[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2021-October-30, 11:59, said:

Some such regulations may indeed be controversial, even locally, but the fact that they are local is rarely the reason for the controversy.

Paul was talking about rule-enforcement. In that context, IMO, local regulations that are different and controversial are less likely to be followed and enforced.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2021-October-29, 03:23, said:

I should have no problem, but maybe because I have very simple and natural agreements:
1♦ showing the lowest ranking suit among more than one 4-card suits and no suit with 5 or more cards.
(Of course 1♦ would not deny 5 cards or more in that suit, but that is irrelevant here).
1NT is out of question because of the singleton.

The problem is not the opening. It is the rebid.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2021-October-29, 13:24, said:

Local regulations are controversial. Most seem over-sophisticated and hard to interpret.
Coping with a single set of regulations would simplify compliance and would increase pressure on enforcement
[size="2"]

Oh, with global regulations you will learn what “local” really means.

Clubs will set up their own regulations. Tournaments will be harder, but they would likely have events with regulations that the players actually like, however they will not be identical to the varied regulations of the various clubs. So players who go to tournaments would need to learn at least two, probably three, wets of regulations.

I suspect it will all end in tears. Remember the Yellow Card disaster?

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2021-October-30, 19:04, said:

Oh, with global regulations you will learn what "local" really means.

Clubs will set up their own regulations. Tournaments will be harder, but they would likely have events with regulations that the players actually like, however they will not be identical to the varied regulations of the various clubs. So players who go to tournaments would need to learn at least two, probably three, wets of regulations.

I suspect it will all end in tears. Remember the Yellow Card disaster?

That players would prefer even more local regulations is a frightening argument but I hope it's wrong. I suppose that The WBF/NBOs would need to poll players

Nevertheless, Vampyr's new collective noun seems apt: a
WET of local regulations

[pran]

pescetom, on 2021-October-30, 12:55, said:

The ♦7 has a grudge because the Laws do not reward the Beer Card
But yes, if bridge rules were as clear as chess rules the game would attract more players.

Chess has no problem with concealed agreements between players.

[pilowsky]

pran, on 2021-October-31, 00:55, said:

Chess has no problem with concealed agreements between players.

Concealed agreements are not the issue here.
Banning certain unconcealed agreements is the problem.

[pran]

pilowsky, on 2021-October-31, 01:06, said:

Concealed agreements are not the issue here.
Banning certain unconcealed agreements is the problem.

Concealed agreements are one of the main reasons for complicated and controversional Bridge regulations, a problem unknown in Chess.

Banning certain agreements is a matter of regulation and is indeed the problem making Bridge less accessible than for instance Chess.

[pilowsky]

pran, on 2021-October-31, 01:56, said:

Concealed agreements are one of the main reasons for complicated and controversional Bridge regulations, a problem unknown in Chess.

Banning certain agreements is a matter of regulation and is indeed the problem making Bridge less accessible than for instance Chess.

That's exactly my point.
The two games are similar in many ways. It could be argued that a Bridge hand is equivalent to solving an endgame problem in Chess.
The relative merits of the games are not what concerns me. They are both excellent in different ways.

One thing that chess definitely lacks is dozens of jurisdictions where some of them outlaw playing d4 as an opening because it is too hard for beginners to cope with.


Chess also doesn't have the DOP adjudicating the game if one of the players loses their internet connection.


Just because you can see all the pieces does not mean that everything is easy.
The imperfect information component of the game of Bridge has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
We (me anyway) are questioning the bizarre need to have multiple jurisdictional rules that make the game transcendentally difficult to play across borders in a time when borders for games like Bridge, Chess and Go are evaporating faster than (insert metaphor here).

[sanst]

pilowsky, on 2021-October-29, 14:44, said:

Last night after reading this thread, I went onto LiChess. It's the second-ranked platform, and right now, there are >80,000 players online with ~35,000 games in play. BBO is the biggest Bridge platform and has only ~26,000 players at ~6000 tables.

Stepbridge, internet bridge club of the Dutch bridge union, has over 30.000 members and has grown considerably during the pandemic.

[pilowsky]

sanst, on 2021-October-31, 02:50, said:

Stepbridge, internet bridge club of the Dutch bridge union, has over 30.000 members and has grown considerably during the pandemic.

Are the 30,000 active at the same time? Day and night?
I also play on Stepbridge (Australia) it runs about 5-10 tournaments a day with about 100 players per session.
Like other Stepbridges, it is run under the local rules with local directors.
I estimate it to be Australia's busiest local club.
Still nowhere near BBO and nothing like chess.
Recognising the existence of a problem is the first step to fixing it.


