[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-25, 23:32, said:

Why do you think this? The ACBL would have enormous influence on "universal regulations", and the result would be more restrictive than most places have now. I cannot argue with the consistency part, though I don't really think that is so important.

All NBO administraots would have some influence on universal rules. Ideally so would some ordinary players. I feel this would result in a broader church as far as system-regulation is concerned. Perhaps I'm wrong and Vampyr's pessimism is justified.

Vampyr, on 2012-May-25, 23:32, said:

Please remember that most players, especially inexperienced or middling players, play almost all of their bridge in their home country. And most people who travel for leisure are interested in tourism, not sampling the local bridge clubs. If they do engage in the latter, it will be so rarely that the different regulations will not have much impact on their lives.

I think players prefer to play and watch games under a global set of rules; but again Vampyr could be right.

Vampyr, on 2012-May-25, 23:32, said:

On the other hand, those who go abroad specifically to play bridge are able to handle regulations that are different from those in their home countries. And if they don't like the regulations in a certain NBO, there are plenty of other places they can go play in instead.

More bridge-players are playing under different jurisdictions . IMO: non-locals dislike modifying their system, writing new system-cards.and learning new regulations, in each country they visit. Locals would prefer fair competition, with no handicap imposed on non-locals. Again Vampyr's experience may be different.

Vampyr, on 2012-May-25, 23:32, said:

Anyway, the question is not so much whether your solution is the best one; it is whether the problem exists. I am not convinced that it does, and neither is anyone else, except for these mysterious people you have mentioned.

Contibutors to several BBO topics criticise strange local regulations.

Vampyr, on 2012-May-25, 23:32, said:

One example you gave of these people's dissatisfaction with EBU regulations is that they don't like the alerting rules for doubles. A great many of us here like them, and think that the EBU have got this one right. Why do you feel that those of us who play week in, week out and attend all of the congresses should be forced to give up something we like to satisfy people who come over once or twice a year? When standardisation is forced across different countries and cultures, the result is generally a muddled mediocrity. Have you ever heard of something called the EU?

IMO, guardians of local sovereignty sabotage EU regulations, so that they are woolly, complex, and inconsistently enforced, leading to unfairness and corruption

Vampyr, on 2012-May-25, 23:32, said:

Does the objection of others matter to you, or are these proposed universal regulations intended for your sole benefit? Obviously you intend to write them, along with the standard WBF system. Or are you prepared for these things to be things that you hate?

I've answered most of that before: IMO: the WBF and NBOs should poll ordinary players' views, rather than rely on the opinions of a few administrators and directors. We all enjoy playing Bridge in spite of some bad rules. We'll go on complying with new rules, although some of us hope they'll be better than current rules.

On-line Bridge has benefited the game. I hope that further simplification and standardisation of the rules for on-line play will over-take some of this debate

[gnasher]

Consider this (not totally unrealistic secanrio): the WBF and NBOs poll their members about whether Myxo Two-bids should be allowed, and the (simplified) results are:

South Pacific (pop 47,000): 98% of members want them allowed
North America: (pop 161,000): 98% of members want them disallowed
Rest of world (combined pop 485,000): 50% of members want them allowed

A majority favour banning Myxo Two-bids, so we ban them.

Outside Australia nobody had even heard of Myxo Two-bids until now, so this change in the rules has no effect. Inside Australia, all the pairs who play Myxo Two-bids find themselves forced to play something else. Chthulu D gives up bridge in disgust. The ABF say that there was nothing they could do, as it was decision made 10,000 miles away in Lausanne. The WBF point to their poll results. Everyone blames the Americans.

All this so that a Scottish tourist who happens to walk into a bridge club on the other side of the world can stay in his comfort zone?

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-May-25, 01:27, said:

Assuming you mean "EBU", it's allowed at levels 3 and 4

Are you sure? Due to the Orange Book's weird organisation, the following appears under "allowed at Level 4 only":

Quote

11 C 15 Openings in a major: general
An opening bid of 1♥ or 1♠ is only permitted if it shows at least four cards in the suit
bid, forcing or not.

nige1, on 2012-May-25, 16:23, said:

IMO
[list][*]Innovation in systems and conventions is easy to encourage or to prevent by trivial rule-changes. If the rules permit creativity, innovation depends on players' imagination.

Getting a world-wide regulation changed to allow the method you want to experiment with would be anything but trivial.

nige1, on 2012-May-26, 01:05, said:

Perhaps I'm wrong and Vampyr's pessimism is justified.

I'm not pessimistic -- I am confident that it will never happen. You forget that the WBF have system regulations, whichi are broadly customisable by letting the different colours in or out at the levels you want. But few countries use them. Surely NBOs would save themselves the effort of creating system regulations if they could just use the WBF's. But they don't. Why do you suppose that is?

