[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2017-May-08, 09:19, said:

The law should facilitate disclosure by providing official definitions of commonly used terms. e.g. Milton Work HCP is a crude but useful measure of high-card strength, understood by most players. It aids communication. (A partnership is free to use some other measure to communicate with each other). Other useful concepts, for concise communication are LTC and EBU rule of n
The current approach is to leave that kind of thing up to the RA. I don't see a problem, notwithstanding the fact that different RAs may do things differently. And I don't think the law book is the right place to discuss hand evaluation.

IMO it's easier to communicate with words having mutually agreed meanings. Disclosure is especially important when you're unfamiliar with opponents' methods. Players tend to be more familiar with local RA systems than with systems played in other RAs.

blackshoe, on 2017-May-08, 09:19, said:

Official convention-cards for popular systems (as provided by BBO) would also help.
Or not. The ACBL tried that with SAYC. Epic fail.

I like the rule that partnerships must display identical completed system-cards. Some RAs like the ACBL don't enforce this rule. If they did, then standard official cards (like SAYC) would be in demand. Some players might be put off by the obligation to divulge their methods. But, IMO, most would view it as a considerable improvement.

blackshoe, on 2017-May-08, 09:19, said:

I concede that the current law book addresses few of my disclosure concerns. I think it should: the rules of bridge (laws, regulations, minutes, etc) should be collated in one rule-book. This would save paper by eliminating redundancy. And would be easier for directors and players to understand. The rule-book should specify how to facilitate disclosure and to monitor/penalise lapses
Is there redundancy now? I don't think there is. I also don't think expanding the current law book by a factor of 2 or 3 (at least) would make it easier to understand. More likely it would make it less likely to be read at all. I think the EBU has the right approach: Law Book + White Book + Blue Book seems to cover most of your complaints. I don't know what the SBU does in this area. I do know that the ACBL's approach basically sucks.

IMO There's a lot of redundancy. Some claim there are discrepancies. A few claim that RA regulations are illegal. When the rules of a game are spread among several books (even with pretty covers) such problems are likely. It's worse when each RA duplicates this unnecessary effort. IMO, we should concentrate on producing one simple set of Bridge-rules that most can understand That novel project would be a hard enough task for rule-makers to undertake; but it would improve players' enjoyment,

[nige1]

Another attempt to improve disclosure law:

Alerts cause unnecessary problems.

• Each RA has different rules about what to alert and when. In practice players alert calls that they shouldn't and fail to alert calls that they should
• Arguably some "natural" calls, not currently alerted, should be, because of nuances that some opponents might not expect. (e.g. subtle local meanings that many call "GBK").
• How often should you ask? If you never ask, then alerts don't help you much. If you ask when you are thinking of bidding, then you convey UI to partner. It's hard to ask "randomly" and not very effective. If you always ask then it would be better if the law were changed as follows:

• Announce the meaning of every call by partner.
• To avoid disturbing neighbouring tables, each table would have a card with boxes for common meanings. For most explanations, you would just point to relevant boxes. Excessive use of the "No understanding" box would be discouraged.
• The purpose of these announcements would be to divulge the meanings of calls to opponents. If opponents judged that this might help you more than them (or for any other reason) they could switch-off your announcements.
• At the end of the auction, you would offer to explain your bidding to opponents.
• They could also ask "What have your partner's calls told you about his hand?"

This disclosure law is short, simple and universal. The WBF could still allow RAs to opt out; and to keep their own voluminous and idiosyncratic alert-rules; but sensible RAs would save reams of paper by electing to scrap them.

The tempo of the game would improve: it would save the time taken in waiting for alerts and then asking questions.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2017-May-08, 14:46, said:

IMO There's a lot of redundancy. Some claim there are discrepancies. A few claim that RA regulations are illegal. When the rules of a game are spread among several books (even with pretty covers) such problems are likely. It's worse when each RA duplicates this unnecessary effort. IMO, we should concentrate on producing one simple set of Bridge-rules that most can understand That novel project would be a hard enough task for rule-makers to undertake; but it would improve players' enjoyment,

Whose enjoyment would it improve? I wouldn't enjoy playing under ACBL regulations, and ACBL members would not, on the whole, enjoy playing under EBU regulations. The EBU regulations are far from perfect in my view, but are in general my favourites, and that is no coincidence. The EBU exists to please me and others like me. Pleasing ACBL or ABF or FFB members is not part of their remit, and that is how it should be. I play most of my bridge in England, because that is where I live. This is true for all players, except, perhaps, top internationals.