In general estimates of activity based on membership are flawed because many players register with multiple clubs/jurisdictions.
The online numbers I quoted are likely an underestimate because they were a snapshot during daytime in Sydney when the world sleeps.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2021-October-30, 11:49, said:

Venue? OP is in Ohio, so I infer from that and the fact he consistently neglects to mention who the RA is that the RA is ACBL. Which chart?

The thread subtitle says "2/1 ACBL".

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2021-October-29, 09:47, said:

If the player, for whatever reason, decided that they should bid 1NT with the hand we see, then unless it's Forcing, they've made an illegal deviation (almost certainly, "evidence of implied (and illegal) agreement".

The only "illegal deviation" is psyching an artificial opening bid. Since 1NT is not artificial, this is an allowed psychic bid.

So we have to determine whether the partnership actually has an agreement to open 1NT with hands like this. If not, the player has simply psyched. Ideally we should record this, so we can determine if this partnership does it often enough to create an implicit agreement.

But if we only have this one hand as evidence, nothing illegal has been done.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2021-November-01, 17:04, said:

The thread subtitle says "2/1 ACBL".

So it does. My bad. Open Chart?

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2021-November-01, 17:11, said:

The only "illegal deviation" is psyching an artificial opening bid. Since 1NT is not artificial, this is an allowed psychic bid.

Disagree - in the ACBL. This is not considered a psychic (which would, in fact, be legal). A psychic must *grossly misstate* the agreement. This is only a minor deviation, usually considered "use of judgement".

Quoting the Open chart: "If an Agreement would be disallowed unless it satisfies a specific ... shape requirement, a player may not use judgment to include hands with ... a different shape." The Basic charts have a similar line, converted to "allowed" rather than disallowed.

The relevant disallowed section: "6. A non-Forcing 1NT opening that does not meet the definition of Natural."

The charts have been deliberately and clearly written to avoid these slippery slope arguments, including "psychs" that fit the agreement the players want to play, knowing that their desired agreement is not legal. Players in the ACBL have been doing this to skirt the regulations for 60 years, and the C&C committee is tired of the arguments. They simply say that this is evidence of an illegal agreement, and we rule against it - if it was deliberate. As I said before, if opener thought he held ♣KT instead of ♠K♣T, that's a misbid and legal.

Quote

So we have to determine whether the partnership actually has an agreement to open 1NT with hands like this.

No, no longer, we don't. The fact that South thought this was an acceptable 1NT opener "determines" their actual agreement for us.

*: Okay, if it was a 6+ board round on the Open+ chart, they get to have this agreement. It is Alertable.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2021-November-01, 22:53, said:

No, no longer, we don't. The fact that South thought this was an acceptable 1NT opener "determines" their actual agreement for us.

I know that's the official position. I also know it's bullshit.

[mycroft]

Please explain. Especially given what is legal for RAs to do - which is "effectively anything, including 'single-card' games."

Also, please explain your answer to the "oh we just psyched" or "yeah, it was my judgement to upgrade" to *wherever you think it's right to put the limit" - unless you're good with no limits. Because whatever you set, there'll be someone who thinks their Holy Freedom to "bid like a real expert, not these stupid rules limiting Good Judgement" supersedes.

Because the real answer is that whatever excuses they make why they should be allowed to break the rules are just that. They think they should be allowed to break the rules. But of course, the rules they're not interested in breaking are good and justified, and others who break those need to be punished.

[pilowsky]

mycroft, on 2021-November-02, 12:43, said:

Please explain. Especially given what is legal for RAs to do - which is "effectively anything, including 'single-card' games."

Also, please explain your answer to the "oh we just psyched" or "yeah, it was my judgement to upgrade" to *wherever you think it's right to put the limit" - unless you're good with no limits. Because whatever you set, there'll be someone who thinks their Holy Freedom to "bid like a real expert, not these stupid rules limiting Good Judgement" supersedes.

Because the real answer is that whatever excuses they make why they should be allowed to break the rules are just that. They think they should be allowed to break the rules. But of course, the rules they're not interested in breaking are good and justified, and others who break those need to be punished.

Or as MLK said:

Quote

An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.

This does not mean that a law is a 'good' law and can never be changed it only means everyone must follow it.
Some laws are silly and need to be changed.
The laws that allow us to pollute the Earth until we are all dead for the sake of the economy is a fine example.
Laws that disenfranchise certain groups in a population are another.


