[effervesce]

Meh. Tough luck changing things. Is it suprising that the regulators choose regulations that they themselves prefer? Like Jdonn has said, no matter what you choose, some people will be unhappy. But it is ridiculous that there currently are basically no events where people can play whatever they want.

[csdenmark]

effervesce, on Dec 1 2008, 12:26 PM, said:

Is it suprising that the regulators choose regulations that they themselves prefer?

Yes it is surprising.

They are elected and working in a democratic system - at least formally.

As a majority they have rights to rule according to their preferences.

What is wrong here? They have not paid attention to basic in democratic structures. The basic is a majority has a right to decide but they also has the obligation to secure the rights of minorities. In the last they have failed fundamentally.

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Dec 1 2008, 09:09 AM, said:

Variety is a good thing, and anything with enough demand to support it will survive.

I am not sure if there is anything that prevents clubs and other organizers of events to make their own rules. Maybe in some countries an event in which you can win x masterpoints of metal/color y must allow/disallow bidding system z and must require convention w to be (non) alertable?

[FrancesHinden]

cardsharp, on Nov 30 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

Relatively speaking that does sound like a free-for-all

In the UK, I think there is only one tournament that permits HUMs and that is only from the quarter-finals on. So it is impractical for a pair to play a HUM as they'd never get any practice.

BSCs are more common and do not incur any penalty.

p

The English Premier League also allows HUMs (with the same restrictions on seating rights etc as in WBF events).

The latest draft of the regulations I've seen would allow a Scottish team to play in the second division of the Premier League. But they'll probably change them a few more times over the next few months.

In this year's PL no-one was playing a HUM. There was one brown sticker convention being played by two different pairs, but that was it. There were quite a lot of unusual methods in action, but nothing else that isn't normally allowed in English tourmaments (e.g. two pairs were playing transfer openings).

[nige1]

helene_t, on Dec 1 2008, 06:38 AM, said:

I am not sure if there is anything that prevents clubs and other organizers of events to make their own rules. Maybe in some countries an event in which you can win x masterpoints of metal/color y must allow/disallow bidding system z and must require convention w to be (non) alertable?

A few enlightened Bridge Clubs such as Reading allow systems like Forcing Pass. You're expected to provide opponents with an approved written defence that they may consult during the auction.

In National events, however, you're rarely permitted to practice HUM systems. This restriction probably accords with the regulators' preferences. I don't know whether they consulted a representative sample of other players.

[FrancesHinden]

blackshoe, on Dec 1 2008, 12:44 AM, said:

There should be "enough" tiers that folks can find a game suited to their tastes. The problem (in both the ACBL and the EBU, I think) is that in spite of the several tiers (four in the ACBL and five, I think, in the EBU) it is difficult to find games at the higher levels of permissiveness - and, in the ACBL at least, at the lowest level.

There aren't really five tiers in the EBU*.

Interestingly the EBU regulators wanted to reduce the number of 'official' tiers a couple of years ago, but were asked not to by the Council - the representative from the counties - who wanted the larger number to remain in place.

*Yes, I know that there are levels 1 to 5, but 5 never actually existed in the first place, and virtually all nationally-run tournament bridge is played at level 4.

Club can permit whatever methods they like. I play in a club teams league which allows absolutely anything (with rules about prior disclosure, seating rights etc) but no-one is playing a HUM in it, just the same two pairs playing the same BS convention as in the premier league. Probably not a surprise given it's many of the same players.

[FrancesHinden]

nige1, on Dec 1 2008, 12:07 PM, said:

In National events, however, you're rarely permitted to practice HUM systems. This restriction probably accords with the regulators' preferences. I don't know whether they consulted a representative sample of other players.

As one of the regulators I can answer a few of the (implied) questions here...

My personal preference is generally for more permissiveness and fewer restrictions. I believe that the personal preferences of the other regulators vary across the whole range of possible preferences.

The regulators however don't regulate according to their own preferences, but they try and do what they think is best for the game.