As for your other ideas, your announcements and pointing boards would serve little purpose, since, as has been pointed out, most conventions have variations. If it went 1♠-2NT (GF raise) would the card have, for a 3♣ rebid: shortness? Any minimum? Balanced non-minimum? Natural? Relay? Now imagine a Multi with defences and continuations, Precision with full relays...The pointing board would quickly cover the whole table, if not the whole room.

Anyway why not follow as best you can by reading it on their convention card? I do agree that people should have them. Also this pointing thing would generate way too much UI, especially in cases where there is no firm agreement, unless you could somehow prevent your partner from seeing what you were pointing to. Reminds me of the late unlamented two-way 4NT, which was Blackwood if partner alerted it.

And you can use a convention name, but only if you play the "official version"? How do know if your opponents are, in fact, playing the "official version"? if there were an "official version" (who would decide this?) how would players know what it was? You are a proponent, I know, of forcing people to learn systems other than what they themselves play. A lot of club players would give up bridge rather than comply with such a requirement. Also the most common and popular versions of conventions change with time.

Incidentally, none of this would change my practice of asking the meaning whenever an explanation consists of a convention name.

I think that there are many people who never play in RAs other than their own. Probably most ACBL members. In fact, possibly most EBU members if you exclude London. And even then some of them play only in EBU abroad events. Those who go to tournaments in other countries are motivated enough to find out what the regulations are. Is there anyone besides you who finds different countries' regulations an unnecessary burden? Do you go often enough for it to affect your life? This year I am going to tournaments abroad three times, and I don't feel that learning the regulations in force is a problem.

[helene_t]

sfi, on 2017-May-08, 07:52, said:

More on topic, is this really such an issue in most places? We have a few pairs in Australia who are not good about disclosure, but the vast majority over-explain rather than under-explain. And I can't remember a situation where an opponent complained when I asked further questions.

Same in the UK (at the club level). Lot's of players will say something like "I am not sure but I take it as ....".

In the Netherlands, I frequently run into club players who have the mistaken belief that the regulations protect their concealed agreements. For example, when dbls and redoubles were not alertable, it was a widespread belief that you can't ask questions about the meaning of a dbl or rdbl either. I have even had to call the TD once to get an opponent to explain their answer to Blackwood.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2017-May-08, 19:36, said:

As for your other ideas, your announcements and pointing boards would serve little purpose, since, as has been pointed out, most conventions have variations. If it went 1♠-2NT (GF raise) would the card have, for a 3♣ rebid: shortness? Any minimum? Balanced non-minimum? Natural? Relay? Now not a Multi with defences and continuations, Precision with full relays...The pointing board would quickly cover the whole table, if not the whole room.

The "pointing-board" is just a convenience to players. It lists common meanings like "Natural", "5+ cards", "S/O", "Invite", "F1", "F/G", Penalty", "T/O", and so on. For most of partner's calls, you could point to the meanings that describe partner's bid. You would vocalise meanings not covered by the pointing-board.

Vampyr, on 2017-May-08, 19:36, said:

Anyway why not follow as best you can by reading it on their convention card? I do agree that people should have them. Also this pointing thing would generate way too much UI, especially in cases where there is no firm agreement, unless you could somehow prevent your partner from seeing what you were pointing to. Reminds me of the late unlamented two-way 4NT, which was Blackwood if partner alerted it.

Vampyr's suggestion is good: If possible, preventing partner from seeing the meanings to which you're pointing.
IMO, under current rules, you should alert most calls about which you are unsure of your agreements.

Vampyr, on 2017-May-08, 19:36, said:

And you can use a convention name, but only if you play the "official version"? How do know if your opponents are, in fact, playing the "official version"? if there were an "official version" (who would decide this?) how would players know what it was? You are a proponent, I know, of forcing people to learn systems other than what they themselves play. A lot of club players would give up bridge rather than comply with such a requirement. Also the most common and popular versions of conventions change with time. Incidentally, none of this would change my practice of asking the meaning whenever an explanation consists of a convention name.

The official versions of popular conventions would be an appendix to the rules. Again, it's just an optional convenience for players to facilitate full disclosure and speed up explanations. If you want, then you can explain the meanings of your bids in the ordinary way. And you can ask questions, as usual.

