BBO Discussion Forums: ACBL convention chart ideas - BBO Discussion Forums

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-28, 03:29, said:

I don't understand why you've put the word "protection" in quotes. I didn't use this word, and I didn't imply that the objective was to protect anyone.

As I said in an earlier post, the purpose of system regulation at this level is to strike a balance between allowing people the freedom to play methods that suit them, and limiting the burden of preparation on their opponents. Limiting HUMs to the knockout stages is a way to strike such a balance. Banning them entirely is not striking a balance, or it's not putting the fulcrum in a sensible place anyway.

 nige1, on 2012-May-26, 14:38, said:

Oh good, a new scenario.

The WBF carries out a poll as before. Taking into account the significant minority in favour of allowing Myxo Two-Bids, the WBF decrees that they should be allowed everywhere. The ACBL accepts this and imposes the new rule. (OK Ed, I know they wouldn't, but we're playing "If Nigel were king for a day".)

In a small town in Kansas, two youngish players take advantage of the new rules to start beating up the octogenarians at their local bridge club. The octogenarians complain. The club owner says that there's nothing he can do. Some of the members stop coming. To avoid bankruptcy, the club disaffiliates from the ACBL and reverts to the old rules. Attendance picks up again.

An Australian couple visit the club. They know that system regulations have been unified across the world, so they assume that they can play their normal system. One of them opens a Myxo Two Bid. The opponents object. The director rules that the method is illegal, gives the visitors a 40% result, and tells them to change their methods. They are unhappy.

The ACBL notices that clubs are leaving in droves. The ACBL reverses its earlier decision. The WBF evicts the ACBL and its constituent organisations, rendering the USA, Canada and Mexico ineligible for World Championships. The ACBL organises its own world championship (called the World Series), contested amongst the USA, Canada and Mexico. Bridge is poorer.

 gnasher, on 2012-May-28, 04:06, said:

Gnasher's scenario is as likely to occur under local rules as under universal WBF rules.

What does the ACBL do now, when it finds a club flouting WBF laws or ACBL regulations?

I've never played in America and don't know ACBL regulations. If my system-regulation example is inappropriate then please substitute any other ACBL regulation. Otherwise, please assume for the sake of argument that the ACBL licenses Drury for play at club-level.

The majority of a Kansas club's members hate psychs. They judge Drury to be the work of the Devil. They argue that Drury was designed as and still functions as a psych-control..The club deems ACBL regulations to be self-contradictory in this context, so it has no compunction about banning Drury.. Visitors from a neighbouring club complain to the ACBL. My guess is that the ACBL would do nothing..

What harm is there in that? Why shouldn't a local clubs change rules for local competition (provided it doesn't advertise its variant as "ACBL Duplicate Bridge")? Other games with universal rules survive with local "Fairy" variants.


The WBF deliberately encourages local Bridge variants. IMO that detracts from the game.

 gnasher, on 2012-May-28, 04:06, said:

Another good Gnasher example. Some think we're already there. I'm told that, in a recent Bridge world-championship, held in America, the system regulations were "enriched" with bans on conventions popular outside America and draconian restrictions on other foreign conventions. Are bridge-players proud of the image of their game that this presents?

 nige1, on 2012-May-28, 13:49, said:

That depends on what you mean by "local". Where my scenario occurs, it is simply an indication that the rules are insufficiently local. Just as it would be inappropriate for the WBF to tell a club in America what conventions to allow, it would also be inappropriate for the ACBL to do so, or the relevant ACBL district, or anyone except the club's owner and members.

Quote

Nigel, are you really incapable of doing a bit of research? The ACBL's regulations can be found by Googling "ACBL club regulations". If you do that, you will find that in the ACBL "A club manager can bar or allow specific conventions". That is, the ACBL already, very sensibly, practises localism with respect to system regulations.

The ACBL regulations relating to clubs seem to pertain almost entirely to the issuing of masterpoints. Since they are ACBL masterpoints, that seems entirely proper.

Quote

Yes, I agree, why shouldn't it?

Quote

So you keep saying, though I'm still mystified as to why you want to determine the rules of a competiton in which you don't participate, which you don't pay for, and the result of which cannot affect you in any way.

 nige1, on 2012-May-28, 14:25, said:

Which event are you talking about? What changes to the system regulations do you think were made?

 gnasher, on 2012-May-27, 16:22, said:

I think system-regulation comes from the top-level: a vocal minority of the older generation, set in their ways: including administrators, law-makers, professionals, and sponsors.

IMO, at lower levels, system-phobia is rare. Among improving players it is extremely rare . Bridge-classes are desperate to learn new conventions. Masochistically, they demand to be taught sophisticated conventions like odd-even signals and Multi before they can consistently follow suit. That is my experience of teaching Bridge at all levels -- an experience shared by all teachers whom I've asked. .

 gnasher, on 2012-May-28, 15:45, said:

Sorry. I'm unable to understand WBF laws let alone all the different local regualtions. Judging by the endless controversies in Bridge-Law discussion groups, I'm in excellent company. But Gnasher is right that I could have researched a better example.

My argument does not depend on any specific local regulation. Suppose that there is a current WBF law or ACBL regulation that does apply to club-level competition. What would the ACBL do when told that a club flouts it? I can guess but If I knew the answer I wouldn't ask.

 nige1, on 2012-May-28, 16:55, said:

There are any number of clubs in the ACBL that bar psyches but still sell masterpoints.
The ACBL doesn't care so long as they get their sanction fee.

 gnasher, on 2012-May-28, 15:45, said:

Well, that and making sure the ACBL gets their piece of the action.

 gnasher, on 2012-May-28, 03:39, said:

I wrote up a response but then noticed I'm really just bickering. Ultimately I agree that

A) System regulation is needed at all levels of bridge
B) We need much, MUCH better communication from all regulators as to What is the goal of regulation, and how do regulations map to those goals.