One-size-fits-all rules tend to make no one happy. They are certainly never the best of what the constituent parts have to offer. Remember the comments about the EU?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-26, 11:49, said:

Surely NBOs would save themselves the effort of creating system regulations if they could just use the WBF's. But they don't. Why do you suppose that is?

The same reason there will almost certainly never be a common international spoken language. Logically, it seems like everyone speaking the same language would be best, but inertia and patriotic attachment to one's native language conspire to prevent it.

In fact, language is part of a national identity, and I wouldn't be surprised if bridge players feel similarly about the relationship between their national organization and its regulatory style. For instance, I think Australians have boasted about how liberal their convention restrictions are, which seems to be consistent with what I know about Australia as a country.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2012-May-25, 02:24, said:

Should the WBF, in the interests of uniformity, make it illegal for Cthulhu D to play his system at his local club?

My answer: no. Also, that wouldn't work in North America at all, unless you substitute "ACBL" for "WBF". Even then, and it spite of the fact that "anything goes" clubs seem to be rare to non-existent here (at least in my neck of the woods) my answer would be no.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2012-May-26, 12:30, said:

In fact, language is part of a national identity, and I wouldn't be surprised if bridge players feel similarly about the relationship between their national organization and its regulatory style.

I was under the impress that players competing in WBF tournaments are required to explain things in English...

I seem to recall an appeal hearing from a Olympiad a few years back where all four players at a table were native German speakers and there was an MI issue because one of the players didn't speak english particularly well.

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2012-May-26, 08:40, said:

Consider this (not totally unrealistic secanrio): the WBF and NBOs poll their members about whether Myxo Two-bids should be allowed, and the (simplified) results are:
South Pacific (pop 47,000): 98% of members want them allowed
North America: (pop 161,000): 98% of members want them disallowed
Rest of world (combined pop 485,000): 50% of members want them allowed
A majority favour banning Myxo Two-bids, so we ban them.
Outside Australia nobody had even heard of Myxo Two-bids until now, so this change in the rules has no effect. Inside Australia, all the pairs who play Myxo Two-bids find themselves forced to play something else. Chthulu D gives up bridge in disgust. The ABF say that there was nothing they could do, as it was decision made 10,000 miles away in Lausanne. The WBF point to their poll results. Everyone blames the Americans.
All this so that a Scottish tourist who happens to walk into a bridge club on the other side of the world can stay in his comfort zone?

System-regulation is an important aspect of current local rules. I hope the WBF will poll ordinary players before making decisions. IMO, the law-committee should take into account minority as well as majority views. Nowadays, the WBF and NBOs implement system restrictions without such consultation. Gnasher is right, however: We may aspire to better things but however simple the legislative structure, mistakes will still be made: fewer mistakes but on a bigger scale

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2012-May-26, 14:38, said:

System-regulation is an important aspect of current local rules. I hope the WBF will poll ordinary players before making decisions. IMO, the law-committee should take into account minority as well as majority views. Nowadays, the WBF and NBOs implement system restrictions without such consultation. Gnasher is right, however: We may aspire to better things but however simple the legislative structure, mistakes will still be made: fewer mistakes but on a bigger scale

It seems like you are starting to recognise that even if your dream of the WBF imposing system regulations came true, the regulations would be unsatisfactory to most people. Also, it is important to note that the Australians and Scots will be the hardest hit -- since they (as far as I know) have the most liberal system regulations, any attempt at harmonisation will necessarily result in their being forced to accept more restrictions.

Be careful what you wish for...

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-26, 11:49, said:

Are you sure? Due to the Orange Book's weird organisation, the following appears under "allowed at Level 4 only":

I thought we were talking about a 2♦ opening showing both majors?

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-26, 11:49, said:

I'm not pessimistic -- I am confident that it will never happen.

I share Stefanie's optimism.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-26, 13:03, said:

My answer: no. Also, that wouldn't work in North America at all, unless you substitute "ACBL" for "WBF". Even then, and it spite of the fact that "anything goes" clubs seem to be rare to non-existent here (at least in my neck of the woods) my answer would be no.

I think you misunderstand (unless I have). Nigel wants a single set of rules covering all bridge everywhere. That means everywhere. Clubs in America would not be allowed to escape this regulatory web - if they were, there would be a risk of a visitor from Lithuania being disadvantaged by unfamiliarity with the rules.

[hrothgar]

gnasher, on 2012-May-26, 16:56, said:

I share Stefanie's optimism.

Nigel has been on his little crusade for years.
I can't recall anyone ever agreeing with him, so I suspect that there is little chance that any of this will be implemented

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-May-26, 16:51, said:

I thought we were talking about a 2♦ opening showing both majors?

LOL I thought it was about transfer openings, eg MOSCITO or "The Heart is in the Groove".

