[bluejak]

nige1, on 2011-March-10, 09:50, said:

Vampyr will concede, however, that foreigners suffer a disadvantage from chauvinistic local system-regulations and unfamiliar alerting, stop-card, and other rules.

No doubt true. Much better to change the rules so that local players suffer a disadvantage from system-regulations based on other countries' approaches, and unfamiliar alerting, stop-card, and other rules.

Obviously better: we want to upset as many people as possible, don't we?

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2011-March-10, 10:36, said:

Zone 2 is the European Bridge League. Zone 1 is the ACBL as a zonal organization. Zones 3+ are the other various ones. I assume that Zone 2 is not of uniform mind in policy, given the 30-odd NBOs in it. Zone 1, however, is. In fact, to cut costs, the ACBL keeps asking the WBF to be allowed to just send one member to the Executive meetings, said member to have all 5 Zone 1 votes. It keeps getting refused, but you get the point. Another point - in the new Laws, they have codified a definition of a Logical Alternative for the first time, taking that out of the hands of the NBOs. Guess which definition they used? That's not the only place, either. So, as far as "one set of regulations" is concerned, I believe that Vampyr is most likely correct - expect "one regulation" to look more like the ACBL's current regulation than not.

Currently, Mycroft seems to be right that the ACBL tail wags the WBF dog but, eventually, the ACBL may compromise in the long-term interests of the game.

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2011-March-10, 11:33, said:

No doubt true. Much better to change the rules so that local players suffer a disadvantage from system-regulations based on other countries' approaches, and unfamiliar alerting, stop-card, and other rules.
Obviously better: we want to upset as many people as possible, don't we?

Bluejak speaks for himself, as usual

[aguahombre]

Hmm. I thought he was speaking for the Locals who are the heart and soul of the local games.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2011-March-10, 09:50, said:

Vampyr will concede, however, that foreigners are handicapped by chauvinistic local system-regulations and unfamiliar alerting, stop-card, and other rules. Current WBFLC policy to devolve power to local legislatures means that Bridge-players may have to wait a long time for a level playing-field.

This is like saying that foreigners are handicapped in negotiating the public transport system in Shanghai, compared to the locals. Current world situation means that tourists will have to wait a long time until universal adoption of Esperanto...

Quote

the ACBL may compromise in the long-term interests of the game

ROFLMAO

Nice one!

[barmar]

nige1, on 2011-March-09, 19:31, said:

Some local legislatures want local rules for local people, to ensure a local advantage

Do you really think they're intentionally trying to make things harder for foriegners? Are there really so many of them that this is a concern?

The more obvious reason is that they want local rules because that's what everyone in their country is used to, and people don't like change. 99% of players will rarely play outside their home jurisdiction, so they couldn't care less that regulations are not consistent around the world.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2011-March-10, 11:54, said:

... but, eventually, the ACBL may compromise in the long-term interests of the game.

Vampyr, on 2011-March-10, 13:43, said:

ROFLMAO
Nice one!

BBOers are a cynical bunch. As far as the rules of Bridge are concerned, it is only natural that administrators (or directors) have a different agenda from ordinary players because of the exigencies of their role. Typically, however, both administrators and directors play bridge themselves. Hence they are broadly sympathetic to the interests of players. I remain hopeful that they will be less resistant to improvement, in future.

[shintaro]

nige1, on 2011-March-10, 15:31, said:

BBOers are a cynical bunch. As far as the rules of Bridge are concerned, it is only natural that administrators (or directors) have a different agenda from ordinary players because of the exigencies of their role. Typically, however, both administrators and directors play bridge themselves. Hence they are broadly sympathetic to the interests of players. I remain hopeful that they will be less resistant to improvement, in future.

mmmmm IMPROVEMENT!!!!!!! Nigel


You really think Law Makers are doing it for the Benefit of the Players

[nige1]

barmar, on 2011-March-10, 15:24, said:

Do you really think they're intentionally trying to make things harder for foriegners? Are there really so many of them that this is a concern? The more obvious reason is that they want local rules because that's what everyone in their country is used to, and people don't like change. 99% of players will rarely play outside their home jurisdiction, so they couldn't care less that regulations are not consistent around the world.