I'm not arguing that the rules of Bridge fall into the same category but many of them appear to exist for the entertainment of Directors and not to enhance the enjoyment of the players.
The singleton rule that discriminates against certain honours appears to be one.

On what basis does a committee decide that a particular rule should exist? What flame do they hold it up to?

[mycroft]

I guarantee you that the convention charts are not for the enjoyment of the Directors. In fact, I don't believe there were any directors on the committee (review and advise, yes, both officially and, in my case, very unofficially). They are explicitly what the committee and the board of directors (no working TDs on there, either, by by-law) think the players want. And they took a huge risk with the Open chart, one that many still think is way too much of a jump (hence the 3000 MP level for Basic+). A successful one, all things considered, even if there's a lot of criticism from both ends. They have just got tired of the perennial "but what about mah Holy Judgement?" (to play a system that if we admitted to what we actually were doing, would be illegal, and we know it. But that's stupid, so, I'm gonna figure out how I don't have to follow it).

Is the regulation what I would want? No. Is it a move forward from "unless you're a pro or have 10000 MPs, you're stuck in the '70s, at least if you want to play your system more than twice a year"? Yes. Did they draw some lines in the sand that were controversial? Hell yes. And some of them are parochial in ways so obvious you can put a name to them. But we have some people who are not driven from the game by limitations, and some people who are not driven from the game by the "they just play this to confuse us" people, because they followed the path they did.

As far as the rules around 1NT openers are concerned, there was a hard line drawn at 10 HCP. There was a hard line drawn at "4441 isn't 'balanced', and we're not allowing systems that require it to be." (caveat mentioned twice already applies) That same line says that (A-2)55s aren't balanced either. They knew already that if they allowed that, then 0454 was next because "surely it's no different than the singleton 2?" There was a hard line drawn at 5 HCP inclusive ranges, because those that used to play wider than that (or two-way) either "needed help" to resolve the range, or failed to disclose what was actually going on ("13-17, but almost always 13-15. If 16 or 17, will be [something strange]"), or were playing "pro ranges" ("Your NT is 15-17. My NT is 13-18." - Helen Sobel Smith, many years ago when it was in fact legal to do this). I don't agree with all of this, but I can see it, and I don't think it's *wrong*.

I will say, as both a director and a player, that the current "it can have a singleton AK or Q" is much easier to understand, and much better accepted, by the "average club player" than the old "balanced means 'no singleton or void'. But we all know there are hands that look balanced, even with a singleton, and we won't rule against people who do that, as long as there's no agreement and it's not expected by partner" nonsense we used to have. And trying to say "well the T is *basically the same* as the Q, right?" is the first step back to those bad old days, just with a different line that "occasionally gets crossed, not that we've ever talked about it or noticed when partner did it, oh no"...

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2021-November-02, 11:40, said:

mycroft, on 2021-November-01, 22:53, said:

No, no longer, we don't. The fact that South thought this was an acceptable 1NT opener "determines" their actual agreement for us.

I know that's the official position. I also know it's bullshit.

I agree with you as a basic principle: The combination of a hand and a call, does not mean that the partnership has agreed to that meaning of a call. As an example: if someone is stuck in a slam auction and "makes up" a control showing cuebid of 4♣ to get the information he wants then you won't hear me when the player says that he was stuck, made up the bid, eventhough he didn't have a control, but that he couldn't figure out a better bid at the table.

However, for auctions that come up often, I think that the automatic assumption that this was not the first time and, therefore, there is an (implicit) agreement is entirely reasonable. After all, we do not need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that an agreement exists. We need to weight the evidence. The evidence is: This situation (a 4441 distribution in the 1NT strength range) comes up often. The player thought that his action (opening 1NT) described the hand best. It is unlikely that he didn't think that the previous time that he had this hand type and won't think that the next time he has it. Therefore, the evidence points to an agreement. And we rule based on that. The ruling will be wrong only if it really was the first time. All the other times, it is the correct ruling.

Better than having individual TDs rule in cases like this, is to have the RA spell it out, so that individual TDs don't need to struggle with this.

Rik

[blackshoe]

You know, if you're going to paint anyone who objects to the convention charts as some kind of Bad Person™ there's not much point in discussing it.

Quote

However, for auctions that come up often, I think that the automatic assumption that this was not the first time and, therefore, there is an (implicit) agreement is entirely reasonable.

If it's a long term regular partnership, maybe. New partnership, or even one that's been playing for a month or so, I disagree.