[ajm218]

Detailed description here: http://ebulaws.blogspot.com/2010/05/change...august-1st.html

Apart from 6 or 7 events a year it will now be necessary for 1♥ and 1♠ opening bids to show that suit.

I can fully understand the Laws and Ethics committee's decisions for short round matches where preparing a proper defence, to amongst other previously allowed bids like a 1♥ opener showing 9-15 bal, isn't really practical.

My question is - to what extent should less frequent national tournament players be protected by the authorities from the unknown? Its not clear to me indeed that there are any principles behind setting the rules (apart from keeping the majority of the members who would prefer not to play against anything difficult happy)

For example I think the following system would be allowable still in the other national events but wouldn't be particularly enjoyable to play against?

1♣ = 3♥s or 14+(not unbal with 5major) or 16+(any) or natural
1♦ = 3♠s or nat or 18-19 bal
1♥ = 4+ possible canape
1♠ = 4+ possible canape
1nt = ?
2 level bids = a suit or not the same suit - where the particular suit varies with position and vulnerability (i.e. so you need a matrix to see all possibilities)

I'm not claiming this system has great merit but the fact that it is allowed when other stuff has been banned because of the difficulty in defending against perhaps shows why a principles based system is needed? (apologies if any of the system isn't allowed )

[hrothgar]

ajm218, on Jun 14 2010, 05:47 PM, said:

Detailed description here: http://ebulaws.blogspot.com/2010/05/change...august-1st.html

Apart from 6 or 7 events a year it will now be necessary for 1♥ and 1♠ opening bids to show that suit.

I can fully understand the Laws and Ethics committee's decisions for short round matches where preparing a proper defence, to amongst other previously allowed bids like a 1♥ opener showing 9-15 bal, isn't really practical.

My question is - to what extent should less frequent national tournament players be protected by the authorities from the unknown? Its not clear to me indeed that there are any principles behind setting the rules (apart from keeping the majority of the members who would prefer not to play against anything difficult happy)

For example I think the following system would be allowable still in the other national events but wouldn't be particularly enjoyable to play against?

1♣ = 3♥s or 14+(not unbal with 5major) or 16+(any) or natural
1♦ = 3♠s or nat or 18-19 bal
1♥ = 4+ possible canape
1♠ = 4+ possible canape
1nt = ?
2 level bids = a suit or not the same suit - where the particular suit varies with position and vulnerability (i.e. so you need a matrix to see all possibilities)

I'm not claiming this system has great merit but the fact that it is allowed when other stuff has been banned because of the difficulty in defending against perhaps shows why a principles based system is needed? (apologies if any of the system isn't allowed )

MOSCITO is banned, once again...

Sigh

[gnasher]

I wonder what problem they're trying to solve. It's not as though EBU events are infested with people playing artificial major-suit openings.

[OleBerg]

They are calling a spade a spade, but they have no heart for people who consider bridge a competition, rather than a passtime for the better middle-class.

[nigel_k]

ajm218, on Jun 15 2010, 03:47 AM, said:

Its not clear to me indeed that there are any principles behind setting the rules (apart from keeping the majority of the members who would prefer not to play against anything difficult happy)

Actually that's the most benign explanation. A more cynical person might suggest that the goal is to protect top pairs who prefer natural methods from those who don't. If you really can't handle a one level bid that has an anchor suit you don't belong in tournament bridge anyway.

[OleBerg]

nigel_k, on Jun 14 2010, 09:52 PM, said:

ajm218, on Jun 15 2010, 03:47 AM, said:

Its not clear to me indeed that there are any principles behind setting the rules (apart from keeping the majority of the members who would prefer not to play against anything difficult happy)

Actually that's the most benign explanation. A more cynical person might suggest that the goal is to protect top pairs who prefer natural methods from those who don't. If you really can't handle a one level bid that has an anchor suit you don't belong in tournament bridge anyway.

Quite right.

And still they wonder why the game cannot attract young people.

We tell them, this is a mind-sport, a clash of intellects. And when a young player then thinks: "Oh, maybe it is smart to let 1♥ show spades." They're told told it is a tactic to difficult to defend against. Mind-sport???

A real hilarious one is this one:

The opponents open 1♦/1♥/1♠, and you bid 2♣ showing excactly 25 hcp, 3-3-3-4 or 3-3-4-3, and a sure doublestopper in their suit. Sorry, not allowed. To difficult to defend against.

[bluecalm]

We really need movement which will promote clear rules instead of what such and such committee fancy to ban at one time or another.
Many such rules were proposed, most of them would be much simpler and easy to understand than today policies of ACBL or EBU.
Bannig constructive opening which show anchor suit is just retarded. I think short sighted is too mild of an description. Big shame on that people

[FrancesHinden]

Just to be clear:

This is not a Laws & Ethics Committee decision.
This is a Tournament Committee decision.

It's all the EBU, I realise that, but when you it on one committee and not the other it becomes more important to get the attribution right!

[FrancesHinden]

nigel_k, on Jun 14 2010, 08:52 PM, said:

ajm218, on Jun 15 2010, 03:47 AM, said:

Its not clear to me indeed that there are any principles behind setting the rules (apart from keeping the majority of the members who would prefer not to play against anything difficult happy)

Actually that's the most benign explanation. A more cynical person might suggest that the goal is to protect top pairs who prefer natural methods from those who don't. If you really can't handle a one level bid that has an anchor suit you don't belong in tournament bridge anyway.

