[gnasher]

 barmar, on 2012-May-23, 17:37, said:

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

Did you? I can't see how "There are overseas visitors at some events" could possibly lead to the conclusion that overseas players dislike playing under EBU regulations.

I'm not saying that they don't dislike EBU regulations, I'm just saying that you can't infer it from their presence at our events.

[gnasher]

 nige1, on 2012-May-23, 16:36, said:

I made no such argument.

The conversation appears to have been:

Nigel: "Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules."

Me: "Is that true?"

Nigel: [after quoting my question] "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)."

Me: 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".


But perhaps I misunderstood.

[mjj29]

 nige1, on 2012-May-23, 21:40, said:

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.

You'd like to think that those two would be fine, but recently in the EBU strong feedback from tournaments lead to the tournament committee banning transfer openings to the majors in most EBU congresses. It's clear from this that EBU tournament players would not be happy with 'anything goes'. On the flip side, I encounter many many systems at EBU congresses which are not 'simple systems'. Thus it's equally clear they would not be happy with the latter option. The devil is in the details.

In response to your other point about 'local regulations making things harder to enforce' - many of the ambiguities stem from the Laws themselves, not from the local regulations and a lot of (at least the EBU) regulations are about ways to resolve those ambiguities, thus making them easier to apply in the EBU. I'm not claiming it's necessarily a strict gain, or even a net gain, but it's certainly not a strict loss.

[gordontd]

 nige1, on 2012-May-23, 12:58, said:

I try to echo what people say or write, rather than claim to speak for them.

When you frequently write things like:

 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.

it seems that you do claim to speak for them.

[barmar]

 gnasher, on 2012-May-24, 01:28, said:

Did you? I can't see how "There are overseas visitors at some events" could possibly lead to the conclusion that overseas players dislike playing under EBU regulations.

I'm not saying that they don't dislike EBU regulations, I'm just saying that you can't infer it from their presence at our events.

And I'm saying you can't infer that they DO like it, either.

You wrote "If anything, the presence of overseas visitors at our events suggests that they are happy to play under other countries' rules.". I countered that it could suggest this, or it could also suggest that they're willing to play brige under almost any rules, but they're not necessarily happy about it.

Actually, I think I see where we may be getting confused. If playing bridge in any way makes them happy, then you could say that they're happy to play under these rules. But I distinguish the happiness they get from playing bridge in general from happiness with the rules they're playing under.

[nige1]

 nige1, on 2012-May-23, 12:58, said:

I try to echo what people say or write, rather than claim to speak for them.

 gordontd, on 2012-May-24, 02:27, said:

When you frequently write things like: "Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules but they can't in the current tower of Babel." it seems that you do claim to speak for them.

GordonTD said that I should write "Nigel" instead of "Many" or "Most". I protested that I try not to misrepresent the views of others. If an NBO seriously disputes the quoted contention, it is easy for it to poll its members. The statement is based on what people I ask tell me. It seems to accord with common sense: How many people enjoy changing their methods, filling in new convention cards, and learning new regulations, for each country that they visit? If some like doing this, IMO, they are the exception.On reflection, I don't feel that I'm a lone Don Quixote tilting at windmills. Others like cthulhu openly express their similar views in these discussion groups. I suspect that local regulators and directors have a slightly different agenda from ordinary players.

[nige1]

 gnasher, on 2012-May-24, 01:39, said:

The conversation appears to have been:
Nigel: "Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules."
Me: "Is that true?"
Nigel: [after quoting my question] "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)."
Me: 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".
But perhaps I misunderstood.

I apologise for the confusion. My comments on the English scene were in response to what Vampyr wrote in support of Gnasher. (I quoted them both). I should be clearer. Sorry

[bluejak]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-23, 22:41, said:

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.

Novices do not have a difficulty bidding over a 2♥ bid that shows hearts, but conventional bids put them off. You may think that it is easier to defend against a 2♦ opening showing the majors than a 2♥ opening, but a novice does not - so it is reasonable to allow in novice games the one that does not upset novices.

[aguahombre]

Now that the flames have subsided over who speaks for foreigners re: EBU regs ---let's kindle one about who speaks for novices in EBU. That would be only fair to explore in a thread about ACBL convention chart ideas.

[nige1]

 mjj29, on 2012-May-24, 02:15, said:

In response to your other point about 'local regulations making things harder to enforce' - many of the ambiguities stem from the Laws themselves, not from the local regulations and a lot of (at least the EBU) regulations are about ways to resolve those ambiguities, thus making them easier to apply in the EBU. I'm not claiming it's necessarily a strict gain, or even a net gain, but it's certainly not a strict loss.

