[nige1]

barmar, on 2021-October-18, 15:44, said:

The same could be said for having different spoken languages in different countries. Do we need to scrap them and get everyone to speak Earthish?

Not really
I favour fewer, fairer, simpler rules
I'm against unnecessary new rules that add no value (e.g. local regulations)

[paulg]

Douglas43, on 2021-October-19, 03:40, said:

It would still be nice if the EBU, SBU, WBU, NIBU and ideally CBAI could agree a common approach across the British Isles. At least until the Isle of Man declares independence

The WBU effectively outsources its arrangements to the EBU, so they are the same.

Traditionally the SBU could agree with anyone except the English and has effectively outsourced its regulations to the WBF. This is very different to the EBU regulations although most people cope well enough save for alerting doubles.

[fromageGB]

paulg, on 2021-October-19, 15:25, said:

Traditionally the SBU could agree with anyone except the English and has effectively outsourced its regulations to the WBF. This is very different to the EBU regulations although most people cope well enough save for alerting doubles.

And the EBU version is crazy. I still fall foul of it having played in England all my life. Is this the one thing Scotland has done right in its myriad attempts to do things the non-English way?

[pescetom]

fromageGB, on 2021-October-21, 05:24, said:

Is this the one thing Scotland has done right in its myriad attempts to do things the non-English way?

Perhaps.
I am no fan of the EBU version, but then I play in Italy which essentially outsources to WBF just like Scotland.

I can see the limitations of WBF policy, but I don't agree with those who suggest it is unworkable at club level - I would argue almost the contrary, that club level players tend to have a clearer vision of what is natural than some expert players and directors do. Only a law committee member or someone fond of cocaine could seriously assert that a spades response denying spades is natural My club members would have little doubt about an opening that showed spades and an undisclosed minor too, or a 1♣ opening that might be two cards (even if only 4=4=3=2 and if they play that themselves).

The two areas that are inherently tricky for any policy IMO are doubles (which are almost never natural for WBF, and hard to standardise for the 'not normal here' countries) and follow-ups to conventions (e.g. completion of transfer, responses to Stayman and subsequent developments). I struggle to see what is difficult about cuebids.

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2021-October-21, 11:18, said:

I struggle to see what is difficult about cuebids.

If this is in reply to what I wrote, I claimed they were complex - not difficult and I was talking about comparing the various regulations. For instance, in Australia we never alert cue bids. In jurisdictions more closely aligned with the WBF you alert them when not natural, and in the ACBL you sometimes do and sometimes don't.

The ABF regs have a few odd consequences. Consider the auction 1NT - (2D), where 2D shows both majors. Now any call in hearts, spades or diamonds is considered "self-alerting" because they are all cue bids. I can assure you few people get this one right. Another strange situation is that (1NT) - 2NT is self-alerting. This last one is explicitly mentioned in the regs and still almost nobody knows it.

One final example is 1NT - (P) - 2C - (X), where double shows clubs. Now our later 3C bid is alertable, because the opponents never bid clubs nor showed clubs with a bid (X is of course a call, not a bid). But I think the intent is that 3C should not be alertable, because it would seem strange to treat subsequent auctions such as 1C-(1H)-X and 1C-(1H)-1S differently if both showed 4+ spades.

In practice, even experienced players get a lot of these situations wrong. So I think the regs about cuebids are complex when compared across jurisdictions. And I think the in-theory simple idea of not alerting cue bids has some implications that present difficulties to players.

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2021-October-21, 14:25, said:

If this is in reply to what I wrote, I claimed they were complex - not difficult and I was talking about comparing the various regulations. For instance, in Australia we never alert cue bids. In jurisdictions more closely aligned with the WBF you alert them when not natural, and in the ACBL you sometimes do and sometimes don't.

The ABF regs have a few odd consequences. Consider the auction 1NT - (2D), where 2D shows both majors. Now any call in hearts, spades or diamonds is considered "self-alerting" because they are all cue bids. I can assure you few people get this one right. Another strange situation is that (1NT) - 2NT is self-alerting. This last one is explicitly mentioned in the regs and still almost nobody knows it.