Based on the correspondance received by the L&E, I would say that on balance there are an equal number of people asking for more permissive regulations, and complaints that the current position is already too lax.

As for initiating direct consultation of a 'representative sample', the EBU is supposedly a democracy. There is a Council, consisting of representative of each county, and they are consulted on all new regulation. There is also the new club committee, but in place to represent the interests of club players (rather than high-level tournament players) who are also consulted on such matters.

[paulg]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 1 2008, 12:04 PM, said:

The latest draft of the regulations I've seen would allow a Scottish team to play in the second division of the Premier League.  But they'll probably change them a few more times over the next few months.

I'd heard that this might happen and it would be welcome given the lack of decent competition up here for our top team(s).

I expect we'll be running trials in due course

p

[csdenmark]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 1 2008, 03:14 PM, said:

The regulators however don't regulate according to their own preferences, but they try and do what they think is best for the game.

That is NOT your job Frances.

In a democratic body your job is to pursue the interests of the majority. Your only restriction - but thats is in fact the most important part of the job - is to guard the rights of minorities.

The rights of the minorities - which lawyers ought to know everything about - the regulators have violated rigourosly for many years.

It is a disgraceful performance what we see as the outcome of persons who say they try to do their best - but in fact rule in a biassed way which is contradictionary to democratic principles.

[FrancesHinden]

csdenmark, on Dec 1 2008, 03:17 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Dec 1 2008, 03:14 PM, said:

The regulators however don't regulate according to their own preferences, but they try and do what they think is best for the game.

That is NOT your job Frances.

In a democratic body your job is to pursue the interests of the majority. Your only restriction - but thats is in fact the most important part of the job - is to guard the rights of minorities.

The rights of the minorities - which lawyers ought to know everything about - the regulators have violated rigourosly for many years.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

"Best for the game" must mean "best for those people who play the game", there is no such thing as the "game" in isolation of the players.

Quote

It is a disgraceful performance what we see as the outcome of persons who say they try to do their best - but in fact rule in a biassed way which is contradictionary to democratic principles.

To whom are you aiming this comment? If you think that I have ruled in a biassed way then please give a specific example.

[csdenmark]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 1 2008, 05:34 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 1 2008, 03:17 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Dec 1 2008, 03:14 PM, said:

The regulators however don't regulate according to their own preferences, but they try and do what they think is best for the game.

That is NOT your job Frances.

In a democratic body your job is to pursue the interests of the majority. Your only restriction - but thats is in fact the most important part of the job - is to guard the rights of minorities.

The rights of the minorities - which lawyers ought to know everything about - the regulators have violated rigourosly for many years.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

"Best for the game" must mean "best for those people who play the game", there is no such thing as the "game" in isolation of the players.

Quote

It is a disgraceful performance what we see as the outcome of persons who say they try to do their best - but in fact rule in a biassed way which is contradictionary to democratic principles.

To whom are you aiming this comment? If you think that I have ruled in a biassed way then please give a specific example.

'Best for the game' is a meaningless eufemism. You are regulating for persons and for nothing else.

You are asking who the message is aimed for. It is for the regulators. As you mentioned you are a part of those - therefore it is aimed for you too. But also for Jens Auken - one of the few names I know of.

Biassed for years. Look back - what have you done other than removing rights for the minorities. You have never added anything. Shevek told a bit higher in this thread about Paul Marston and Moscito. The last blow was around 2005, something like restricting number of brown sticker features.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Dec 2 2008, 12:38 AM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 1 2008, 09:09 AM, said:

Variety is a good thing, and anything with enough demand to support it will survive.

I am not sure if there is anything that prevents clubs and other organizers of events to make their own rules. Maybe in some countries an event in which you can win x masterpoints of metal/color y must allow/disallow bidding system z and must require convention w to be (non) alertable?

In New Zealand there is:

"The powers of the Regulating Authority for New Zealand rest with the Board of New Zealand Bridge Incorporated as provided for in its Constitution and have not been assigned or delegated to any other entity."