IMO, mij29 is right but, IMO, local regulations introduce unnecessary complications Some even claim that local regulations contradict WBF laws, although which make less sense is often a moot point. Recent examples:

• EBU regulations on fielding and red psychs (one strike and you're out).
• EBU regulation that you should have a "bridge reason" (e.g considering a bid) for asking a question during the auction.
• ACBL Cub Directors Hanbook advice "Players are generally well advised to take the action they would have taken had there been no huddle."

[gnasher]

 nige1, on 2012-May-24, 14:47, said:

I apologise for the confusion. My comments on the English scene were in response to what Vampyr wrote in support of Gnasher. (I quoted them both). I should be clearer. Sorry

No, it's my fault. If i'd bothered to read all of what you had quoted, I would have understood.

[gnasher]

 nige1, on 2012-May-24, 15:54, said:

• EBU regulation that you should have a "bridge reason" (e.g considering a bid) for asking a question during the auction.

So far as I know there is no such regulation - it's just a myth.

The relevant EBU regulations (3E in the Orange Book) explain in detail how asking questions can create UI, and at one point they offer what some regard as rather poor advice. They don't, however, place any actual restrictions on asking questions.

[Cthulhu D]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-24, 15:20, said:

Novices do not have a difficulty bidding over a 2♥ bid that shows hearts, but conventional bids put them off. You may think that it is easier to defend against a 2♦ opening showing the majors than a 2♥ opening, but a novice does not - so it is reasonable to allow in novice games the one that does not upset novices.

Please define novice. I've been playing for ~8 months and we're coming last in the club teams comp, so I probably count

[Vampyr]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-24, 15:20, said:

You may think that it is easier to defend against a 2♦ opening showing the majors than a 2♥ opening, but a novice does not - so it is reasonable to allow in novice games the one that does not upset novices.

I am interested in knowing why this method has been disallowed at virtually all EBI events. I think that it was a very poor decision.

[gnasher]

 Vampyr, on 2012-May-24, 20:23, said:

I am interested in knowing why this method has been disallowed at virtually all EBI events. I think that it was a very poor decision.

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

[gnasher]

 nige1, on 2012-May-24, 14:35, said:

Others like cthulhu openly express their similar views in these discussion groups.

In another post, Cthulhu D tells us that he has been playing bridge for about eight months. He may, of course, have spent those eight months travelling around the world being disadvantaged by differences in regulations. If not, though, his views are vulnerable to the same criticism as I made of yours: if you haven't actually experienced the alleged problem, how do you know it is one?

[gnasher]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-23, 22:41, said:

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.

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?

[nige1]

 Vampyr, on 2012-May-24, 00:42, said:

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.

The EBU is to be commended for conducting a member-poll. Do other NBOs do this? Polls can be biassed but at least they can be an honest attempt to assess members' wishes. Otherwise, I doubt that law-makers receive a representative sample of the views of ordinary players..

 Vampyr, on 2012-May-24, 00:42, said:

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.

IMO

• 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.
• Innovation in the law is a harder nut to crack. IMO, the pace of legal innovation should slow when rules are clear enough for players to understand and for directors to enforce consistently.

I agree with Vampyr that current local regulation could be a force for eventual improvement in the law..

In the short-term, each NBO enforcing different regulations could work in the long-term interests of Bridge-players: Under WBF auspices, each NBO could try different set of rules -- even radically new laws -- and carefully monitor player-reaction. So far, there does not seem to have been a methodical attempt to organise this.

[nige1]

 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? And Nigel, if you're not arguing for that, what are you arguing for?

System regulations are only part of local regulations but FWIW, I argue for only two levels of competition, world-wide:

 nige1, on 2012-May-23, 21:40, said:

• 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.

I'm unlikely to get what I want. Of course, we will continue to conform to future system-regulations, however daft, just as we've always done in the past. IMO, universal system-regulations are likely to be less daft. For example, they are likely to be more consistent and less restrictive. That would please me although others might object.

Universal rules fall short of a panacea; but IMO, they have more benefits than drawbacks.

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2012-May-25, 21:00, said:

IMO, universal system-regulations are likely to be less daft. For example, they are likely to be more consistent and less restrictive.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Finally, you say:

Quote

That would please me although others might object.

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?