Vampyr, on 2017-May-08, 19:36, said:

I think that there are many people who never play in RAs other than their own. Probably most ACBL members. In fact, possibly most EBU members if you exclude London. And even then some of them play only in EBU abroad events. Those who go to tournaments in other countries are motivated enough to find out what the regulations are. Is there anyone besides you who finds different countries' regulations an unnecessary burden? Do you go often enough for it to affect your life? This year I am going to tournaments abroad three times, and I don't feel that learning the regulations in force is a problem.

Fair enough. I think more players would prefer one set of global rules. But vampyr could well be right. Perhaps there are players in each RA who prefer to play different games.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2017-May-09, 07:58, said:

Vamper's suggestion is good: If possible, preventing partner from seeing the meanings to which you're pointing.
IMO, under current rules, you should alert most calls about which you are unsure of your agreements.

Vampyr's "suggestion" was intended to highlight one of the drawbacks of your bad idea. Yes, you should alert unless you are sure that the call cannot have an alertable meaning.

Quote

The official versions of popular conventions would be an appendix to the rules. Again, it's just an optional convenience for players to facilitate full disclosure and speed up explanations. If you want, then you can explain the meanings of your bids in the ordinary way. And you can ask questions, as usual.

Seriously, Nigel, are you aware of how many people actually read the Blue Book? Announcements would become a severe source of misinformation, with each side thinking that they know what is meant by Reverse BlukBluk.

Quote

Fair enough. I think more players would prefer one set of global rules.

Well, you have not quoted even anecdotal evidence of people who have problems dealing with the regulations in places they travel to to play. I personally have run afoul of the rules once or twice; I particularly remember when I explained my leads as "second and fourth" to a person in whose country this meant low from a doubleton (we were playing in a third country). I thought this was interesting and did not think that players in that country should adopt leading conventions/explanations as they are understood in my country. Another place I regularly play requires alerts for a 1NT opening that is not strong. I dislike that approach, but I play there in one event per year. Why should they change their regulations to suit me?

Quote

But vampyr could well be right. Perhaps players in each RA prefer to play different games.

I think this is obvious. Otherwise the regulations would be experiencing converging evolution. This may happen someday, but so far there is no evidence of it.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2017-May-09, 09:27, said:

.Seriously, Nigel, are you aware of how many people actually read the Blue Book? Announcements would become a severe source of misinformation, with each side thinking that they know what is meant by Reverse BlukBluk.

Perhaps more players would familiarise themselves with the rules if the multitude of current documents were replaced by a single rule-book, with simplified rules that most players and directors could understand.

Vampyr, on 2017-May-09, 09:27, said:

I think this is obvious. Otherwise the regulations would be experiencing converging evolution. This may happen someday, but so far there is no evidence of it.

Regulations might be slowly converging (e.g. bidding-box) because fair-minded players would prefer a more level playing-field.

IMO, however there will always be a vocal minority who favour chauvinist local regulations. Thus.ACBL professionals want to protect their sponsors from:

• Conventions popular in other RAs e.g. Multi
• Effective defences. e.g I'm told that many ACBL 2/1 players adopted a short club opening. Unfortunately, their opponents developed artificial defences. Humpty Dumpty ACBL regulators retaliated by redefining 1♣ on a 2-card suit, as "natural". This cunningly rendered many effective defences illegal

That might also be the reason that the WBF allow seemingly daft elections from the law-book. A good example is allowing a defender to ask "having none". In theory and ostensibly, this is so partner can check if you've revoked. In practice, when partner asks, it might be hard to ignore the UI that declarer probably has more cards in the suit. Incidentally, In the ACBL and other RAs that chose this election, players now seem to prefer attitude to count signals

[blackshoe]

AFAIK, attitude has always been the preferred signal in NA.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2017-May-09, 12:10, said:

AFAIK, attitude has always been the preferred signal in NA.

The ACBL always allowed defenders to ask each other "Having none?".
At one stage, most other RAs didn't permit this potential UI.

[mycroft]

Again with my standard line: this is not a law problem, it's not a regulation problem, it's an education problem and an enforcement problem (and "how to enforce", consistently, is a different education problem). Enforce the current laws and regulations correctly, and this will clear up. Nail the "strong NT, 2/1" players as hard as the "crazy system" players; go after the 2♦ "so what is that?" people as UI when there is exactly one non-Alertable meaning; promote, with examples and articles and pre-game discussions, what correct disclosure entails; make it uncool to be the "oh, he has the card, somewhere" pair; all of the things.