I'm not opposed to forcing pass methods being banned, but I don't understand why 1C ferts are banned for example, whereas the case for 1H being banned is much clearer, but neither is explained by anyone at all, nor is it explained why banning a 1C fert or a myxo 2 or 1NT for takeout or whatever at whichever level of the game is 'good.'

IMHO the goal of regulation is to protect from degenerate methods that dominate a given format. Degenerate methods should be banned and other methods permitted. A degenerate method is a method that disrupts the environment sufficiently that the only people 'winning' are people playing the degenerate method or people playing specific methods to counter it. It is possible that strong pass systems fit this criteria, though the total lack of tournament results to support that argument would be a case for deregulation.

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-28, 19:59, said:

Write to your NBO's Laws Committee and ask why the methods you mention are not permitted. With a little luck, you will get an answer that satisfies you.

 gnasher, on 2012-May-28, 15:45, said:

Gnasher and I agree to differ but I'm mystified too. IMO:

The current law-book is deliberately incomplete, forcing local legislatures to plug the gaps (e.g bidding box rules).

Currently, players who wish to play or watch Bridge must cope with rules peculiar to the relevant jurisdiction. Different sets of local-rules conflict with each other and with WBF laws. They waste effort. They disadvantage foreigners. They undermine fair International competition. Some local players like them but they seem to be a minority.

IMO Bridge rule-makers should concentrate their efforts on one set of consistent universal rules. The rules should preserve the fundamental nature of Bridge. .They should define a game that is as much fun as possible. The rules should be as clear, simple, and comprehensive as possible. The rules should be as easy as possible for players to understand and for directors to consistently and fairly apply.

Players who have reached similar conclusions seem reluctant to state the obvious, publicly.

While face-to-face Bridge declines, on-line Bridge grows in popularity. This may indicate a trend to global rules..

 Vampyr, on 2012-May-28, 22:44, said:

Our system regulations at the NBO level are just the WBF's regulations photocopied onto a different template. Application (e.g. banning yellow stickers all the time, sometimes, just in some proportion of the field in barometer pairs(?) etc) is left solely to club owners and TOs. So.. I probably won't, but hey! Worth a throw. That's my point though, individuals writing in leads to inconsistent responses being delivered back. Should be published. Then everyone knows what's what.

 nige1, on 2012-May-28, 22:51, said:

So that's why we haven't heard from them. Why are they reluctant, though?

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-28, 23:38, said:

People in general may not care, but if you get some interesting answers you could write an article for your NBO's magazine, or send in a letter.

I plan to investigate why transfer openings are not allowed in my NBO; at first glance it seems like a poor decision, but maybe I am missing something. In any case, I doubt that many of my friends would find the matter interesting.

One of the difficulties in playing bridge in different places is the start times. I have occasionally missed the start of an event by getting this wrong, and only the other day I had the inconvenience of a partner ringing me to ask me what time something started.

I can remember once wanting to play bridge at a club in another country, not being sure what time it started, arriving and hour and a half early, and having to sit around for ages as a result. On another occasion I only found out the start-time at short notice, had to rush to get to the event, and ended up playing the first round in a flustered state, thus giving an advantage to the locals who hadn't had the same problem.

In events with two sessions a day, I am used to playing one session in the afternoon, having dinner, and then playing the second session in the evening. I've noticed, however, that in some countries they start the first session in the morning, play the second session in the afternoon, and finish in time for a leisurely dinner. This can be quite difficult to adapt to - it's hard to play bridge in the morning if you're not used to it. Again, the local players gain an advantage by familiarity with, and experience of, the local rules.

All of these problems could be avoided if every bridge event started at the same time. What do you think of the idea of having uniform start-times, dictated by the WBF, and applicable to every game of duplicate bridge anywhere in the world?

 gnasher, on 2012-May-29, 01:20, said:

Excellent idea.

Sometimes I find myself at a bridge club or other venue that lacks a bar. This is a huge inconvenience to me; I think that the WBF should mandate that every bridge club have a bar and a license to sell intoxicating beverages. Obviously I will expect to find all of my favourite brands wherever in the world I might be.

I suggest we can accomodate both sides of this by having the WBF, in "consultation" with NBOs, publish system regulations that all countries must follow. So we can start with level En1 which has exactly the same format as EBU Level 1; En2 for EBU Level 2; and so on. Similarly US1 for ACBL Simple Systems; US2 with the GCC regulations; and so on. NBOs may choose to disallow some WBF system levels in their events. Everyone can be happy now!

 Vampyr, on 2012-May-28, 23:49, said:

This at least is reasonably well published (there are threads on it on the EBU blogs and elsewhere, and it's covered in the tournament committee and L&E committee minutes).

The cliff notes version is: people got upset at minor transfers to the major openings being played against them at some congresses and complained to the tournament committee, who asked the L&E to make them illegal. L&E said 'that's not a good idea, are you sure', tournament committee said "we'll just run most of our events as "Level 4 except you're not allowed to play these", L&E decided that was more silly and codified the split as L4 and L5, from which the tournament committee can pick for each tournament.

tl;dr: blame the players who complained, then just play in the spring fours, gold cup, premier league and swiss teams congress where they are still allowed (list not exhaustive)

I will look up the references; does it mention who the people are and why they had so much influence? And are they they only people in the world who don't realise that transfer openings are easier to defend than natural openings?

I think that the L&E Committee should have stood its ground, but I am not astonished that the present committee didn't manage to do that.