One final example is 1NT - (P) - 2C - (X), where double shows clubs. Now our later 3C bid is alertable, because the opponents never bid clubs nor showed clubs with a bid (X is of course a call, not a bid). But I think the intent is that 3C should not be alertable, because it would seem strange to treat subsequent auctions such as 1C-(1H)-X and 1C-(1H)-1S differently if both showed 4+ spades.

In practice, even experienced players get a lot of these situations wrong. So I think the regs about cuebids are complex when compared across jurisdictions. And I think the in-theory simple idea of not alerting cue bids has some implications that present difficulties to players.

Thanks and fair enough, but I think the complexity you describe is in good part induced by the regulations of some authorities, including ABF it seems.
I think WBF has this one nailed, the only natural meaning of a bid of opponents' suit is that I hold that same suit: it does not seem problematic to alert other meanings, which are often unpredictable and generally something the other side really should know.
This seems to me a good example of a possible simple and workable world-wide rule, with no local variations, as advocated by nige1.

[nige1]

pescetom, on 2021-October-21, 15:46, said:

I think WBF has this one nailed, the only natural meaning of a bid of opponents' suit is that I hold that same suit: it does not seem problematic to alert other meanings, which are often unpredictable and generally something the other side really should know. This seems to me a good example of a possible simple and workable world-wide rule, with no local variations, as advocated by nige1.

The SBU have sensibly adopted WBF regulations, which work fine
Furthermore ...

• We could enforce the rule that both sides have system-cards.
• We could also mandate that each player announce the meaning of partner's calls -- or his own -- like BBO
• A matrix of likely explanations, on a card or tablet, could simplify such announcements - and minimise disturbance to neighbouring tables -- a similar idea to BBO FD applets
• All this might well frustrate secretary birds -- both rule-makers and tournament-directors
• A pity -- but it would help players enjoy their game with less hassle
• If globally adopted, it would save rain-forests of local regulations

[Douglas43]

nige1, on 2021-October-22, 10:09, said:

The SBU have sensibly adopted WBF regulations, which work fine
Furthermore ...

• We could enforce the rule that both sides have system-cards.
• We could also mandate that each player announce the meaning of partner's calls -- or his own -- like BBO
• A matrix of likely explanations, on a card or tablet, could simplify such announcements - and minimise disturbance to neighbouring tables -- a similar idea to BBO FD applets
• All this might well frustrate secretary birds -- both rule-makers and tournament-directors
• A pity -- but it would help players enjoy their game with less hassle
• If globally adopted, it would save rain-forests of local regulations

Announcing certainly works well on basic calls like 1NT range and transfers, where it is required by the E****** Bridge Union

[paulg]

nige1, on 2021-October-22, 10:09, said:

The SBU have sensibly adopted WBF regulations, which work fine

They work so fine that the SBU feels obliged to provide a dozen pages of explanatory notes. If other NBOs thought the same, then you've not really changed anything.

nige1, on 2021-October-22, 10:09, said:

Furthermore ...

• We could enforce the rule that both sides have system-cards.

And who is going to ensure that these system cards are adequately completed? The SBU could not cope with just checking the triallists' system cards and have not even tried with a long-running national event that has more entrants.

nige1, on 2021-October-22, 10:09, said:

• We could also mandate that each player announce the meaning of partner's calls -- or his own -- like BBO
• A matrix of likely explanations, on a card or tablet, could simplify such announcements - and minimise disturbance to neighbouring tables -- a similar idea to BBO FD applets

I don't mind the announcements, but the matrix of explanations is just creating a nightmare in an environment where there is system diversity. The "short club" crowd will just point to the 2+ clubs, leaving their opponents completely in the dark about the real meaning of the bid. Of course it should be on the system card, but when international pairs are failing to disclose this and not being corrected how is the ordinary club or tournament player supposed to behave.

nige1, on 2021-October-22, 10:09, said:

• All this might well frustrate secretary birds -- both rule-makers and tournament-directors
• A pity -- but it would help players enjoy their game with less hassle
• If globally adopted, it would save rain-forests of local regulations

As you are also trying to reduce the size of the law book, I feel the lawyers will be chomping at the bit: they will not be frustrated but involved far more by these suggestions.