The more cynical might suggest that, but they'd be wrong.
The drive behind this change in the regulation did NOT come from the top players.

[paulg]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 14 2010, 10:31 PM, said:

It's all the EBU, I realise that, but when you it on one committee and not the other it becomes more important to get the attribution right!

There is a missing 's' or 'sh' in this sentence.

[OleBerg]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 14 2010, 11:31 PM, said:

Just to be clear:

This is not a Laws & Ethics Committee decision.
This is a Tournament Committee decision.

"The L&E and the Tournament Committee have met to discuss possible changes to licensing in the wake of comments received about 1H and 1S openings."

L&E = Lions and Elephants?

Quote

It's all the EBU, I realise that, but when you it on one committee and not the other it becomes more important to get the attribution right!

I agree.

[OleBerg]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 14 2010, 11:52 PM, said:

nigel_k, on Jun 14 2010, 08:52 PM, said:

ajm218, on Jun 15 2010, 03:47 AM, said:

Its not clear to me indeed that there are any principles behind setting the rules (apart from keeping the majority of the members who would prefer not to play against anything difficult happy)

Actually that's the most benign explanation. A more cynical person might suggest that the goal is to protect top pairs who prefer natural methods from those who don't. If you really can't handle a one level bid that has an anchor suit you don't belong in tournament bridge anyway.

The more cynical might suggest that, but they'd be wrong.
The drive behind this change in the regulation did NOT come from the top players.

It's almost to trivial to bother, but needing to procrastinate, here goes:

It is not even a secret:

The most common introduction to a great lie is: "A survey has shown that..."

It doesn't require a genius to see, that there is often many drives to change things, and that those in power can choose to support the drives they like.

And it is so easy to make a survey give the result you desire! I have no idee how the mentioned comments were recieved, but important questions should be:

Which questions was asked?
Who was asked?
How importent was the questions presented to be?
Was the possible impact of the answers made clear?
What was the context? (Lead up questions etc.)


Furthermore; even if all criteria were met for a balanced survey, it doesn't nescesarily make the decision right. The refrence to "Not top players" obviously plays the "democracy-card". But decissions to target something specific, as opposed to a general rule, is often considered undemocratic. (And it is written into many constitutions, that it cannot generally be done, but only in extreme circumstances, and with great care.)


Now bridge is not life, and few people, if any, will go to bed hungry, because they were denied to open 1M without the suit. And if we don't like the game we can leave it and take up another hobby. (For me chess, model-railwaying and soccer springs to mind.)


But claiming that because "of comments received about 1H and 1S openings.", the decision is fair and obvious, is nonsense.

[Free]

hrothgar, on Jun 14 2010, 03:54 PM, said:

MOSCITO is banned, once again...

My thoughts exactly...

[nige1]

hrothgar, on Jun 14 2010, 03:54 PM, said:

MOSCITO is banned, once again...

Free, on Jun 15 2010, 04:03 AM, said:

My thoughts exactly...

Me too

FrancesHinden, on Jun 14 2010, 10:31 PM, said:

It's all the EBU, I realise that, but when you it on one committee and not the other it becomes more important to get the attribution right!

cardsharp, on Jun 14 2010, 05:00 PM, said:

There is a missing 's' or 'sh' in this sentence.

[Cyberyeti]

I can understand this change for many events, but in long board teams matches particularly once you get reasonably far into national KOs, these should be allowed. Permitting them in the upper reaches of the ranked masters where you may only be playing 3 board rounds seems silly though.

We played against a pair (of semi regulars on these boards) who IIRC played some of these openers in some positions and vulnerabilities. They didn't really cause us any problems, and we enjoyed facing something new, but I can see that this would be daunting to some LoLs.

This change at least might accomplish what was set out. The only one like this that has caught me was that we used to play 1C as C or bal or D/M canape, with 1D as D or bal or C/M canape when the rule was that it could be "clubs or diamonds or balanced". This was changed to "1C may be clubs or balanced or a hand where diamonds is the longest suit", meaning we had to invert the bids, which actually meant we had the suit bid less often, and hence made it possibly marginally more difficult to defend against.

[ajm218]

Apologies Frances - I should have been more accurate. It would be interesting (though perhaps politically impossible) to find out what the orange book (the bidding rule book in UK) would look like if the L&E committee were drafting it today from a blank sheet and did not have to bend to allow for historic factors.

[Hanoi5]

I see they talk about Level 4 (where the regulation will take place) and about Level 5 (where you can play anything). They say there are no changes to the Levels below (does that mean that you can use 1♥/1♠ to show something else?) and that clubs and county associations can elect to continue doing what they were doing previously.

So if the previous paragraph is right I don't see why there has to be so much fuss about it. I'm sure some places will allow you to play what you want and then you'll go and play in those places, as easy as that, right?

[gwnn]

They ban submarine club but not vuvuzelas

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on Jun 15 2010, 10:39 AM, said:

I can understand this change for many events, but in long board teams matches particularly once you get reasonably far into national KOs, these should be allowed.

They are allowed in national knockouts.

[hrothgar]

One quick comment from an non EBU member:

This seems like a rather drastic change in the system by which regulations are apporoved. The committee in question has banned broad classes of systems in Level 4 competition.

I'd be interested in knowing the process by which this decision was reached.