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