[nige1]

paulg, on 2021-October-24, 13:22, said:

They (WBF system cards) work so fine that the SBU feels obliged to provide a dozen pages of explanatory notes. If other NBOs thought the same, then you've not really changed anything.

NBOs that use the WBF card, would disclose methods, in the same way. with the same notes (if necessary) That 's the point of a standard format.

paulg, on 2021-October-24, 13:22, said:

And who is going to ensure that these system cards are adequately completed? The SBU could not cope with just checking the triallists' system cards and have not even tried with a long-running national event that has more entrants

It's easier to check system-cards in a standard format. It's easier to enforce uniform rules. Rules work better if clearly stated and rigorously enforced. We're discussing first steps in that direction.

paulg, on 2021-October-24, 13:22, said:

I don't mind the announcements, but the matrix of explanations is just creating a nightmare in an environment where there is system diversity;

Announcements work fine for notrump ranges, transfers, and so on. Not a panacea but better than non-disclosure.

paulg, on 2021-October-24, 13:22, said:

As you are also trying to reduce the size of the law book, I feel the lawyers will be chomping at the bit: they will not be frustrated but involved far more by these suggestions.

IMO simpler, more consistent, less subjective rules would improve the game. Shorter is probably better too.

[mycroft]

nige1, on 2021-October-26, 20:40, said:

NBOs that use the WBF card, would disclose methods, in the same way. with the same notes (if necessary) That 's the point of a standard format.

Assumes evidence very clearly not in scope. Paul's argument, and it has the imprimatur of "actually having happened repeatedly for the last 20 years at least", is that they would not. They would all have their interpretations, and those interpretations would inevitably vary (likely due to things like "nobody plays Polish Club in Glasgow; nobody plays a weak NT in Albuquerque; nobody plays Flannery in Manchester").

Now if you're going to impose:

• a committee in the WBF to receive cases and issue interpretations that would ensure that they are consistent
  
• regulations on the NBOs (with teeth. Think about how that's going to be possible) so that said consistency is followed

then this might work. It works for many sports (I remember reading the 2017 Canadian Box Lacrosse rules, with the annual interpretation guidelines. It can be done. Of course, all the referees are licensed by the same organization that issues the interpretations, and requires annual review tests. And, of course, said interpretations don't necessarily apply in NLL, or in NCAA Box Lacrosse, or definitely in field lacrosse. And...)

All Of That Costs. In time, effort and salary. The NBOs are already rebelling against the WBF's fees; never mind paying their directors to do something for the WBF; players with sufficient interest, skill level, and ability to issue clear and precise interpretations either don't have all that much time to offer or aren't cheap (or both!). Also, for this to be at all relevant, you're going to have to start by convincing the politicians that it's worth it. And that they should give up some of their power to regulate, for the common good. Which will *be* for the common good, Immediately Obviously To The Most Casual Observer.

Quote

It's easier to check system-cards in a standard format. It's easier to enforce uniform rules. Rules work better if clearly stated and rigorously enforced. We're discussing first steps in that direction.

I don't agree with all of this, as you well know. I'd ask Jan Martel, say, or any of the other National Team coaches whose job is to do this, how easy it is to check WBF system cards supposedly in the standard format for even 48 teams for the BB. And that's even after we say that the "Polish Club is marked Green, because in Poland Polish Club is Green" won't happen because of "clearly stated and rigorously enforced".

Never mind the "who's going to work on unified system regulations (even 8 or 10 levels of them, surely the BB is different from the Ciudad de México Flight A teams is different from the C game is different from the novice game) that the Aussies and the Arkansans and the Austrians will accept?" issue. Which is so much of a pipe dream it's not even legal in Canada or Portugal. But go right ahead, and believe in your utopia. Trust me, I have my own windmills to tilt at; I'm not begrudging you yours. I just admit that they are.