[Cascade]

csdenmark, on Dec 2 2008, 04:45 AM, said:

Biassed for years. Look back - what have you done other than removing rights for the minorities. You have never added anything. Shevek told a bit higher in this thread about Paul Marston and Moscito. The last blow was around 2005, something like restricting number of brown sticker features.

Not only that but a system that employed an opening on a two-card suit was ruled as "Natural" in spite of being "Conventional" by definition. The purpose of this seems to have been to restrict players playing Brown Sticker defences against this "Conventional" opening.

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Dec 1 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

'Best for the game' is a meaningless eufemism. You are regulating for persons and for nothing else.

You are asking who the message is aimed for. It is for the regulators. As you mentioned you are a part of those - therefore it is aimed for you too. But also for Jens Auken - one of the few names I know of.

Biassed for years. Look back - what have you done other than removing rights for the minorities. You have never added anything. Shevek told a bit higher in this thread about Paul Marston and Moscito. The last blow was around 2005, something like restricting number of brown sticker features.

I am probably going to regret stepping into this discussion, however:

As an outside observer, I think that the EBU does a very good job handling these types of issues. I might not agree with every decision that the EBU makes, however, from what I can tell they have an excellent set of processes to address these types of issues.

The EBU White Book and the Orange Book provide an (almost) unambiguous authority regarding what is/is not allowed. I think that these volumes are clearly written and provide excellent guidance for working TDs. As sad as it might sound, I think that I am FAR better informed about what is/is not permitted in England than I am regarding ACBL events.

(Yes, there are some boundary conditions that cause problems. I fully expect Nigel to launch into some horror story about some opponent who opened a 7 count against him. However, compared to much of the rest of the world, the EBU strikes me as a beacon of what is right and proper)

Equally significant, from my experience, the EBU is VERY responsive to requests from the members. I was invovled in some discussions with the EBU trying to get MOSCITO transfer openings approved for use in EBU events. The process took a bit of time, however, it struck me as being both transparent and thorough.

Claus: From the sounds of things, you have NO clue what you're talking about...

(The fact that you are treating "the regulators" as some kind of vast, undifferentiated conspiracy is a pretty clear give away)

Normally, I couldn't care less about the bombastic ill informed crap that you spew on this newsgroup. However, in this case you're attacking one of the few regulatory authorities that seems to be doing a decent job of things.

In all seriousness: You should either invest the time and effort to understand the basics about these sorts of topics or shut up and go away...

[csdenmark]

Thank you for your - not so well meant - advice Richard.

I am sorry to inform you that I am not going to accept your advice.

[Rossoneri]

csdenmark, on Dec 1 2008, 03:45 PM, said:

'Best for the game' is a meaningless eufemism. You are regulating for persons and for nothing else.

You are asking who the message is aimed for. It is for the regulators. As you mentioned you are a part of those - therefore it is aimed for you too. But also for Jens Auken - one of the few names I know of.

Biassed for years. Look back - what have you done other than removing rights for the minorities. You have never added anything. Shevek told a bit higher in this thread about Paul Marston and Moscito. The last blow was around 2005, something like restricting number of brown sticker features.

Give evidence that the demands of the majority are not in line with what regulators have provided then.

Or do you mean regulators are suppose to cater for the demands of the minority even if that is contrary to what the majority wants?

[jdonn]

Rossoneri, on Dec 1 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 1 2008, 03:45 PM, said:

'Best for the game' is a meaningless eufemism. You are regulating for persons and for nothing else.

You are asking who the message is aimed for. It is for the regulators. As you mentioned you are a part of those - therefore it is aimed for you too. But also for Jens Auken - one of the few names I know of.

Biassed for years. Look back - what have you done other than removing rights for the minorities. You have never added anything. Shevek told a bit higher in this thread about Paul Marston and Moscito. The last blow was around 2005, something like restricting number of brown sticker features.

