[Vampyr]

Nigel's opinion below is not new to anyone:

nige1, on 2015-March-24, 18:02, said:

I think that almost any set of global regulations is likely to improve upon the current Tower of Babel

I am curious whether anyone shares this opinion. Lots of non-EBU members dislike the EBU alert regulations, lots of non-ACBL members would not enjoy playing under the ACBL's systems restrictions, and I'm sure that there are loads of other regulations that would be found unsuitable for a group of players that aren't the group who play under them at present. So I don't see why regulations should be standardised instead of suited to the players affected.

Also, given that the ACBL gets actual Laws written to suit them, there is little question that the global regulations would be the ACBL's. It really seems to me that if other NBOs wanted to use the ACBL's regulations, they would already be using them. The EBU's regulations are readily available in the internet. Why aren't loads of other countries using them? Because they don't want to.

I have played bridge in about a dozen different countries, and have never had the problems Nigel seems to have experienced. You do have to learn things like that when you tell Eastern or Central European players that your leads are "second and fourth", they will assume that means low from a doubleton. In some places a weak NT has to be alerted. Things like this are not very serious and unlikely to cause harm if you get it wrong the first time, and anyway people who are motivated enough to go to a foreign country to play bridge will care enough to find out about the regulations there.

Also, I think that the majority of duplicate bridge players rarely play outside their own country; actually, the majority probably don't venture further than their local club. Why should these people have to use systems and alert regulations that are not designed for their own bridge culture and prevailing bidding systems?

Finally, it takes time for regulations to change as the bridge culture changes. It is was only a few years ago that eg Stayman and Weak Twos became announceable instead of alertable in the EBU. If all of the NBOs (or, LOL, the WBFLC Drafting Committee) had to get together to agree a change in regulations it would never happen. What would probably happen is that individual NBOs would start writing supplemental regulations to graft onto a frame that few (or no) people liked in the first place. Or maybe this wouldn't be permitted and the regulations would become more and more unsuitable.

The most important question is: who would benefit? I can't think of anyone.

[TylerE]

No, because ACBL laws are terrible.

[mgoetze]

The EBU goes to a lot of effort to create a great set of regulations. (I did, however, consider it a bit onerous to really thoroughly complete two convention cards for just a weekend tournament, accepting WBF convention cards would be an improvement.) The DBV (German Federation), by contrast, has horrible, crufty regulations that are pretty much never updated. If every federation invested resources in creating a set of regulations like the EBU, then sure, let everyone have their own regulations. Here in Germany, the situation could only be improved by adopting almost any other set of regulations (the ACBL ones would of course be an exception).

[aguahombre]

TylerE, on 2015-March-25, 21:09, said:

No, because ACBL laws are terrible.

Your answer and the question don't relate to one another --- it is just a cheap shot.

The question wasn't whether the ACBL regs should be adopted everywhere. It was whether a set of regs should be devised and utilized everywhere. It would be nice, IMO, if a person could travel to another jurisdiction and not have to memorize/adapt/overcome.

What those regs should be, universally, is a whole nuther issue. IMO, Steph answers her own question, albeit throwing in a few assumptions which cloud the issue.

Anyway, I agree with those who say they want the Bridge regulations to be what they want them to be...and wouldn't object if their own personal preferences were universal.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2015-March-25, 23:37, said:

IMO, Steph answers her own question, albeit throwing in a few assumptions which cloud the issue.

Well of course I have offered my opinion, and I welcome differing ones. one thing to take away from the comments so far is that they don't like the ACBL regulations, and let's face it, something very similar to them would be the universal regulations. So those posters should vote no.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2015-March-25, 23:37, said:

It would be nice, IMO, if a person could travel to another jurisdiction and not have to memorize/adapt/overcome.

Do you find it so difficult? I don't, because the differences for the player are small. And they suit the people who play there all year, every year, while I am just a visitor. What, specifically, have you found to be a problem in another jurisdiction?

[chasetb]

Much like each country (or region or state in that country) can have varying laws, so should the bridge community, as well as one universal set of rules for international competitions. I DO NOT want the ACBL regs to be that set though - I can't play Multi at the club, and I don't really know anyone good enough to play up with them in events where Multi is allowed.