Have you read the BBO threads about arbitrary home-grown written defences to Multi? or no-trump openers with a singleton? Administrators advance justifications for local regulations but I doubt that they withstand scrutiny. People play Bridge in different jurisdictions. I'm a typical ordinary Scottish player and I hope to play in Wales in April and England in August. In most international games and sports, players seem to prefer a level playing-field, even if that would make some administrators redundant (only in theory, of course).

[bluejak]

If there is one thing that is certain in this life, Nigel, it is that you are not "a typical ordinary Scottish player".

Just look at the differences between England and Scotland. Before I decided to stop playing in Scotland because of the way I was treated after a specific happening, I used to struggle with Scottish alerting which I dislike intensely. As someone pointed out at an SBU meeting a few years ago, the easiest way for Scotland to have regulations without paying any significant amount of money was to adopt the EBU Orange book. Why did they not? Because someone at the back said "We cannot follow the bluidy English". When the cheering had stopped, a sensible person at the front said "But how can we do that then?". The bloke at the back volunteered to write the Scottish Blue book himself, and, what is more, did so.

In fact it would have been perfectly logical to adopt English regulations, but the Scots did not want to for nationalistic reasons. But when you talk of foreigners playing, the only significant number of foreigners playing in Britain are those from other British countries, eg English in Scotland and vice versa.

The whole trouble with your thread is that players do not want what you suggest, so you can stop blaming the administrators for following what people actually want.

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2011-March-10, 17:28, said:

If there is one thing that is certain in this life, Nigel, it is that you are not "a typical ordinary Scottish player".

Just look at the differences between England and Scotland. Before I decided to stop playing in Scotland because of the way I was treated after a specific happening, I used to struggle with Scottish alerting which I dislike intensely. As someone pointed out at an SBU meeting a few years ago, the easiest way for Scotland to have regulations without paying any significant amount of money was to adopt the EBU Orange book. Why did they not? Because someone at the back said "We cannot follow the bluidy English". When the cheering had stopped, a sensible person at the front said "But how can we do that then?". The bloke at the back volunteered to write the Scottish Blue book himself, and, what is more, did so.

In fact it would have been perfectly logical to adopt English regulations, but the Scots did not want to for nationalistic reasons. But when you talk of foreigners playing, the only significant number of foreigners playing in Britain are those from other British countries, eg English in Scotland and vice versa.

The whole trouble with your thread is that players do not want what you suggest, so you can stop blaming the administrators for following what people actually want.

Mr1303 started this thread. Scotland adopted WBF alert-regulations. They work OK. Though they are simpler than the efforts of most local legislatures, more simplification would further improve them. The WBF doesn't poll the the views of ordinary players, so what they want is a matter of opinion.

[bluejak]

Exactly, which is why I am trying to persuade you to follow what is best for ordinary players. The idea that club players in Ayr and San Jose want the same thing is laughable.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2011-March-10, 18:30, said:

Exactly, which is why I am trying to persuade you to follow what is best for ordinary players. The idea that club players in Ayr and San Jose want the same thing is laughable.

I don't follow why that is so.

If there is a difference in expectations then I would imagine it is mostly learned because different conditions have been imposed on the different groups of players rather than that they fundamentally want something different.

[Vampyr]

Cascade, on 2011-March-10, 19:31, said:

I don't follow why that is so.

If there is a difference in expectations then I would imagine it is mostly learned because different conditions have been imposed on the different groups of players rather than that they fundamentally want something different.

Right. Players learn bridge. They learn it in the context of the local bridge culture. They are not born "fundamentally" wanting something in re: bridge.

[aguahombre]

I understand the frustration. I once tried to devise a standard for alerts which I thought everyone in the world could live with. It was based on the premise that, except for initial doubles of opening suit bids ---and Stayman (plus a very few others)---- any other call which was not an offer to play in the strain bid, or to defend the instant contract should be alerted.