Quote

IMO simpler, more consistent, less subjective rules would improve the game. Shorter is probably better too.

As you've been saying for a decade. As I've been quoting (out of context) for a decade, "pick two (you can't have all three)." Or four, in your case.

As I've also been saying for several years, if you think this is possible, build a first example. It doesn't have to hold up to criticism (see the 500 comments on BW about the first round of what became the ACBL Open Chart) - just a proof of possibility. Don't just state "this is obviously better, and clearly possible", in the face of repeated and large opposition that "history says it isn't, and people have tried for decades and have universally retired frustrated." I won't even force you to jump over the "going to be approved by the politicians"; let's just get a first draft on the table, which I'm sure won't have holes you can drive a lorry through (assuming you can find a HGV driver with hours these days).

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2021-October-27, 11:46, said:

Now if you're going to impose:a committee in the WBF to receive cases and issue interpretations that would ensure that they are consistentr egulations on the NBOs (with teeth. Think about how that's going to be possible) so that said consistency is followed then this might work. It works for many sports (I remember reading the 2017 Canadian Box Lacrosse rules, with the annual interpretation guidelines. It can be done. Of course, all the referees are licensed by the same organization that issues the interpretations, and requires annual review tests. And, of course, said interpretations don't necessarily apply in NLL, or in NCAA Box Lacrosse, or definitely in field lacrosse.

Yes the suggestion is that that the WBF impose a single set of regulations rather than each NBO impose their own.

mycroft, on 2021-October-27, 11:46, said:

And...)All Of That Costs. In time, effort and salary. The NBOs are already rebelling against the WBF's fees; never mind paying their directors to do something for the WBF; players with sufficient interest, skill level, and ability to issue clear and precise interpretations either don't have all that much time to offer or aren't cheap (or both!). Also, for this to be at all relevant, you're going to have to start by convincing the politicians that it's worth it. And that they should give up some of their power to regulate, for the common good. Which will *be* for the common good, Immediately Obviously To The Most Casual Observer.

Yes, It's cheaper and simpler to create and enforce a single set of regulations.

mycroft, on 2021-October-27, 11:46, said:

I don't agree with all of this, as you well know. I'd ask Jan Martel, say, or any of the other National Team coaches whose job is to do this, how easy it is to check WBF system cards supposedly in the standard format for even 48 teams for the BB. And that's even after we say that the "Polish Club is marked Green, because in Poland Polish Club is Green" won't happen because of "clearly stated and rigorously enforced".

It should save time and money to check a system against a global set of WBF regulations rather than against a different set regulations for each NBO, in which you play.

mycroft, on 2021-October-27, 11:46, said:

Never mind the "who's going to work on unified system regulations (even 8 or 10 levels of them, surely the BB is different from the Ciudad de México Flight A teams is different from the C game is different from the novice game) that the Aussies and the Arkansans and the Austrians will accept?" issue. Which is so much of a pipe dream it's not even legal in Canada or Portugal. But go right ahead, and believe in your utopia. Trust me, I have my own windmills to tilt at; I'm not begrudging you yours. I just admit that they are. As you've been saying for a decade. As I've been quoting (out of context) for a decade, "pick two (you can't have all three)." Or four, in your case.As I've also been saying for several years, if you think this is possible, build a first example. It doesn't have to hold up to criticism (see the 500 comments on BW about the first round of what became the ACBL Open Chart) - just a proof of possibility. Don't just state "this is obviously better, and clearly possible", in the face of repeated and large opposition that "history says it isn't, and people have tried for decades and have universally retired frustrated." I won't even force you to jump over the "going to be approved by the politicians"; let's just get a first draft on the table, which I'm sure won't have holes you can drive a lorry through (assuming you can find a HGV driver with hours these days).

For a long time, WBF regulations have worked OK in WBF competitions. They work fine in NBOs, like Scotland and Italy that have adopted them.