[Vampyr]

chasetb, on 2015-March-26, 00:45, said:

I can't play Multi at the club, and I don't really know anyone good enough to play up with them in events where Multi is allowed.

What about the people you've won national titles with?

The WBF obviously have a set of regulations for international play, and anyone can adopt them.

[helene_t]

In the Netherlands we even have clubs that draft their own regulations.

Which doesn't work of course. Club comitees don't realize how much work it is to write sensible regulations.

I think allowed systems could be harmonised. Of course we can't get acbl and abf to agree on a charter for specific types of events but that wouldn't be necessary either. We could agree for example to use the swedish model and then acbl could allow three dots while abf could allow twelve.

Alert regulations I am less sure about. Negative freebids for example could not be made alertable because polish players for example would not be able to learn a generic principle that makes nfb alertable but would have to root learn it.

I think England and Sweden and maybe one or two other countries have the resources to write regulations but the rest of the world ought to adapt something sensible. Wbf regulations are not great but might be a step forward for most places.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2015-March-26, 00:40, said:

Do you find it so difficult? I don't, because the differences for the player are small. And they suit the people who play there all year, every year, while I am just a visitor. What, specifically, have you found to be a problem in another jurisdiction?

When I say it would be nice, I meant it would be nice for me. I don't expect another jurisdiction to tailor its regulations to what I think would be nice.

I answered the poll with my preference. I wouldn't impose my preference on any jurisdiction which feels that:

3H (3S) double should be alerted if it is penalty. If it is penalty????? give me a break. But so be it. I will try to memorize the times when I need to alert things like that.

[FrancesHinden]

Vampyr, on 2015-March-25, 21:03, said:

and anyway people who are motivated enough to go to a foreign country to play bridge will care enough to find out about the regulations there.

This is demonstrably untrue

[helene_t]

FrancesHinden, on 2015-March-26, 04:20, said:

This is demonstrably untrue

Yes. It takes a bit of detective work if you don't know the language in which the regulations are written and none of your local contacts are TDs.

That said, I agree with Stephanie that it isn't much of a problem. If it is a serious event, most locals will be aware that foreigners have different ways of alerting, and if it is just a club, locals don't comply with their own regulations anyway.

I was told off in Germany for presenting a CC written in English, and then I translated it after the sesion so we had a German one for the next sesion. Anyway, it wasn't a big deal.

Cultural things such as whether it is come il faut to dispute a claim are much more likely to cause issues IMO.

[Zelandakh]

As I recall, Nigel has suggested 2 tiers of system regulations, one with restrictions and the other allowing pretty much everything. The same could also be true of alerting regulations - a lower tier designed for clubs that are governed by local considerations and a higher tier for the national and international level that is standardised across the world. That sort of approach is not without its disadvantages but is surely workable and covers the primary objection to Nigel's idea.

In essence this is effectively moving WBF regulations a level lower in the hierarchy as a first step towards standardisation. It might well be that the increased exposure to international standards also helps to homogenise the local situation somewhat.

The truth is that bridge needs to make some changes if it wants to have a successful future in the longer term. It might be that some sort of consolidation happens naturally from that, for example, if there was some kind of international league that became very successful club players might want to be able to play under similar conditions. or bridge might go in a completely different direction - who knows?!

[barmar]

chasetb, on 2015-March-26, 00:45, said:

Much like each country (or region or state in that country) can have varying laws

Although one could argue that too much variation is wrong. E.g. the local laws should at least conform to something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In the bridge context, the only limitation is that regulations can't contravene the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (although that hasn't stopped the ACBL).

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-March-26, 09:36, said:

Although one could argue that too much variation is wrong. E.g. the local laws should at least conform to something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In the bridge context, the only limitation is that regulations can't contravene the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (although that hasn't stopped the ACBL).

As far as the laws and regulations that govern bridge, the ACBL is Humpty Dumpty: "Words mean what I want them to mean, neither more nor less."

[mike777]

Should bridge regulations be the same everywhere?

I would vote no. Let the different regions act as a laboratory of ideas.
Let the tower of Babel reign free to roam.

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on 2015-March-26, 02:12, said:

I think England and Sweden and maybe one or two other countries have the resources to write regulations but the rest of the world ought to adapt something sensible. Wbf regulations are not great but might be a step forward for most places.

