[Free]

bluejak, on 2011-February-23, 09:04, said:

Third, their rules are a long way from some countries', eg England's, so you are talking of upsetting a very large number of people. Why? What for? So some people can play in other countries? I have played in Australia, Netherlands, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Canary Islands, Sweden, Eire, France, Cyprus, Tunisia, Egypt, USA and South Africa and I see no problem whatever with using other Regulations. I am just not selfish enough to expect to play my own countries' Regulations there.

I never claimed that it's a good idea to get to 1 set of rules. I only wanted to disagree with the statement that WBF rules are pointless. I edited my post to make this clear.

[Free]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-23, 09:10, said:

I have another idea. Countries using the WBF regulations (more or less) could add their own colours, which would be clearly defined:
egPURPLE = WBF GREEN + x, y and z.
ORANGE = WBF BLUE + x, y and z.

Actually, new colours should probably be called "BLUE+" or "GREEN+". Much less confusing for people, eg foreigners, who are familiar with the WBF classification system.

That's a poor idea imo, because it doesn't change anything. ACBL can define sayc as GREEN and add the conventions that are allowed with approved defenses to GREEN. They'll even come up with new colours for different flights. There's no point in creating BLUE+ if the '+' means Polish ♣ in one country and MOSCITO in another.

Vampyr, on 2011-February-23, 09:10, said:

Yes, but probably not until the above problem is solved, ie disagreement between countries about which systems should be GREEN or BLUE.

Countries don't have to agree on which colour certain systems get. They should only get to choose which colours they allow at which events. A general classification of systems is the most transparent, but certain systems should get their own class. Like Strong ♣ gets BLUE*, so should multiway ♣ systems get their own colour imo, say PINK (now they're all RED). This way Poland could allow PINK at the lowest events, while ACBL can allow them only at high level events. Everybody happy.
The only thing that countries may have to agree about is wether or not a certain class of systems should get their own colour.

* BLUE is defined as strong ♣ with natural continuations AFAIK. I guess the definition should be revised and clarified. A strong ♣ system with 1M natural should be BLUE, while a strong ♣ system like MOSCITO should still be RED imo. Continuations over a strong 1♣ opening shouldn't be considered.

[Vampyr]

Free, on 2011-February-23, 09:45, said:

There's no point in creating BLUE+ if the '+' means Polish ♣ in one country and MOSCITO in another.

Yes there is. BLUE+ and GREEN+ would be satisfactory for the lower-level competitions in the countries in question, and visitors could find out what the "+" stood for in a given place.

Quote

They should only get to choose which colours they allow at which events. A general classification of systems is the most transparent, but certain systems should get their own class.

This would be a very strong disincentive to adopting WBF regulations. Basically it would mean that it would never happen in most countries. I have no opinion on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Just sayin'.

Quote

Like Strong ♣ gets BLUE*, so should multiway ♣ systems get their own colour imo, say PINK (now they're all RED). This way Poland could allow PINK at the lowest events, while ACBL can allow them only at high level events. Everybody happy.

Sure, a country could define PINK and GREEN+Polish Club. I was thinking that GREEN+ would be clearer, because then visitors and others could know what the basic standard was, and could then find out the small list of additions. Also the locals would know which parts of their eg GREEN+ were not allowed in ordinary GREEN classified events.

Quote

The only thing that countries may have to agree about is wether or not a certain class of systems should get their own colour.

No, countries would decide on their own. There might be a danger of running out of colours, though, and a question of whether the colours would mean anything to anybody outside that country.

[Free]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-23, 13:00, said:

No, countries would decide on their own. There might be a danger of running out of colours, though, and a question of whether the colours would mean anything to anybody outside that country.

Most parts are discussable, like GREEN+ is something we actually use in Belgium. It's basically a list of conventions that are allowed (simple example: Landy defense against 1NT). For local orgranizations it's easy, but globally it may cause problems or abuse.
Entire systems are difficult to use as an exception, every time I played against Poles, they all said they played Polish Club, but they all played another version of their 1♣ opening and/or responses.

But letting countries choose their own colours is a very bad idea! The UK can define PURPLE as strong ♣ with transfer openings, but another country can define PURPLE as all systems with 4 forcing openings (like Fantunes). You'd basically ruin the entire concept, because the colours are the part that should be the same everywhere.

Suppose with your solution:
- PURPLE in the USA is a system with at least 4 unlimited and forcing openings (like Fantunes)
- PURPLE in Poland is a system with a forcing 1♣ opening which contains at least 2 types of hands (like Polish Club)
- PURPLE in Belgium (where I live) is a system containing transfer openings at 1-level (like MOSCITO)

USA allows GREEN+ and PURPLE ; Poland allows GREEN+, BLUE and PURPLE ; Belgium allows everything except YELLOW and BSC. When I play MOSCITO in Belgium, it's classified as a PURPLE system, so when I look at other countries I would expect to be able to play my PURPLE system also in the USA and Poland, but that's not the case.