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2012-May-26, 17:00, said:

I think you misunderstand (unless I have). Nigel wants a single set of rules covering all bridge everywhere. That means everywhere. Clubs in America would not be allowed to escape this regulatory web - if they were, there would be a risk of a visitor from Lithuania being disadvantaged by unfamiliarity with the rules.

No, I understand quite well. My point is that the ACBL maintains that it, and not the WBF, is responsible for the laws of bridge in its jurisdiction, not to mention regulations. I'm virtually certain that if the WBF told the ACBL "you must use these laws, and these regulations", the ACBL would tell the WBF to pound sand. So it would take a pretty big change in the ACBL mind set to accept such a thing.

[Cthulhu D]

gnasher, on 2012-May-25, 02:24, said:

That's a good example.

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that:
- The WBF thinks that its system regulations are reasonable and sensible, given the number and range of participants, and the nature of the events.
- Cthulhu D's club thinks that its system regulations are reasonable and sensible, given the number and range of participants, and the nature of the events.

Should the WBF, in the interests of uniformity, make it illegal for Cthulhu D to play his system at his local club? And Nigel, if you're not arguing for that, what are you arguing for?

This does miss my point slightly though - what's the actual case for system regulation?

There is a second driver too - I think the growth of online events is probably going to mean you would like to harmonize system regulations.

[gnasher]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-27, 01:27, said:

This does miss my point slightly though - what's the actual case for system regulation?

I wasn't really trying to address your point. I was just using your example as a way of pointing out the flaws in Nigel's suggested approach.

Since you ask, the case for system regulation is this:

At low levels of the game, system regulation occurs because the participants want it, and it takes the form that the participants want. I can't imagine why anybody would think this a bad thing: if a group of players chooses to disallow the Multi from their game, the decision affects them and nobody else, so nobody else has any right to object. Likewise if another group decides to allow forcing pass systems.

In world championships, many participants prepare thoroughly for their opponents' methods. This is a good thing, because it means that the event is decided by at-the-table bridge skill rather than by preparedness for the opponents' methods. However, none of the participants have unlimited time and resources. The greater the range and complexity of the methods they have to prepare for, the less thorough their preparation will be. The purpose of system regulation at this level is to strike a balance between allowing people the freedom to play methods that suit them, and limiting the burden of preparation on their opponents.

At the levels between those extremes, both arguments apply, depending on your relationship to the event in question. If the ACBL chooses to prohibit a particular category of opening in its premier pairs event, that is none of your or Nigel's business, because you don't play in this event and you don't fund it. If you were an ACBL member or a participant, it would be your business, and you would be entitled to have your opinion carry some weight.

Each different tournament organiser is catering for a particular set of players, with a particular spread of ability, experience, and willingness to prepare defences. It's not at all surprising that in deciding on the appropriate system restrictions they come up wth different answers.

Quote

There is a second driver too - I think the growth of online events is probably going to mean you would like to harmonize system regulations.

It's possible that some organisers of online events would benefit from this, as it would save them from having to make decisions for themselves. However, this isn't much of an argument for changing the rules in offline events. I don't see why we should expect the participants in an offline event to suffer the inconvenience of unsuitable system regulations, solely in order to benefit the organisers of an online event.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-May-27, 16:32

[Cthulhu D]

gnasher, on 2012-May-27, 16:22, said:

In world championships, many participants prepare thoroughly for their opponents' methods. This is a good thing, because it means that the event is decided by at-the-table bridge skill rather than by preparedness for the opponents' methods. However, none of the participants have unlimited time and resources. The greater the range and complexity of the methods they have to prepare for, the less thorough their preparation will be. The purpose of system regulation at this level is to strike a balance between allowing people the freedom to play methods that suit them, and limiting the burden of preparation on their opponents.

The problem here is that a method can be legal in the selection trial and banned in the competition. Everything that holds true about the championship itself is presumably also true about the selections. The reverse is much less of an issue.

Then to prevent a pair qualifying using a method that they cannot actually play, the obvious approach is to ban methods that are also banned at the world champions in your selection trials, but as presumably national championships etc will form part of your selection approach, the World Championships end up as the 'you must not be taller than this to ride' approach to system regulation.

Of course, the status quo is more bizarre. If the rationale is as you state, why can you play methods in the selection trials, then not the round robin, but then you can again in the finals? Literally the same people are at each event, and in similar circumstances. There are plenty of puzzling similar decisions (the use of BSC's in defence at the WC level to 1C = 2+Cs, 1C = 3+Cs, 1C = 4+Cs, 1C = Polish, 1C = Swedish, 1C = Any strong). Why is the cutoff at 3+? Simply tradition? Certainly using Glenn Ashton's test if it's a vexing bid if you could bid a grand slam in a suit they have bid, that is the case for all of those openings.