IMO, the regulations should be there for the players.

Other than relatively trivial regulations (bidding boxes, when to arrive at the tournament, etc.), there are two regulations that are key:
system regulations
alert regulations

When it comes to system regulations, I am a big fan of the Swedish regulations. (In short: Every opening system is scored in a very elegant way on how hard it is to defend against it. Every pair has on their CC how many points each opening has. The tournament organizer sets the maximum amount of points that is allowed for the competition.)

When it comes alert regulations, the key is that the players need to be able to apply it at the table (i.e. not by looking it up). There are basically two ways to go about an alert regulation: One is to define the meanings for each call that is not alertable. The other sets a flexible rule: "alert what your opponents might not understand".

The problem with defining non alertable meanings for each call is that they are hard to memorize for most players and, therefore, hard to apply, unless they are very straightforward. It basically only works when there is one absolutely dominant standard system in the jurisdiction that literally everybody knows.

Since there is no standard system in the WBF competitions, the WBF alert regulation is what it is: short, simple, and imperfect but the least of evils when there is no standard system. But I can easily see that a bridge club will have an alert regulation that says: "alert all meanings that are different from what you have learned in our bridge course". That regulation will work fine for that club (as long as it is clear to its members that the regulation is only valid at that club).

Rik

[Hanoi5]

I believe there is something more important than global regulations and that might somehow help with the appeareance of global SYSTEM and ALERT regulations: the establishment of a standard bidding system. I think at the present moment there are as many bidding systems as people teaching them. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to 'revert' to standard? Or find a partner and agree to play 'standard' so that you don't have to discuss much? How about a Director asking a pair to stop playing a system they don't know well and just go back to 'standard'? It doesn't have to be a NEW system, the WBF could just choose BW standard or the system played at the World Individuals (with some additions I guess). I think it would be an excellent way to go towards global regulations.

[nige1]

A game is it's rules: each country plays a different Bridge variant: each different set of regulations defines a different game: understandably, that causes problems in International competition.

Simplified universal disclosure laws have been proposed. The problem is that each local legislature has invested thousands of hours in devising convoluted and obscure rules about what is permitted, and what is announced, and what is alerted, and when, and how. Naturally LAs are reluctant to bin hundreds of pages of work.

Local regulations tend to permit local treatments and prohibit foreign methods. Players regularly become victims of local restrictions on methods like "Comic notrump", "Multi", "Raptor", "Moscito" and "Strong pass". (For example, strong pass was once popular in Poland but is now rarely played). Old ladies in Australian clubs revel in systems that would send US professionals into paroxysms of horror.

Local regulations encourage daft local rules. e.g. under ACBL jurisdiction, when partner showed out, you were allowed to ask "having none". You were not obliged to do this -- for example -- if you could see the extant cards of the suit in your own hand, then you didn't need to ask. As you might expect, many pairs dropped count signals in favour of attitude. As Vampyr warns; some daft local regulations can become general law and, unfortunately, this was one of them. Now, in Europe, players are switching to attitude signals.

My experience differs from Vampyr's in a significant and important respect. Vampyr believes that local players glory in their local regulations. I played in England for about forty years but I rarely found a player who knew much about EBU regulations and I heard more criticism than praise. In Scotland, we recently switched to WBF regulations. They are popular and seem to work equally well.

One advantage of adopting universal regulations would be that regulators could eclectically enshrine best local practice and quickly refine it. For example the WBF system-card could be improved and made universal.

If regulations become part of TFLB, then legal discrepancies and anomalies might be reduced. Some trouble could be taken to ensure a more logical and coherent structure.

I've conducted polls like Vampyr's for about 20 years but the results still surprise and disappoint -- a sad auger for the future of Bridge as a global game The bright spot is on-line bridge which seems to engender its own simpler better universal rules. .

[mike777]

Nige I totally agree with your premise and disagree with your conclusions.

Much better is to let the regions be laboratories of innovation. Assume that a few very few regulators can never know best.

to be fair this keeps coming back to the God or KIng complex...a tiny few know best.

At some point the few, very few of the WBF set the rules for a WC event only but are open to change next year. They leave unchallenged the various region rules.

Of course it may be fair to say that a game/rules of bridge is different in Peoria than in Wellington and that is ok