[mgoetze]

nige1, on 2016-January-19, 10:48, said:

There are many Bridge rules that seem pointless and unnecessary. Perhaps, some of them could be replaced with a new rule: You may not adopt a partnership agreement unless you can produce a plausible argument that it confers a bridge advantage other than by confusing or antagonizing opponents.

So, 4-card majors would no longer be allowed?

[nige1]

mgoetze, on 2016-January-19, 11:07, said:

So, 4-card majors would no longer be allowed?

You wouldn't need to convince everybody, just sensible bridge-players

[nige1]

barmar, on 2016-January-19, 10:55, said:

Wow, that seems like an incredibly difficult rule to apply. One of the most common complaints about some laws and regulations is that they depend on the TD's judgement (what's "normal" versus "irrational", what are the logical alternatives, etc.), and this proposal seems like the worst example of that.

Banning sensible agreements is a task that some NBOs seem to relish. Much simpler would be to allow most agreements; but, arguably, not those whose only advantage is that they confuse opponents.

[blackshoe]

Screw it: "All calls must be natural." Period f'ing dot. Of course, that's likely to confuse somebody too. Okay. How about: "Contract bridge shall not be played in any form". That ought to fix it.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2016-January-19, 11:36, said:

Banning sensible agreements is a task that some NBOs seem to relish. Much simpler would be to allow most agreements; but, arguably, not those whose only advantage is that they confuse opponents.

A better set of regulations is one that suits the players who play under them. A regulation, no matter how sensible or simple, that interferes with the objective of putting asses on chairs is maybe not so sensible after all.