[shintaro]

aguahombre, on 2011-February-25, 17:23, said:

Who is "B"?

His better half perhaps

[helene_t]

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).

Say we play the following disjunctive count signals:

A suit length is oven if it is even and inferable to declarer, or if it is odd and not inferable to declarer. Conversely, a suit length is edd if it is odd and inferable to declarer, or even and not inferable to declarer.

Now we play
high=oven
low=edd

Someone wants to submit to the ACBL a query as to whether we can play this. And if not, is it because it would be seen as a coded signal or for some other reason?

[shevek]

Let's aim lower.
How about a world-wide agreement on revoke enquiries by defenders?

Also, concerning declining numbers, young people perceive this because they tend to play nights. There is a drift from night to day sessions from the 55+ group. They are healthy and living longer. There were 440 teams at last week's Gold Coast Congress.

[gordontd]

shevek, on 2011-March-07, 19:21, said:

Let's aim lower.
How about a world-wide agreement on revoke enquiries by defenders?

Don't we have that now with the current Law book? I thought that no Regulating Authority had exercised their right to prohibit enquiries by defenders under the current laws - I know Japan had intended to until England decided not to.

[jallerton]

gordontd, on 2011-March-08, 03:22, said:

Don't we have that now with the current Law book? I thought that no Regulating Authority had exercised their right to prohibit enquiries by defenders under the current laws - I know Japan had intended to until England decided not to.

What about in WBF/EBL events played with screens? Are defenders allowed to ask about possible revokes under the screen?

My understanding is that the English Laws & Ethics Committee wanted to continue the previous practice of prohibiting enquiries by defenders, but because (either by accident or design) the 2007 Laws did not specify a remedy in the event of a prohibited enquiry the L&EC decided that it was impractical to reject the new default option.

[Vampyr]

jallerton, on 2011-March-08, 10:52, said:

My understanding is that the English Laws & Ethics Committee wanted to continue the previous practice of prohibiting enquiries by defenders, but because (either by accident or design) the 2007 Laws did not specify a remedy in the event of a prohibited enquiry the L&EC decided that it was impractical to reject the new default option.

I believe that this is the case, but I always wondered why the L&EC did not just decide to make it liable to a PP. However, the practice has not really caught on in England, for which fact I am very grateful. It would have driven me mad.

[shintaro]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-08, 10:56, said:

I believe that this is the case, but I always wondered why the L&EC did not just decide to make it liable to a PP. However, the practice has not really caught on in England, for which fact I am very grateful. It would have driven me mad.

rofl into the madhouse with you then

[nige1]

mr1303, on 2011-February-19, 18:25, said:

It does seem very strange to me that different worldwide organisations have very different rules and regulations regarding permitted bidding systems etc.

Agree with mr1303: it's a pity that the WBF are so reluctant to publish a complete rule-book (laws + regulations)

• Some local legislatures want local rules for local people, to ensure a local advantage (but the WBF could specify the WBF rules to be defaults that chauvinistic local legislatures could over-ride for local fairy-bridge tournaments, to protect locals from foreign competition).
• There are system-regulation objections. They can be mitigated in various ways. For example, the WBF could define an arbitrary system as standard from which players must disclose departures. This would facilitate global disclosure rules. Again, a local legislature would be allowed to define a local standard to replace the global standard in local competition. IMO, there should be two levels of competition: standard system and anything goes.
• Most players would prefer Bridge-rules that were clear and simple enough for players and directors to learn and to understand. I would prefer them to be less subjective and more deterrent. If Bridge-rules were also complete and the same everywhere, I feel that Bridge could be popular again.
• Luckily, On-line bridge sites, like BBO, are fast converging on a complete rule-set, superior to the current face-to-face morass.

[aguahombre]

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

morass.

If we could just vote on that

[hrothgar]

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

[*]Luckily, On-line bridge sites, like BBO, are fast converging on a complete rule-set, superior to the current face-to-face morass.[/list]

What evidence do you see to support this?