But nobody cares enough to make this a priority, especially because "it will drive the C players away". Well, it will if the A players are obnoxious about it, or if they "get away with things" that the C players don't, or if it only applies when the C players explain in a way that the regulars don't understand, but when the regulars explain their system (in a way that you and I would understand) and the C players don't understand it, and refuse to break it down to C level, and the TD says "that's their agreement, what's the problem"...

But that's even *more* education.

I strongly disagree that new regulations or standardization will help. Nobody plays "standard" anything; the things that require explanation are the odd cases; and nobody else on this thread knows what half of what I play with my partner *is*, and frankly, that's not a bad thing. But it's hard to regulate without regulating the system out of the world.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2017-May-09, 11:08, said:

Perhaps more players would familiarise themselves with the rules if the multitude of current documents were replaced by a single rule-book, with simplified rules that most players and directors could understand.

No, if the EBU, for example, published a lawbook and included EBU regulations in it, more people would not read it.

Quote

Regulations might be slowly converging (e.g. bidding-box) because fair-minded players would prefer a more level playing-field.

No RA is prevented from adopting WBF regulations, but there does not seem to be a rush to do so.

Quote

IMO, however there will always be a vocal minority who favour chauvinist local regulations. Thus.ACBL professionals want to protect their sponsors from:

• Conventions popular in other RAs e.g. Multi
• Effective defences. e.g I'm told that many ACBL 2/1 players adopted a short club opening. Unfortunately, their opponents developed artificial defences. Humpty Dumpty ACBL regulators retaliated by redefining 1♣ on a 2-card suit, as "natural". This cunningly rendered many effective defences illegal

That might also be the reason that the WBF allow seemingly daft elections from the law-book. A good example is allowing a defender to ask "having none". In theory and ostensibly, this is so partner can check if you've revoked. In practice, when partner asks, it might be hard to ignore the UI that declarer probably has more cards in the suit. Incidentally, In the ACBL and other RAs that chose this election, players now seem to prefer attitude to count signals

Why is it a a minority who prefer their local regulations? If it were, the regulations would likely change. I agree that defining an opening in your shortest suit as natural is ridiculous, but that's what American players want, so we have different regulations and are both happy.

If the system is corrupt and professional players are influencing the RA to issue regulations that their sponsors and nobody else wants, that is another matter entirely.

[paulg]

nige1, on 2017-May-09, 11:08, said:

IMO, however there will always be a vocal minority who favour chauvinist local regulations.

I think Vampyr is much closer to the mark than this.

The vast majority, and I'd guess it is close to 99%, of NBO members prefer their local regulations to the regulations of another NBO or RA. I don't see anyone in Scotland asking to use the EBU regulations and I doubt that the EBU members want to play the modified WBF regulations uses in Scotland. People dislike change. Although there is a vocal community on this and other forums complaining about ACBL regulations, they represent about 0.01% of the ACBL membership and is not a representative group (even though I agree with most of their views).

I suspect a large group of people who are inconvenienced by differing NBO regulations are Scottish players who play in England. And their main concern is not the alerting rules or system policy, but the fact that they need a different system card. Of course they could use this EBU system card in Scotland, but it wouldn't be very Scottish to do so I guess this affects perhaps 20 people!

In terms of the number of people who play outside their NBO, I just don't hear anyone complaining about the different regulations.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2017-May-09, 11:08, said:

That might also be the reason that the WBF allow seemingly daft elections from the law-book. A good example is allowing a defender to ask "having none". In theory and ostensibly, this is so partner can check if you've revoked. In practice, when partner asks, it might be hard to ignore the UI that declarer probably has more cards in the suit. Incidentally, In the ACBL and other RAs that chose this election, players now seem to prefer attitude to count signals

FYI, it's no longer an RA election. The 2017 Law allows it everywhere.

[nige1]

paulg, on 2017-May-10, 01:42, said:

I think Vampyr is much closer to the mark than this.
The vast majority, and I'd guess it is close to 99%, of NBO members prefer their local regulations to the regulations of another NBO or RA. I don't see anyone in Scotland asking to use the EBU regulations and I doubt that the EBU members want to play the modified WBF regulations uses in Scotland. People dislike change. Although there is a vocal community on this and other forums complaining about ACBL regulations, they represent about 0.01% of the ACBL membership and is not a representative group (even though I agree with most of their views).
I suspect a large group of people who are inconvenienced by differing NBO regulations are Scottish players who play in England. And their main concern is not the alerting rules or system policy, but the fact that they need a different system card. Of course they could use this EBU system card in Scotland, but it wouldn't be very Scottish to do so I guess this affects perhaps 20 people!