Then I encountered the self-righteous indignation of those who felt that since their style was the only one reasonable, their bids should not have to be alerted ---but anyone else's should be.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-March-10, 21:10, said:

I understand the frustration. I once tried to devise a standard for alerts which I thought everyone in the world could live with. It was based on the premise that, except for initial doubles of opening suit bids ---and Stayman (plus a very few others)---- any other call which was not an offer to play in the strain bid, or to defend the instant contract should be alerted.

Why did you try to do this? Did you think that the alert regulations of your NBO were really poor?

[aguahombre]

no, I thought that the alert regulations were too inconsistent from one jurisdiction to another and that players who had no clue that their seemingly natural calls were non-mainstream were getting unduly harassed and might appreciate a set of guidelines which were very easy to understand.

The other aspect of my thinking was: it shouldn't matter, for a person who travels from one place to another whether a call is recognized as standard ----artificial (or extra info) bids would be alerted, and they could ask if they chose. These people would also alert their own artificial calls ---and people could ask if they chose; no assumption, because of locale, that a bid was being alerted because it was strangely natural.

By the way...the "above 3NT" thing would have stayed in force if I were God

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-March-10, 22:15

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-March-10, 21:36, said:

no, I thought that the alert regulations were too inconsistent from one jurisdiction to another and that players who had no clue that their seemingly natural calls were non-mainstream were getting unduly harassed and might appreciate a set of guidelines which were very easy to understand.

What NBO was this? Were their alert regulations not available for foreigners to research before they came over, or once they arrived?

[aguahombre]

you miss the point, and that is one reason I abandoned the idea

[helene_t]

I used to be a firm believer in alerting all artificial and no natural calls.

Maybe I am still a believer, but a less firm one than I used to be. The problem is that most club players don't understand the concept of a "natural" call. And in fact it is not trivial to define. Almost any call that doesn't establish a major suit fit keeps the option of playing in notrumps open, so few NT bids would be alertable if that was the criterion. We could probably agree that longest-suit-first is natural while transfer openings are not, but different people have different ideas about Walsh responses and 3-card minors.

But universal alert regulations would have to be based on artificiality. If it were based on a particular standard bidding system - say a call is alertable if and only if its meaning differs significantly from what it would mean in standard mongolian purple card - then the alert regulation would be impossible to learn for someone who has no clue what SMPC is like. Not to mention that alertability would be moot in the context of a non-standard system. When playing precision I really don't know which natural calls to alert in an environment where the expectation is "alert everything that differs from vanilla north lancashire bidding". Some might say that a 1M reponse to 1♣, showing 5+ cards, is alertable because it would show only 4+ in VNLB. But on the other hand the situation is analogous to the VNLB responses to a strong artificial 2♣ opening. I think defining alertability based on familiarity may be useful in places like England where most clubs players play very similar stuff. Then the occasional precision or SA player is a little bit in limbo but 98% of the club pairs are facing reasonable (for them) regulations. But in a country like Germany where club players play all kind of different things, it would probably be better to define alertability on the basis of artificiality only.

Anyway, I don't really see why one would want universal regulations. It is probably true players in San Jose do not have different inherent preferences from the ones held by players in Ayr. If they prefer different regulations it is mostly due to them having learned different regulations already and only to a minor extent due to demographic differences or for example that pro-client pairs have more influence in San Jose than in Ayr. But: let's be practical. It would be a lot of hassle to standardize regulations and the gain would be very limited. When traveling to other countries to play bridge, differences in regulations is a minor issue, compared to all the other cultural things that may be different at a new club. In what situations is it come il faut to call the director? Are we expected to accept a claim or is it considered normal to ask for clarification if we don't quite follow? Is there a dress code? How are we expected to greet opps? How much tips should we pay the waiter? Not to mention that you have to learn the bridge terminology in the local language.