effective but they are played by few players -- in particular: by few clients of professionals

Obviously, the ban has nothing to do with ethics or slow signals. Ethical problems are the same as normal. In either case, you must think what is the correct card to play and whether you can afford to play it.

• Playing hi-lo signals, if all partner's cards are hi or low, his signal may not be clear until he plays a second card of higher or lower rank. One of Victor Mollo's characters got round this witth ♣T98 by dropping the eight on the floor and while scrabbling for it, crying "low club coming up, partner".
• Playing odd-even signals, with no cards of appropriate parity, partner peters with cards of the wrong-parity. Again his signal may be unclear until he plays a second card.

• Sometimes playing hi-lo signals, if you can see lots of high (or low cards), then partner's first card is unambiguous,
• Similarly, playing odd-even sighals, if you can see lots of odd (or even cards), then partner's first card may be unambiguous.

Strongly disagree with this.

(1) Odd-Even First Discards are played by a large number of American players. However, before they were banned, odd-even carding throughout the hand (not just at first discard) was played by a number of American players. Not a large number, but a significant enough number to be noticed.

(2) The reason for the ban on multi-meaning carding at any time other than a player's first discard is as stated previously - ethical problems that arise from subsequent plays when the player has run out of appropriate cards to play. This is a problem inherent in the method and was noticed during the time when such carding methods were permitted in ACBL play. As soon as it became apparent that even expert highly ethical players were having difficulties, the methods were banned except at a player's first opportunity to discard.

I like a method that was published in The Bridge World many years ago which, I believe, is not permitted under ACBL regulations, as it applies at trick 1 and not at a player's first discard. If third hand has a known long suit (for example, third hand opened 3♠) and his partner's opening lead is in that suit, then third hand plays a high or low even card to indicate attitude (whatever high or low means in your methods) and count (even number of cards) or a high or low odd card to indicate attitude and count (an odd number of cards). The only ethical problem that may arise is if you can't find the appropriate card for the situation, which should be rare when you are marked with 6 or more cards in the suit. But, in that case, partner may be able to work out that you don't have the appropriate spot from looking at his own hand and the dummy and declarer's play to trick 1. In any event, it is not a continuing problem, as it only applies to trick 1.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2012-May-22, 10:30, said:

Reductio ad absurdum: Should the ACBL then come clean and just ban foreigners from winning its domestic competitions?

If ACBL players were staying away in large numbers because of the possibility, I would consider it the ACBL's duty to do this (Or anyway not allow foreigners to enter).

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-22, 12:11, said:

If ACBL players were staying away in large numbers because of the possibility, I would consider it the ACBL's duty to do this (Or anyway not allow foreigners to enter).

I'm beginning to see why we disagree. From a local point of view, foreigners are a minority whose interests are of secondary importance: "Bridge is a local game for local people". Viewed globally, however, locals to any given place are the minority, whereas foreigners are the overwhelming majority. Foreign travel is increasing and many people now play Bridge in different countries. Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules but they can't in the current tower of Babel. Also, IMO, conformity to world-wide rules would improve the game and legitimise international competition.

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2012-May-22, 15:31, said:

Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules

Is that true? Speaking for myself, I'm quite happy to play under English rules in England, American rules in America, French rules in France, WBF rules in WBF events, and so on.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-May-22, 17:34, said:

Is that true? Speaking for myself, I'm quite happy to play under English rules in England, American rules in America, French rules in France, WBF rules in WBF events, and so on.

So am I. I've played in about 15 countries, and I'm sure many posters have played in more. Who are these people you are talking about, Nigel, and can we hear from them? You say this so often, but no one has mentioned having problems playing in foreign jurisdictions except you. I'm very sorry about that, but I don't think that bridge regulations should be designed to suit one person.

I'd like to add that my experience is radically different from yours -- at all EBU tournaments I have been to, the overwhelming majority of players are English; at the club level, the overwhelming majority are Londoners.

In any case,the foreigners who do come seem as un-bothered as Andy and I about the regulations in force.

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2012-May-22, 17:34, said:

Is that true? Speaking for myself, I'm quite happy to play under English rules in England, American rules in America, French rules in France, WBF rules in WBF events, and so on.

Vampyr, on 2012-May-22, 17:57, said:

So am I. I've played in about 15 countries, and I'm sure many posters have played in more. Who are these people you are talking about, Nigel, and can we hear from them? You say this so often, but no one has mentioned having problems playing in foreign jurisdictions except you. I'm very sorry about that, but I don't think that bridge regulations should be designed to suit one person. I'd like to add that my experience is radically different from yours -- at all EBU tournaments I have been to, the overwhelming majority of players are English; at the club level, the overwhelming majority are Londoners. In any case,the foreigners who do come seem as un-bothered as Andy and I about the regulations in force.