In terms of the number of people who play outside their NBO, I just don't hear anyone complaining about the different regulations.

Judging from what they say to me, EBU and SBU players are unhappy with local regulations but are too apathetic to fight City-Hall. This seems common to other RAs. For example, judging by Bridge-Winners, ACBL members are unhappy too. I accept that players are patriotic, so they wouldn't elect to adopt the rules of another RA. But I think most would be happier with simpler integrated global rules that they could understand. I concede that, until RAs poll members, we're just guessing.

Incidentally, decades ago, I was an active member of BLML (The Bridge Laws Mailing List). Instructive and fun. Then, as now, I proposed rule-changes. I enjoyed arguing with Grattan Endicott, Bill (Kojak) Schoder, and other WBF legislators. On BLML, directors earned Browny-points by ridiculing my suggestions. But I also received private emails from members. Many broadly agreed with my suggestions but most proposed alternative treatments or modifications. I replied by asking them to stop writing to me and to post their ideas on BLML, instead. But nobody did. Thankfully, nowadays, more players seem prepared pop their heads above the parapet.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2017-May-09, 11:08, said:

In practice, when partner asks, it might be hard to ignore the UI that declarer probably has more cards in the suit.

The recipient of UI isn't supposed to ignore it, he's supposed to carefully avoid taking advantage of it. If that's too hard for the recipient to do, his partner shouldn't ask the question. On the other hand, I've said before, and stand by, that one should trust one's partner not to use UI in choosing his calls or plays. On the gripping hand, should we not also trust him not to revoke?

[mycroft]

People like to complain. It seems that a certain other site, apart from a couple of "rah rah" issues, that's all they want to do. I also note that they could care less about the 80% of tournament players who will never win an open event, except to "protect them against all the weird stuff" (they don't want to play against). But I may be biased - I have a different issue with that site. But really, every time I read anything that isn't straight play there, I need a unicorn chaser. It's just so depressing.

People like to complain. I don't know anyone who's actually *happy* about their regulations; but I bet if we said in September we're going to [other ZA] regulations, the response would be much more than "not happy". They're okay with it, and they don't like change, even change for the better. Given the number of people who still complain about the stop card used correctly and having to announce 15-17s, I don't think that's ever going to change.

Despite the frustration you have here, and others have with your hobby-horses, we (well, I, but I think many) are very happy to have you here, and very happy to listen to your suggestions, as there are nuggets of useful in there. Taking the whole thing - well that would be a jump, and I think there's a shark somewhere. But there *are* good ideas there, and we do think about them and use them in our own arguments and gentle pushes to get change.

I just don't think that the sledgehammer solution will work - because every time we try it, it doesn't work. I also think it's overkill, trying to write in law what we want and get people to toe the line because otherwise the cops will get on their back and they'll get speeding tickets. My guess is, without the "can't leave the game" part of normal legislation, that strategy will just lead to people leaving the game - and I have a case study (of innumerable previous mentions) as evidence.

But please don't stop with the noticing of issues and attempting to correct them. Like a certain North London Club (someone else's hobbyhorse-corral), and possibly a certain CamelCased mustelid (now whose hobbyhorse could *that* be?) it *is* useful, even if the world won't suddenly have its messianic moment and switch to the obvious right answer for you.

[blackshoe]

People around here don't complain about the stop card, they just ignore it — and get upset and feign ignorance if you call 'em on a BIT.