[pescetom]

paulg, on 2021-October-24, 13:22, said:

I don't mind the announcements, but the matrix of explanations is just creating a nightmare in an environment where there is system diversity. The "short club" crowd will just point to the 2+ clubs, leaving their opponents completely in the dark about the real meaning of the bid. Of course it should be on the system card, but when international pairs are failing to disclose this and not being corrected how is the ordinary club or tournament player supposed to behave.

Nightmare seems a massive overbid to me.
I imagine what nige1 has in mind is an A4 page (or tablet based equivalent) with the 10 (say) most frequent explanations clearly evidenced.
My "1♣ Opening" explanation would be a box saying something like "3+ clubs with no 5-card major, or 2 clubs with both majors 4-card. Excludes both minors 4-card and balanced 15-17."
Which is a more verbose version of what is on my system card (and also what is commonly assumed - but not promised - with the obligatory "2+ cards" announcement).
I would have no problem following this system of disclosure in an ordinary club tournament.
I suggest that those who would are the real problem here, not the system of disclosure.

[paulg]

pescetom, on 2021-October-27, 15:46, said:

Nightmare seems a massive overbid to me.
I imagine what nige1 has in mind is an A4 page (or tablet based equivalent) with the 10 (say) most frequent explanations clearly evidenced.
My "1♣ Opening" explanation would be a box saying something like "3+ clubs with no 5-card major, or 2 clubs with both majors 4-card. Excludes both minors 4-card and balanced 15-17."
Which is a more verbose version of what is on my system card (and also what is commonly assumed - but not promised - with the obligatory "2+ cards" announcement).
I would have no problem following this system of disclosure in an ordinary club tournament.
I suggest that those who would are the real problem here, not the system of disclosure.

Perhaps I read more into nige1's suggestion, which I presumed was a standard matrix rather than a personal one.

However it's only needed by those who are poor at disclosure ... which probably means it would not help

[mycroft]

nige1, on 2021-October-27, 15:16, said:

Yes the suggestion is that that the WBF impose a single set of regulations rather than each NBO impose their own.

But again, no sample of how impose would work. Or who would create and maintain it. Or who would pay for it. Or what the WBF is going to do when the 800-pound gorilla sits where it wants anyway. Or when the ABA (note, not connected to the WBF at all) decides to do what it's always done, for that matter.

A thought - if there's one consistent and complete set of regulations, then does that mean that all convention cards have to be in English? Even at the Polish Div 3 team league? If not, what's the difference between "use a local language on the set convention card" and "use a local convention card"?

Quote

Yes, It's cheaper and simpler to create and enforce a single set of regulations.

Which is why, of course, Google, IBM, Cisco, Microsoft... all follow the RFCs to the letter and there's a single, universal standard for everything. I mean, if it's simpler and cheaper, then it's obviously what business is looking for in "efficiency", right?

Also, that's why there's a universal set of building codes used and enforced throughout the disk. And...

Quote

It should save time and money to check a system against a global set of WBF regulations rather than against a different set regulations for each NBO, in which you play.

Yes, it probably should. But surprisingly it doesn't, based on the statements of the people who actually do that sort of thing for World Championship teams.

And seriously, how many bridge players care anything about a second NBO? Okay, BBO, having inherited "the world is the USA ACBL" blinkers, kind of forces you to learn how to fill in the ACBL "system card". And the odd Trinitarian nature of that one island means that effectively, all Scottish and Welsh players need to know English regulations (but not necessarily vice versa). But apart from that, only the "top of the top" will ever play in an NBO that isn't their own (even at a club!) And, we assume, when you get to that level, you can handle "learning a different set of regulations" at least well enough for the event you're playing in.

Quote

For a long time, WBF regulations have worked OK in WBF competitions. They work fine in NBOs, like Scotland and Italy that have adopted them.

"WBF competition" is the epitome of "only the top of the top". They just don't run events where "normal bridge players" play - even when they do, like the locals who show up to the transnational teams.

It works so well for the Scots that they have to write 12 pages of regulations clarifying instructions. Plus a whole Alert system that works without screens (another thing the WBF just doesn't have to concern itself with in its games).