[Vampyr]

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

Agree with mr1303: it's a pity that the WBF are so reluctant to publish a complete rule-book (laws + regulations)
[list][*]Some local legislatures want local rules for local people, to ensure a local advantage (but the WBF could specify the WBF rules to be defaults that chauvinistic local legislatures could over-ride for local fairy-bridge tournaments, to protect locals from foreign competition).[*]There are system-regulation objections. They can be mitigated in various ways. For example, the WBF could define an arbitrary system as standard from which players must disclose departures. This would facilitate global disclosure rules. Again, a local legislature would be allowed to define a local standard to replace the global standard in local competition. IMO, there should be two levels of competition: standard system and anything goes.

They're playing your song, Nigel. But be careful what you wish for.

If there really were a worldwide set of system regulations, it would probably resemble a less permissive version of the ACBL Mid-Chart. Would you enjoy playing under those conditions? I certainly would not. So the "default" would be over-ridden everywhere in the world where the punters want to play under less restrictive regulations, and it seems to me that this would be most places.

And why do you never seem to think there is a problem with requiring beginners to learn the system they are learning PLUS the WBF system, the latter just for purposes of disclosure?

The "Standard System" competitions would be played under a system that was very unfamiliar to most of the players. Though it would be great fun if the system adopted were something like Symmetric Relay!

Every time this subject is brought up, I and other people who have played in numerous foreign countries have said that we have not experienced difficulties. Why do you reject this assertion?

Quote

[*]Most players would prefer Bridge-rules that were clear and simple enough for players and directors to learn and to understand. I would prefer them to be less subjective and more deterrent.

I have never disagreeed with you here, and don't expect that I ever will.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-09, 20:35, said:

And why do you never seem to think there is a problem with requiring beginners to learn the system they are learning PLUS the WBF system, the latter just for purposes of disclosure? The "Standard System" competitions would be played under a system that was very unfamiliar to most of the players. Though it would be great fun if the system adopted were something like Symmetric Relay!

The standard system would probably be an updated version of WBF standard or something similar. Vampyr exaggerates the problem because:

• Currently, as well as her own system, a player must learn the system implicitly defined by each set of local alerting regulations. Hence a standard system would impose less of a memory burden.
• Currently, at club level, ordinary-players conform, painlessly, to local standard practice.
• Similarly, when necessary, on BBO, players adapt to the prevalent 2/1 variant.
• IMO, teachers would be happy to teach and beginners to learn the standard system.

The standard system would be a boon to players in pick-up partnerships. Also to organisers of no-fear tournaments, individual tournaments, and even special international tournaments to promote Bridge to a wide audience.

[blackshoe]

The trend I see in the US is to de facto "standards" that are, basically, what most folks here are taught in beginner courses, plus perhaps some very few additions. Innovation is actively discouraged, in no small part by the design and implementation of the ACBL system card, not to mention the regulations themselves.

What I see as a likely outcome of Nigel's vision is a stifling of innovation and creativity in bidding, leading to the eventual inevitable demise of the game. OTOH, by that time Nigel and I will probably both be dead, so why should we care?

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2011-March-09, 21:12, said:

The standard system would probably be an updated version of WBF standard or something similar.

There is no "WBF Standard" that I know about; the WBF is not in the business of developing bidding systems. So a standard system would be one that is already in use.

Quote

Vampyr exaggerates the problem because:

• Currently, as well as her own system, a player must learn the system implicitly defined by each set of local alerting regulations. Hence a standard system would impose less of a memory burden.
  
  

No, alert systems are based on what is familiar in a particular bridge culture. Here beginners are taught basic Acol, and they can learn and play for quite a long time before they begin playing something that requires an alert. A much bigger memory burden would occur if beginners had to learn both the "standard system" and the one they were going to play.

Quote

Currently, at club level, ordinary-players conform, painlessly, to local standard practice.