Our opinions are moulded by our differing experiences. For example,

• In discussion groups. many foreigners criticise EBU regulations (e.g. fielding, alerting doubles) and ACBL regulations (e.g. convention card, stop-card, systems).
• AFAIR there has been recent discussion about ACBL Multi regulations (When you are allowed to play it at all, you must provide opponents with two official approved defences and allow them to consult their home-brew 1000 page defence at the table). This seems to have annoyed some foreigners.
• In the recent Spring Fours.I'm told that many of the teams were from Scotland and elsewhere. When I played at the Young Chelsea, there were many foreigners. Reading Bridge Club also had many foreign visitors (but I admit we did have an open-door systems policy).
• A charming young French pair were about to join Reading Bridge Club, until they found themselves on the wrong end of an EBU alert-ruling.
• If fewer foreigners now play Bridge in England perhaps it is because of EBU regulations Although I suppose you might argue that is a good thing.
• Players are a tolerant lot. Even if they're prepared to learn a different set of regulations for each country they visit, many say they would be happier not to have that chore.

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2012-May-22, 21:13, said:

Our opinions are moulded by our differing experiences. For example,

In discussion groups. many foreigners criticise EBU regulations (e.g. fielding, alerting doubles) and ACBL regulations (e.g. convention card, stop-card, systems).

AFAIR there has been recent discussion about ACBL Multi regulations (When you are allowed to play it at all, you must provide opponents with two official approved defences and allow them to consult their home-brew 1000 page defence at the table). This seems to have annoyed some foreigners.

So your "experience" of this problem consists of reading posts in internet forums?

In any case, I don't see any reason to suppose that unifying regulations will reduce the volume of criticsm. If, for example, we made everybody play under WBF alerting rules, there would be criticism from all over the world.

Quote

In the recent Spring Fours.I'm told that many of the teams were from Scotland and elsewhere. When I played at the Young Chelsea, there were many foreigners. Reading Bridge Club also had many foreign visitors (but I admit we did have an open-door systems policy).

I don't understand how you get from "There are overseas visitors at some events." to "Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules". If anything, the presence of overseas visitors at our events suggests that they are happy to play under other countries' rules.

Quote

A charming young French pair were about to join Reading Bridge Club, until they found themselves on the wrong end of an EBU alert-ruling.

Your solution appears to be that the French Pair should be forced to play under regulations that don't suit them even when they are in France, solely so that they can be better prepared for an encounter with one of the less charming citizens of Reading.

Quote

If fewer foreigners now play Bridge in England perhaps it is because of EBU regulations Although I suppose you might argue that is a good thing.

Do you actually have any evidence that "fewer foreigners now play Bridge in England"? From a quick look at the list of teams at the Spring Fours, I would say that English events are doing rather better at attracting overseas visitors than they used to.

Apart from this French pair who had a bad experience at a provincial bridge club, do you know of any other overseas player who has chosen not to play bridge in England because of the regulations?

Quote

Players are a complacent lot. Even if they're prepared to learn a different set of regulations for each country they visit, many say they would be happier not to have that chore.

So you keep saying, but I'm still waiting to hear who these "many" are. You have made what feels like 1000 posts on this subject, but I cannot remember anyone agreeing with you that the regulations across the world should be made uniform. Many of the users of this forum do actually play in multiple juriusdictions. If they were all craving uniformity, don't you think that one of them might have said something by now?

[bluejak]

nige1, on 2012-May-22, 15:31, said:

Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules but they can't in the current tower of Babel.

Absolutely not. If when you go abroad it is the same as at home, why go abroad?

A large number of lesser players only want to allow what they have been taught, so - for example - if people in some English clubs visit the USA they would like people to be forced to play Benjaminised Acol. How on earth you think this stimulates global play is beyond me.

But lots of people enjoy the challenge of a different environment, a different type of bridge, lots of things different. I don't even really mind playing in Scotland despite its awful alerting rules!

[gordontd]

I think Nigel's posts would be more accurate if they had a blanket substitution of "most", "many" or just "players", with "Nigel". Then the many for whom Nigel purports to speak could indicate their agreement with him by means of the "+" button.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2012-May-23, 04:37, said:

I don't understand how you get from "There are overseas visitors at some events." to "Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules". If anything, the presence of overseas visitors at our events suggests that they are happy to play under other countries' rules.

The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. Maybe they just want to play bridge, and they put up with the unfamiliar rules because it's better than not playing at all.

By your logic, one could conclude that people like traveling to countries where they don't speak the language. No, they just think it's a necessary inconvenience to visit interesting places.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2012-May-23, 10:37, said:

The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. Maybe they just want to play bridge, and they put up with the unfamiliar rules because it's better than not playing at all.