I notice on the FIGB site a "simplified card". I assume it is in some use if it's there. It looks a lot more like the ACBL card than the WBF one... I'm sure pescetom can give more information about how that works in practise. Also I know that they have a whole lot of convention regulations, some of which have been argued to in fact be illegal, not just unique and confusing to non-Italians. So, in fact, it doesn't work for them.

Even the pride of the "freedom" crowd down south do a fair bit of regulation to ensure that novices and Americans don't have to play against all the weirdnesses allowed in world championship games. Oh, and they have this odd way of handling the auction that nobody sane* else uses, that needs a separate set of regulations to deal with, IIRC. I'm sure that the other NBOs will be happy to pay to take over those regulations and make them available worldwide.

And again, I remind you about the 800-pound gorillas out there - one of whom is 1/3 of the board of the WBF, and "is currently willing to agree" that the Laws they own and publish match the ones the rest of the world owns and publishes (now, do you think that would continue if the other code publishers removed L80B2f - that is what you're suggesting, right?). And the 300-pound ones, for that matter (consider the current amusement with the FIGB. If the WBF can't impose its will, even in its own games - never mind the NBO's - in a "fundamental issue with bridge" case, what do you expect them to do when 100 NBOs say "yeah, that's dumb, our players understand what they're currently doing, and we'll just keep with that, thanks." to Alerting?)

Oh hey, wait, should there be a "single, simple, clear, and consistent" regulation throughout organized bridge when it comes to drug testing? Well, yes, probably, but should it be the WBF's?

* Note: I happen to think that written bidding is a really neat idea, especially when it comes time to find out if 3♦ was doubled or not after trick 13. Of course, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the strikeout...

[PeterAlan]

mycroft, on 2021-October-28, 10:13, said:

Which is why, of course, Google, IBM, Cisco, Microsoft... all follow the RFCs to the letter and there's a single, universal standard for everything.

This reminds me of the old IT joke, that dates back at least to the days of EGA, VGA, etcGA: "Standards are very important - that's why we have so many of them."

[paulg]

PeterAlan, on 2021-October-28, 14:38, said:

This reminds me of the old IT joke, that dates back at least to the days of EGA, VGA, etcGA: "Standards are very important - that's why we have so many of them."

When I worked for Silicon Graphics we caused havoc in the universities when we introduced the first machine that could actually meet the Ethernet standard: in particular CSMA/CD, not transmitting when others were transmitting. If you found someone else was transmitting, you backed off for a time X and then tried again. Prior to our machine, everyone backed off for more than X due to their lack of processing power. Our machine could follow the standard and backed off for precisely X and then started transmitting again, meaning we hogged the entire network bringing all the other systems to their knees.

We were, of course, blamed for actually following the standard.

[mycroft]

ObXKCD. I didn't add it to the previous comment because I wasn't sure enough of the forums would know I wasn't being serious.

[Vampyr]

paulg, on 2021-October-11, 00:51, said:

I've always felt that the ACBL alerting regulations are written for tournament players and EBU/SBU regulations more for club players, where there are far fewer conventions used. The WBF regulations are written for elite players playing with screens.

I am not really sure what you are trying to say. The EBU regulations are the same at all levels of play.

fromageGB, on 2021-October-21, 05:24, said:

And the EBU version is crazy. I still fall foul of it having played in England all my life. Is this the one thing Scotland has done right in its myriad attempts to do things the non-English way?

The best part of the EBU regulations is that they can be understood by a five-year-old. They are simple, consistent, and easy to follow.

What I don’t understand is that most jurisdictions do not use alerts for any doubles. How tedious it must be to have to ask EVERY SINGLE TIME.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2021-October-30, 17:24, said:

What I don't understand is that most jurisdictions do not use alerts for any doubles. How tedious it must be to have to ask EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Welcome back, Vampyr IMO, it would be better ...

• if the meaning or all calls (including all doubles) were announced.
• (failing that) if the meaning of all doubles were announced -- except for penalty doubles.
• (failing that) the EBU rule is also OK, if you can remember it