Give evidence that the demands of the majority are not in line with what regulators have provided then.

Or do you mean regulators are suppose to cater for the demands of the minority even if that is contrary to what the majority wants?

No you can see what he thinks. What he wants to be able to play is a "right", therefore no matter how small of a minority might agree with him, they are the ones whose rights are violated if they don't like the regulations.

[awm]

Csdenmark talks as if there are "strong systems" that are just better than other systems, but which are banned by regulators who don't want to face them.

There is relatively little evidence to support this. In fact there are many cases where a team playing a complex system has been defeated by a team playing much simpler methods. For some recent examples: I seem to recall the "Oz One" Australian team (many of whom play Moscito variants) losing their national trials to a team playing Acol-esque methods, which then went on to have one of Australia's best Bermuda Bowl showings in years. I also seem to recall an Italian national team (using somewhat complex, although "natural-ish" methods) losing to a South African team which played relatively simple methods.

Back when Fred was playing on the Ekeblad team (and they had a number of successes), Rubin and Ekeblad were playing a very complex system based on canape and ultimate relay. Were they the strongest pair on the team? Not necessarily. Did they beat down all the other teams using "weak systems"? Not always.

Sure, it might be that some systems are inherently superior to others. But I don't think there is much evidence that forcing pass/transfer opening/relay systems perform that well in real events. On the other hand, these kinds of methods, along with various crazy preempt schemes, win a lot of IMPs against unfamiliar opponents in formats where it is difficult to prepare for them adequately.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Dec 2 2008, 01:36 AM, said:

There is relatively little evidence to support this. In fact there are many cases where a team playing a complex system has been defeated by a team playing much simpler methods. For some recent examples: I seem to recall the "Oz One" Australian team (many of whom play Moscito variants) losing their national trials to a team playing Acol-esque methods, which then went on to have one of Australia's best Bermuda Bowl showings in years.

I think that Runyon said it best:

"The race doesn't always go to the swift, nor the battle to the strong...but that's the way to bet"

Quote

But I don't think there is much evidence that forcing pass/transfer opening/relay systems perform that well in real events.

If forcing pass systems didn't work, there wouldn't been a need to ban them...

The folks who played these methods (many of whom were/are top talent) were quite clear how they felt about the merits of these system...

[awm]

hrothgar, on Dec 1 2008, 05:59 PM, said:

If forcing pass systems didn't work, there wouldn't been a need to ban them...

The folks who played these methods (many of whom were/are top talent) were quite clear how they felt about the merits of these system...

The argument goes something like this though:

These sorts of methods mess with inexperienced pairs who have no idea how to defend them. If you play these sorts of methods in a pairs event or the early rounds of a big team event, you will encounter lots of pairs who have no idea how to defend them. You will thus run up a big margin against these "bad pairs" or "unprepared pairs" regardless of how the methods perform against prepared opposition.

So in terms of "can these methods win a big tournament" the answer is certainly yes. Especially at pairs your score depends a lot on how effectively you beat up on the weakest/worst prepared opposition.

But the general feeling is that adopting weird methods just for the purpose of "bunny-bashing" is not very fair, even though it does improve your chance of winning a typical event with a wide-ranging field. The reason for banning these methods is not because "good players are afraid to face them" but because "good players think it is unfair that they can trounce a team using weird, inferior methods but still lose to that team in the overalls because the weird methods team was able to so effectively bash weaker unprepared opponents."

So we need to ask: "do these methods help you win against top-level opposition which has had time to prepare in advance"? The people who like these methods will claim that they do help you, since otherwise they are acknowledging that they participate in the ethically shady "bunny-bashing" activity (playing inferior methods simply to "mess up" weak players). Probably they believe what they claim too. But that doesn't mean they are right. In fact the tournament record of these methods is very mixed -- there are many examples of supposedly better players using supposedly better methods who nonetheless lose to supposedly weaker players using supposedly weaker methods even in fairly long team formats.