By your logic, one could conclude that people like traveling to countries where they don't speak the language. No, they just think it's a necessary inconvenience to visit interesting places.

I didn't make any conclusion, and I didn't say anything followed from anything else. "If anything, X suggests Y" allows two possibilities: X suggests Y, or X suggests nothing.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2012-May-23, 05:28, said:

I think Nigel's posts would be more accurate if they had a blanket substitution of "most", "many" or just "players", with "Nigel". Then the many for whom Nigel purports to speak could indicate their agreement with him by means of the "+" button.

Most players whom I've asked would like universal rules. It would be easy for NBA's to poll the views of their members. .
My experience may be atypical and I could be mistaken but I write what I believe,
I try to echo what people say or write, rather than claim to speak for them.
I read many criticisms of local regulations in discussion groups.
I was told that many foreign teams entered the Spring fours.
I met many foreign players playing at Reading Bridge Club
I try to distinguish opinion from fact

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2012-May-23, 04:37, said:

So your "experience" of this problem consists of reading posts in internet forums?

Not "consists of" but "includes"

gnasher, on 2012-May-23, 04:37, said:

In any case, I don't see any reason to suppose that unifying regulations will reduce the volume of criticsm. If, for example, we made everybody play under WBF alerting rules, there would be criticism from all over the world.

Good example: The SBU enforces WBF regulations with few problems

gnasher, on 2012-May-23, 04:37, said:

I don't understand how you get from "There are overseas visitors at some events." to "Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules".

I made no such argument.

gnasher, on 2012-May-23, 04:37, said:

If anything, the presence of overseas visitors at our events suggests that they are happy to play under other countries' rules.

Another non sequitor, IMO.

gnasher, on 2012-May-23, 04:37, said:

Your solution appears to be that the French Pair should be forced to play under regulations that don't suit them even when they are in France, solely so that they can be better prepared for an encounter with one of the less charming citizens of Reading.

Global rules would prevent their predacament.

gnasher, on 2012-May-23, 04:37, said:

Do you actually have any evidence that "fewer foreigners now play Bridge in England"? From a quick look at the list of teams at the Spring Fours, I would say that English events are doing rather better at attracting overseas visitors than they used to.

I made no such claim. I live in Scotland. It was a reply to a point made by Vampyr. The smileys were meant to indicate a jocular rejoinder.

gnasher, on 2012-May-23, 04:37, said:

Apart from this French pair who had a bad experience at a provincial bridge club, do you know of any other overseas player who has chosen not to play bridge in England because of the regulations?

I don't even know whether that French pair stopped playing bridge in England..

gnasher, on 2012-May-23, 04:37, said:

So you keep saying, but I'm still waiting to hear who these "many" are. You have made what feels like 1000 posts on this subject, but I cannot remember anyone agreeing with you that the regulations across the world should be made uniform. Many of the users of this forum do actually play in multiple juriusdictions. If they were all craving uniformity, don't you think that one of them might have said something by now?

Good point, Gnasher. I get private emails from some with similar views. but fewer than I'd hope. And none can be bothered to pop their heads above the parapet.

Incidentally, there are thousands of unresolved on-line disputes about the interpretation of Bridge law and regulation in simple basic cases. Many high-light legal anomalies, some of which are decades old. IMO local regulation makes resolution harder.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2012-May-23, 11:27, said:

I didn't make any conclusion, and I didn't say anything followed from anything else. "If anything, X suggests Y" allows two possibilities: X suggests Y, or X suggests nothing.

But I showed how it could also suggest Z, so there are at least three possibilities.

[Mbodell]

nige1, on 2012-May-23, 12:58, said:

Most players whom I've asked would like universal rules. It would be easy for NBA's to poll the views of their members. .
My experience may be atypical and I could be mistaken

I can easily imagine that most players would like universal rules in two conditions:

1. The universal rules are exactly the same as their current local rules.

2. The only differences between the universal rules and their current local rules are ones they like (I.e., for some players able to play transfers over 1C or multi-landy).

I suspect the answers would be different if you asked them:

Quote

Would you like the rules to be the same everywhere, where this same is completely different from what you are used to or think is appropriate?

How would people in Europe feel if multi wasn't allowed? How would people in Poland feel if polish club wasn't allowed, or was greatly restricted? How would people in the ACBL feel if multi was allowed, destructive methods were allowed over a "could be short" "American natural" one club? How would folks in Australia or New Zealand feel about no forcing pass and no moscito? How would people in the US feel about alerting many doubles they don't today? Or alerting stayman?