It's not so much "adapting"; local standard practice is the only thing they learn. And quite appropriately, too.

Quote

Similarly, when necessary, on BBO, players adapt to the prevalent 2/1 variant.

So players can adapt when playing in different cultures than their own; whether online or in foreign countries.

Quote

IMO, teachers would be happy to teach and beginners to learn the standard system.

Yes, and teachers would be happy to suspend their teaching while they themselves learnt a new system just to teach people who aren't even going to play it. Not.

Quote

The standard system would be a boon to players in pick-up partnerships. Also to organisers of no-fear tournaments, individual tournaments, and even special international tournaments to promote Bridge to a wide audience.

There are already no-fear and simple system tournaments, as well as individuals. There is at least one of the latter per month in London, plus two nights a week of playing fairly restricted systems, and this is just in one club.

I'm sure that there are simple system events in Scotland, too. How often are they held? How well regarded are they by the better players? How many tournaments are run this way? If the answers are often, very well, and very many, then that is evidence that people like to play in events where everyone plays the same system. If the answers are something else, then maybe people want to use and to play against a variety of systems.

It is true that it can be difficult to form a pickup partnership if the two bridge cultures the players come from have little common ground; but this mostly happens online, where there are standard cards you can adopt. If you happen to be travelling in a foreign country and show up at a duplicate event without a partner, you can (if you have decided to play natural methods) agree on a notrump range, how to play 2-bids, what 2/1 forces to and whether you play checkback. You can pretty much wing it from there. And if something goes wrong, you can have fun and learn something.

Many years ago I lived in Moscow, and had played no organised bridge at all outside the US and Canada. One of my first hands at the local duplicate club, I opened 1♥, partner responded 2♦, and I, with a good suit and a 17-count, rebid 2♥, secure in the knowledge that 2/1 promises another bid. I was rather disappointed when partner passed -- but I learned something, and later learned very many other things, and had fun doing it.

BLACKSHOE:

Quote

What I see as a likely outcome of Nigel's vision is a stifling of innovation and creativity in bidding, leading to the eventual inevitable demise of the game.

Word.

[Vampyr]

Says Vampyr and every other bridge player:

Quote

If everyone in the world decided to adopt the same bidding system, it had better be my favourite bidding system...

[paulg]

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

• Luckily, On-line bridge sites, like BBO, are fast converging on a complete rule-set, superior to the current face-to-face morass.

I guess you mean that:

• Revokes and insufficient bids, two of the more difficult legal areas, do not exist
• Disputed claims are resolved by play continuing. This encourages early claims but creates UI that the claimant can use - however, as luck would have it, ...
• All UI and MI issues are ignored - this is a great advance in the game that removes one of the most contentious areas of the Laws
• Everyone is their own Director, able to establish their own rules in many aspects of the game, including whether to prohibit psyches and then determining what is a psych, and what isn't.

It is hard to see how the 2,000 different sets of rules and regulations in place on an average night on BBO is an improvement.

[nige1]

paulg, on 2011-March-10, 03:01, said:

I guess you mean that:

• Revokes and insufficient bids, two of the more difficult legal areas, do not exist
• Disputed claims are resolved by play continuing. This encourages early claims but creates UI that the claimant can use - however, as luck would have it, ...
• All UI and MI issues are ignored - this is a great advance in the game that removes one of the most contentious areas of the Laws
• Everyone is their own Director, able to establish their own rules in many aspects of the game, including whether to prohibit psyches and then determining what is a psych, and what isn't.

It is hard to see how the 2,000 different sets of rules and regulations in place on an average night on BBO is an improvement.