Compare on the other hand with general colour codes:
- PURPLE is a system with at least 4 unlimited and forcing openings (like Fantunes)
- ORANGE is a system with a forcing 1♣ opening which contains at least 2 types of hands - balanced/natural/strong (like Polish Club)

Now, the USA may allow GREEN+ and BLUE ; Poland could allow GREEN+ and ORANGE ; Italy could allow GREEN+, BLUE and PURPLE ; Australia would allow everything ; ... This is transparent and easy for everyone. When I play a BLUE system, I can play in the USA, Italy and Australia. MOSCITO is RED, so I can't play it anywhere except Australia. Simple and efficient.

EDIT: note that in my 2 definitions above, Fantunes can be classified as both PURPLE and ORANGE. So I guess we'd need some hierachy like we have now with GREEN < BLUE < RED < YELLOW.

[paulg]

Scotland uses the WBF system regulations but provides greater clarification of what it expects in a GREEN or BLUE system. The effect of these clarifications are to push a large number of vaguely natural modern systems into the RED classification, including a number of strong club variants that use artificial two-level openers.

However the classification is not very important as GREEN, RED and BLUE systems are permitted in all national tournaments, and most regional ones, except events that are specifically for beginners and novices. This means that it is the HUM and BSC classifications that are the important part of the regulations - avoid these and the colour does not matter.

[Vampyr]

Free, on 2011-February-24, 06:00, said:

Suppose with your solution:
- PURPLE in the USA is a system with at least 4 unlimited and forcing openings (like Fantunes)
- PURPLE in Poland is a system with a forcing 1♣ opening which contains at least 2 types of hands (like Polish Club)
- PURPLE in Belgium (where I live) is a system containing transfer openings at 1-level (like MOSCITO)

Please be more careful with your attributions. This is not "my" solution. I don't think that it is a good idea for countries to name their own colours, but this is obviously what they would do if there were a scheme for adding more colours to the WBF code, unless the WBF itself made the decisions. (A previous poster suggested that countries could "agree"; it is very difficult to imagine how this would be possible).

Quote

EDIT: note that in my 2 definitions above, Fantunes can be classified as both PURPLE and ORANGE. So I guess we'd need some hierachy like we have now with GREEN < BLUE < RED < YELLOW.

A hierarchy would be impossible with a system like this. Where would you place, say Polish Club (ORANGE) so that it could be used in Green events in Poland and not BLUE ones in the USA? And Scotland have subtracted things from BLUE and GREEN... How could a colour be placed which disallows some GREEN but allows almost all of BLUE?

So Scotland (newly) and Poland already use WBF classifications with modifications. If these were noted in a "plus" and/or "minus" sort of way (this seems simplest), it would be clear to the natives of those countries and to visitors that there are differences, and what nature of differences, between their classifications. Instead there are at least three "GREEN" systems in use. All in the name of trying to adopt "uniform" regulations.

Quote

GREEN+ is something we actually use in Belgium.

I am glad to hear it -- I was sure it was a workable idea!

Quote

It's basically a list of conventions that are allowed (simple example: Landy defense against 1NT). For local orgranizations it's easy, but globally it may cause problems or abuse.
Entire systems are difficult to use as an exception, every time I played against Poles, they all said they played Polish Club, but they all played another version of their 1♣ opening and/or responses.

I think that it might be possible to use entire systems as exceptions, even if there are several versions. And this is certainly the most practical solution (especially as there are such "GREEN+" classifications already in use) until such time as the WBF add new colours. Especially since that time has a high probability of being "never".

[Vampyr]

paulg, on 2011-February-24, 06:50, said:

However the classification is not very important as GREEN, RED and BLUE systems are permitted in all national tournaments, and most regional ones, except events that are specifically for beginners and novices.

It might be important if Scots played in another country that used the WBF classification, in an event that permitted only GREEN or BLUE; they would not be prepared for some of the openings they might encounter. Or if visitors came and didn't pre-submit their "RED" systems (though I get the impression that Scotland does not intend to be a stickler about that). Mainly, though, I think that it is better for consistency's sake to either use the WBF scheme wholesale or note that there are differences. If more countries took Poland and Scotland's lead, there could be a proliferation of GREEN systems, and more seriously, in countries where modifications were made to RED, players could suddenly find themselves playing a YELLOW system or even HUM.

[bluejak]

It is difficult to keep a straight face when reading some of these posts. I originally assumed they were just meant as a joke but now I am not so sure. If anyone thinks it solves the alleged problem to change the method of permitting to something different with one hundred and eighteen different colours around the world, I think you are [words fail me ...]