So I think it is a nice idea to imagine the rules the same everywhere, but it is impossible to agree to without having some idea of what these rules are. Personally, I think it is much more important to have the rules be as good as possible in as many places as possible (especially where I play or am likely to play).

[nige1]

Mbodell, on 2012-May-23, 20:28, said:

I can easily imagine that most players would like universal rules in two conditions:
1. The universal rules are exactly the same as their current local rules.
2. The only differences between the universal rules and their current local rules are ones they like (I.e., for some players able to play transfers over 1C or multi-landy).
I suspect the answers would be different if you asked them:
How would people in Europe feel if multi wasn't allowed? How would people in Poland feel if polish club wasn't allowed, or was greatly restricted? How would people in the ACBL feel if multi was allowed, destructive methods were allowed over a "could be short" "American natural" one club? How would folks in Australia or New Zealand feel about no forcing pass and no moscito? How would people in the US feel about alerting many doubles they don't today? Or alerting stayman?
So I think it is a nice idea to imagine the rules the same everywhere, but it is impossible to agree to without having some idea of what these rules are. Personally, I think it is much more important to have the rules be as good as possible in as many places as possible (especially where I play or am likely to play).

As I understand it, most Olympic sprorts have the same rules everywhere, so agreement should be possible with good-will and compromise. In the case of Bridge, even if the principle of universal rules were acceptable, I agree with Mbodell that detailed agreement would be a major stumbling block. IMO, at least to begin with, rules should be kept as simple as possible, starting with just two levels of competition

• Anything goes: (Encrypted bids and signals, Magic diamond, Little major, Forcing pass, EHAA, Moscito, Polish club, you name it -- even 2/1 at a pinch
• Simple system (e.g. WBF standard): Everyone plays the same system card. You can delete items from it but not otherwise alter or add to it.

[Cthulhu D]

Mbodell, on 2012-May-23, 20:28, said:

How would people in Europe feel if multi wasn't allowed? How would people in Poland feel if polish club wasn't allowed, or was greatly restricted? How would people in the ACBL feel if multi was allowed, destructive methods were allowed over a "could be short" "American natural" one club? How would folks in Australia or New Zealand feel about no forcing pass and no moscito? How would people in the US feel about alerting many doubles they don't today? Or alerting stayman?

I wish someone would tell me where in Australia where exactly you can play a HUM because it's pretty much impossible. The real reason to harmonise system regulations is they are currently absurd.

If a 1NT for takeout is a brown sticker in the world championship, the number of which you can use are strictly regulated, why is it permitted without written defences in the lowest level US competitions? It's nuts. The same argument applies for 2D as both majors in the EBU compared to 2H as both majors. One is allowed in novice games and the other is not.. and it's the harder to defend one that is allowed in novice games.

Australia's regulations have some of the same problems, but are very simple so the absurdities are less noticeable, and the majority of tournament games are in a very deregulated environment (HUMs are banned only). But they have the same - if my system would be illegal in the world championships (which it is), why is it legal for club games here? Someone is going badly wrong somewhere.

I suspect the solution would be 6 or 7 levels of system regulation, in line with the EBU. Based on WBF guidelines they could be something like:

Note - example is totally made up off the cuff.

Spoiler

Orange Stickers added for multiway club systems

1: Green or NBO approved systems only.
2: Green + Blue systems only.
3: Green + Blue + Orange - Multi can be grandfathered in by NBOs.
4: Green + Blue + Orange + Red, Ban brown stickers - Multi can be grandfathered in by NBOs.
5: Cap Brown stickers
6: Uncapped brown stickers, no HUMs - so we're banning one level wonder bids and 0-7 openers.
7: No holds barred, HUMs allowed.

Impose a requirement that world championship qualifiers must be level 6+, then let NBOs run to whatever levels they want. Most will settle on a level without many problems. Australia will allow level 6 and cap at 4 for club games, while the UK will settle for 5 and 3 or whatever.

Off the cuff possibility though.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2012-May-22, 21:13, said:

[list][*]In discussion groups. many foreigners criticise EBU regulations (e.g. fielding, alerting doubles) and ACBL regulations (e.g. convention card, stop-card, systems).[*]

All regulations will attract some grumbling -- none can suit everyone. People will be unhappy that in country A (or anywhere in the world) they can't play X, Y and Z, and probably there are people who also wish they didn't have to play against X₁, Y₁ and Z₁, although they don't post on these forums and most of us don't know any of them! At least when the regulations are controlled by NBOs, people can, if they wish, lobby for change, and the history of the Orange Book shows that this has been done successfully many times. Generally, changes that are popular among an NBO's players can be made fairly easily, as players/authorities all over the world do not have to be consulted. A set of "global regulations", even an imaginary one that was popular around the world, would be extremely difficult to ever change. That would stifle innovation for sure.