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2017-May-10, 11:37, said:

People like to complain. It seems that a certain other site, apart from a couple of "rah rah" issues, that's all they want to do. I also note that they could care less about the 80% of tournament players who will never win an open event, except to "protect them against all the weird stuff" (they don't want to play against). But I may be biased - I have a different issue with that site. But really, every time I read anything that isn't straight play there, I need a unicorn chaser. It's just so depressing.
People like to complain. I don't know anyone who's actually *happy* about their regulations; but I bet if we said in September we're going to [other ZA] regulations, the response would be much more than "not happy". They're okay with it, and they don't like change, even change for the better. Given the number of people who still complain about the stop card used correctly and having to announce 15-17s, I don't think that's ever going to change.
Despite the frustration you have here, and others have with your hobby-horses, we (well, I, but I think many) are very happy to have you here, and very happy to listen to your suggestions, as there are nuggets of useful in there. Taking the whole thing - well that would be a jump, and I think there's a shark somewhere. But there *are* good ideas there, and we do think about them and use them in our own arguments and gentle pushes to get change.
I just don't think that the sledgehammer solution will work - because every time we try it, it doesn't work. I also think it's overkill, trying to write in law what we want and get people to toe the line because otherwise the cops will get on their back and they'll get speeding tickets. My guess is, without the "can't leave the game" part of normal legislation, that strategy will just lead to people leaving the game - and I have a case study (of innumerable previous mentions) as evidence.
But please don't stop with the noticing of issues and attempting to correct them. Like a certain North London Club (someone else's hobbyhorse-corral), and possibly a certain CamelCased mustelid (now whose hobbyhorse could *that* be?) it *is* useful, even if the world won't suddenly have its messianic moment and switch to the obvious right answer for you.

Thank you, Mycroft. And I like 2 of your examples:

• When the EBU introduced announcements, I was one of the many critics. In fact, the experiment turned out well. For example, it has reduced the frequency of the once-popular Weasel over notrumps. This illustrates that, in spite of initial resistance, beneficial change is welcomed, belatedly.
• UK bidding-box rules, especially stop-card regulations seem a boon to players. Scandinavian stop-card regulations might be even better. ACBL stop-card regulations, however, seem markedly inferior. In this kind of area, RAs might learn from each other, eventually. But the WBF could accelerate the pace of improvement by cherry-picking best-practice and incorporating it directly into the law-book.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2017-May-10, 11:37, said:

People like to complain. I don't know anyone who's actually *happy* about their regulations; but I bet if we said in September we're going to [other ZA] regulations, the response would be much more than "not happy".

As you say, people like to complain rather than count their blessings. Hopefully people complain to stimulate change and not for the sake of it.

I complain that the EBU don't allow transfer openings (as far as I can see it is because a tiny but vocal minority of people didn't like them.) I think that the EBU made a poor decision, and not because I personally want to play transfer openings. I don't, but I do want to be exposed to them. (Ditto forcing pass, but I think this might turn off a lot of people, so I understand.)

On the other hand, I never have to play in events as restrictive as ACBL's Midchart. So I would have to confess to being "happy" when I compare to what I could have had.

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2017-May-09, 15:07, said:

Again with my standard line: this is not a law problem, it's not a regulation problem, it's an education problem and an enforcement problem (and "how to enforce", consistently, is a different education problem). Enforce the current laws and regulations correctly, and this will clear up. Nail the "strong NT, 2/1" players as hard as the "crazy system" players; go after the 2♦ "so what is that?" people as UI when there is exactly one non-Alertable meaning; promote, with examples and articles and pre-game discussions, what correct disclosure entails; make it uncool to be the "oh, he has the card, somewhere" pair; all of the things..

I agree there's an education problem. The rules of Bridge are spread over several documents. More if you play in several RAs. The rules are complex and disorganised. Simpler integrated rules would be easier for players and directors to understand. That might help the education process.

mycroft, on 2017-May-09, 15:07, said:

But nobody cares enough to make this a priority, especially because "it will drive the C players away". Well, it will if the A players are obnoxious about it, or if they "get away with things" that the C players don't, or if it only applies when the C players explain in a way that the regulars don't understand, but when the regulars explain their system (in a way that you and I would understand) and the C players don't understand it, and refuse to break it down to C level, and the TD says "that's their agreement, what's the problem"... But that's even *more* education..

Bridge rules are too sophisticated and subjective. This results in inconsistent and incomprehensible rulings that put off players and potential players. Especially when rules seem to favour better players. Simpler easy to learn rules might help.

mycroft, on 2017-May-09, 15:07, said:

I strongly disagree that new regulations or standardization will help. Nobody plays "standard" anything; the things that require explanation are the odd cases; and nobody else on this thread knows what half of what I play with my partner *is*, and frankly, that's not a bad thing. But it's hard to regulate without regulating the system out of the world.

Recent WBF policy avoids simplification and standardisation. Instead it favours sophistication and delegation of powers to RAs and to directors. IMO, simplification would facilitate the education process and is worth a try.