A major oversight of Bridge regulation atm is the lack of stated reasoning (the EBU is the best at this), for regulating decisions. The experience from stuff like Magic: The Gathering (where the DCI waits for a demonstrably degenerate environment to emerge prior to the regulating then provides reason), is probably a good model.

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2012-May-26, 13:08, said:

I was under the impress that players competing in WBF tournaments are required to explain things in English...

That's consistent with what I was describing.

Since English is the lingua franca of international commerce these days, most people around the world are expected to learn it. But as a SECOND language -- almost no countries have given up their native language and adopted English as the official tongue.

And things are similar in bridge. In international competition, it's obviously necessary to adhere to a single set of regulations. But in local tournaments, local traditions are preferred, and players have little incentive to give them up.

[gnasher]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-27, 21:50, said:

The problem here is that a method can be legal in the selection trial and banned in the competition. Everything that holds true about the championship itself is presumably also true about the selections. The reverse is much less of an issue.

Then to prevent a pair qualifying using a method that they cannot actually play, the obvious approach is to ban methods that are also banned at the world champions in your selection trials, but as presumably national championships etc will form part of your selection approach, the World Championships end up as the 'you must not be taller than this to ride' approach to system regulation.

If that's a problem, it's not the WBF's problem. What alternative do you suggest? The WBF has decided on a system policy that it believes to be appropriate for World Championships. You can't seriously expect the WBF to change this policy so as to make the World Championships look more like the ABF's trials.

Quote

Of course, the status quo is more bizarre. If the rationale is as you state, why can you play methods in the selection trials, then not the round robin, but then you can again in the finals? Literally the same people are at each event, and in similar circumstances.

Which trials are you talking about? If it's the Australian trials, I have no idea - I'm not privy to the ABF's decision-making.

In the Bermuda Bowl, I believe that anything is allowed throughout, so I assume you're talking about the World Mind Sport Games.

In the WMSG round robin last time, each team met 17 other teams, which is 51 pairs. Preparing for 51 different systems is hard work. If some of those are HUMs, it's much harder work. Many of the teams in the WMSG are amateurs, on limited budgets, and without any support staff.

In the WMSG knockout, you meet a maximum of four teams, and most of the teams that get through are predictable. If Italy, Belgium and New Zealand all plan to play a HUM in the knockout stages, you can probably get away with preparing for Italy only; if you happen to encounter one of the other two in the first knockout round you will still have half a day in which to prepare something; if you're going to encounter them in a later round you will have several days.

I can understand why this should lead to different system regulations for the different stages. That doesn't mean I agree with it (I have mixed opinions), but I don't find it at all strange.

Quote

There are plenty of puzzling similar decisions (the use of BSC's in defence at the WC level to 1C = 2+Cs, 1C = 3+Cs, 1C = 4+Cs, 1C = Polish, 1C = Swedish, 1C = Any strong). Why is the cutoff at 3+? Simply tradition? Certainly using Glenn Ashton's test if it's a vexing bid if you could bid a grand slam in a suit they have bid, that is the case for all of those openings.

I thought we were discussing the rationale for system regulations in general? I'm not defending any specific regulations, just the principle that systems should be regulated, and that the regulations should vary according to the event and the location.

Quote

A major oversight of Bridge regulation atm is the lack of stated reasoning (the EBU is the best at this), for regulating decisions.

I certainly agree with that. But that's an argument for better communication, not for either liberalising or unifying systems policy.

[Cthulhu D]

gnasher, on 2012-May-28, 02:58, said:

In the WMSG knockout, you meet a maximum of four teams, and most of the teams that get through are predictable. If Italy, Belgium and New Zealand all plan to play a HUM in the knockout stages, you can probably get away with preparing for Italy only; if you happen to encounter one of the other two in the first knockout round you will still have half a day in which to prepare something; if you're going to encounter them in a later round you will have several days.

I understand that the Bermuda bowl the system regulations are different in the round robin vs the knockout as well. I would confirm this on their website but it down atm.

Anyway, to get to the meat of your example, if that is the case you should ban them entirely! If the amateurs without coaching access etc are to be protected, making your 'protection' it a crapshoot based on other teams results doesn't make any sense. It's also going to lead to dissatisfaction for everyone. Say Belgium is planning on using a HUM if it makes the knockout. They are only a 20% shot, but they get lucky and make it. Now the amateurs are totally screwed - if they couldn't prepare for this with months of lead time, it's completely unreasonable to expect them to jam it through in a few days. The pros are going to be irritated as well because even with the months of coaching this it is very hard work to get across relatively common systems like Polish club etc if you don't play them much (see: Cohen), so they are going to be in the same boat.

Quote

I certainly agree with that. But that's an argument for better communication, not for either liberalising or unifying systems policy.

Yup. My only point was that in places system regulation doesn't line up with the apparent goals, but as there are no stated goals it's impossible to actually asses the performance.