Paulg makes a good guess at my meaning but his experience of BBO differs from mine:

• Some of us appreciate on-line safe-guards against mechanical-error (mechanical-errors can result in mad rulings under face-to-face law),
• On-line claim-law is fine. We're told that an unscrupulous claimer may attempt a "fishing" expedition. In practice, on-line opponents. well-aware of that possibility, are never hooked. Compared with face-to-face claim-law: on-line law is simpler; it doesn't depend on language skills; it's effective in actively encouraging claims; it speeds up the game; It's easy to reject a claim; and it's fairer. Face-to-face claims cause acrimony. Many of the resulting rulings are inconsistent and incomprehensible (see claim-threads in this and other fora - ad nauseam).
• On-line law removes some sources of UI (for example, disclosure) and could remove more (for instance, by concealing other player's actions until just before your turn to bid or play).
• Face-to-face law specifically allows the banning of psyches and some legislatures do ban them (especially of artificial strong bids). Of course, such rules diminish the fun of Bridge but, arguably, make life easier for tyros. (The same is true for all aspects of system-regulation).
• On-line tournaments normally have a director but simpler rules ensure that he is hardly ever needed. On-line rules are relatively consistent and uniform. Face-to-face rules vary depending on conditions of contest, on local rules, and (crucially) on the director's subjective interpretation of legal ambiguities and anomalies.
• On-line improvements could be available face-to-face, with appropriate apparatus in or on the bridge-table, at least at higher levels of competition.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-09, 23:50, said:

What I see as a likely outcome of Nigel's vision is a stifling of innovation and creativity in bidding, leading to the eventual inevitable demise of the game. OTOH, by that time Nigel and I will probably both be dead, so why should we care?

The suggestion was two tiers of competition: standard-system and anything-goes. Although tyros and traditionalists might choose the former, most players would choose the latter.

Rodgers & Hammerstein said:

Younger than springtime, am I

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-10, 02:26, said:

There is no "WBF Standard" that I know about; the WBF is not in the business of developing bidding systems. So a standard system would be one that is already in use.

A WBF standard system exists but it is probably a bit out-of-date.

Vampyr, on 2011-March-10, 02:26, said:

No, alert systems are based on what is familiar in a particular bridge culture. Here beginners are taught basic Acol, and they can learn and play for quite a long time before they begin playing something that requires an alert. A much bigger memory burden would occur if beginners had to learn both the "standard system" and the one they were going to play.

Alert systems are based on an implicit mish-mash system that is usually virtually unplayable. A standard system would aim to be more complete, consistent and effective. Relatively easy to teach, learn, and play.

Vampyr, on 2011-March-10, 02:26, said:

So players can adapt when playing in different cultures than their own; whether online or in foreign countries.

Obviously, players can adapt. 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.

Vampyr, on 2011-March-10, 02:26, said:

I'm sure that there are simple system events in Scotland, too. How often are they held? How well regarded are they by the better players? How many tournaments are run this way? If the answers are often, very well, and very many, then that is evidence that people like to play in events where everyone plays the same system. If the answers are something else, then maybe people want to use and to play against a variety of systems.

Both kinds of competition are enjoyable, popular and deserve encouragement.

Vampyr, on 2011-March-10, 02:26, said:

It is true that it can be difficult to form a pickup partnership if the two bridge cultures the players come from have little common ground; but this mostly happens online, where there are standard cards you can adopt. If you happen to be travelling in a foreign country and show up at a duplicate event without a partner, you can (if you have decided to play natural methods) agree on a notrump range, how to play 2-bids, what 2/1 forces to and whether you play checkback. You can pretty much wing it from there. And if something goes wrong, you can have fun and learn something.

Of course, such guesswork can be fun. It is also fun to be able to use partnership-skills based on better understandings that allow more refined judgement.

[mycroft]

Just to bring a practical point into this very theoretical discussion:

"The Executive shall consist of not less than eight nor more than twenty-three (23) members,
plus the President of the WBF. Zones 1 and 2 shall each be entitled to elect or appoint five
members to the Executive, Zone 6 two members and each other zone one member." - WBF Bylaws.

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.

This is probably time to mention that this is solely personal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the views of *any of* my employers.