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-February-24, 08:11, said:

It is difficult to keep a straight face when reading some of these posts. I originally assumed they were just meant as a joke but now I am not so sure. If anyone thinks it solves the alleged problem to change the method of permitting to something different with one hundred and eighteen different colours around the world, I think you are [words fail me ...]

David, countries are claiming to adopt the WBF classifications when they are actually using their own home-grown versions. Do you think that this is not a problem? I think it is, and that it will get worse. I personally don't think that adding colours is the solution, but people are just trying things out. Maybe a solution to the problem, which you may not think exists but others do, will emerge.

[paulg]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-24, 08:08, said:

paulg, on 2011-February-24, 06:50, said:

However the classification is not very important as GREEN, RED and BLUE systems are permitted in all national tournaments, and most regional ones, except events that are specifically for beginners and novices. This means that it is the HUM and BSC classifications that are the important part of the regulations - avoid these and the colour does not matter.

It might be important if Scots played in another country that used the WBF classification, in an event that permitted only GREEN or BLUE; they would not be prepared for some of the openings they might encounter. Or if visitors came and didn't pre-submit their "RED" systems (though I get the impression that Scotland does not intend to be a stickler about that). Mainly, though, I think that it is better for consistency's sake to either use the WBF scheme wholesale or note that there are differences. If more countries took Poland and Scotland's lead, there could be a proliferation of GREEN systems, and more seriously, in countries where modifications were made to RED, players could suddenly find themselves playing a YELLOW system or even HUM.

A major problem with the WBF regulations is that there is no proper definition of what makes a system GREEN or RED and, as a result, there is already inconsistency in the interpretations of Green and Red even in WBF tournaments. In Scotland we have attempted to provide a more usable level of guidance.

BTW you do not have to pre-submit green, red or blue systems in Scotland.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-24, 08:22, said:

David, countries are claiming to adopt the WBF classifications when they are actually using their own home-grown versions. Do you think that this is not a problem? I think it is, and that it will get worse. I personally don't think that adding colours is the solution, but people are just trying things out. Maybe a solution to the problem, which you may not think exists but others do, will emerge.

Stephanie, of course there is a problem, the WBF classification is poorly thought out and ill-described. Of course there is a solution: don't use it.

Don't confuse my feeling that the posts here are ridiculous with me not thinking there is a problem. It is perfectly possible for both to be true.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2011-February-24, 19:00, said:

Don't confuse my feeling that the posts here are ridiculous with me not thinking there is a problem. It is perfectly possible for both to be true.

Keep that as a macro, or something. You could plug it into a lot of threads.

[bluejak]

Oh, no, it is very rare. There are quite a few threads where I consider a majority of the posts are wrong, but not ridiculous: it is very rare to find a set of ridiculous posts.

[dburn]

It occurs to me that the bridge world may (unintentionally or otherwise) have provided the first working example of what is known to philosophers as Goodman's Paradox (the rest of you can look it up when you get home).

Having regard to the well-documented existence of a very fine American player by the name of [Joe] Grue, it may also be that the bridge world has actually decided the paradox by empirical means. Unless, of course, a very fine player by the name of Bleen arises in the near future...

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

There are quite a few threads where I consider a majority of the posts are wrong, but not ridiculous

I look forward to the software for this board moving to a new version where an online red pen is provided so Bluejak can mark our posts with perhaps also a Jeremy Paxman voice going "No. No, you are completely wrong. Don't you know anything"?

[shintaro]

Jeremy69A, on 2011-February-25, 07:55, said:

I look forward to the software for this board moving to a new version where an online red pen is provided so Bluejak can mark our posts with perhaps also a Jeremy Paxman voice going "No. No, you are completely wrong. Don't you know anything"?

Doh! Heaven forbid that day ever comes

BTW why add the extra 'A'

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

BTW why add the extra 'A'

Some unsuccessful merging of a BBO id and a BBO forum id!

[shintaro]

Jeremy69A, on 2011-February-25, 09:59, said:

Some unsuccessful merging of a BBO id and a BBO forum id!

ROFL

much prefered the original

[aguahombre]

Who is "B"?

[the hog]

dburn, on 2011-February-24, 20:51, said:

It occurs to me that the bridge world may (unintentionally or otherwise) have provided the first working example of what is known to philosophers as Goodman's Paradox (the rest of you can look it up when you get home).

Having regard to the well-documented existence of a very fine American player by the name of [Joe] Grue, it may also be that the bridge world has actually decided the paradox by empirical means. Unless, of course, a very fine player by the name of Bleen arises in the near future...

I read your link and got a headache.