[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on Jun 15 2010, 06:17 AM, said:

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.

Crockfords yes, NICKO no (why not from last 16 or 32 on for example), Gold cup not sure.

The GC has an odd set of regs, certainly something we fell foul of was that you're not allowed to play different systems at different positions and vulnerabilties which you can do in EBU long board matches. This was prohibited by accident in the past as the clause that was designed to stop a pair switching to something really random when behind said "A pair may not play 2 systems" and this was deemed to cover the other situation when we checked. This was a few years back, not sure if it's changed.

[Cyberyeti]

gwnn, on Jun 15 2010, 05:32 AM, said:

They ban submarine club but not vuvuzelas

I need to work on a system called vuvuzela involving making a lot of noise so nobody can make sense of anything, hang on isn't that what I play already ...

[RMB1]

hrothgar, on Jun 15 2010, 01:48 PM, said:

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

Although involved in the "Orange book process", I only know what happens in the committees from their minutes.

At some time the EBU abandoned level 3 for it own competitions (although continuing to document it for other tournament organisers) and all proper competitions became level 4.

In 2008, there were complaints about conventional 1 level openers being allowed in (pairs) competitions with short rounds. These complaints found some sympathy with some on the L&E and tournament committees.

In 2009, a pair played a system with artificial 1M openers through out the Autumn congress: pairs, swiss pairs and multiple teams. More complaints were received. My impression is the complaints were from the middle of the field, who expected to be able to enjoy the congress without being taken too far outside their comfort zone.

There was "consultation exercise" via the website and questionnaires ("tournament review forms"). The tournament committee decided change was needed and asked L&E to propose a solution.

The L&E solution is detailed in their recent minutes. Effectively to split level 4 into "old level 4 but 1M natural" and "old level 4 with 1M artificial" and rename these as level 4 and level 5. The majority of events are now new "level 4" and some events are now "level 5".

As I understand it, the "level 5" banner has allowed various other restrictions to be lifted for a defined set of events: WBF convention cards, different systems at different positions/vulnerabilities for 6/7 board rounds.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on Jun 15 2010, 02:06 PM, said:

Crockfords yes, NICKO no (why not from last 16 or 32 on for example), Gold cup not sure.

"NICKO" stands for "National Inter-Club Knockout". It doesn't seem unreasonable that the methods allowed in this event should be restricted to those that club players are comfortable with.

I'd be very surprised if the Gold Cup regulations became more restrictive than they are at present. Given that, of the five major knockouts, the three that matter most - Gold Cup, Crockfords and Spring Fours - will all have the least restrictive regulations, and only the NICKO and the Hubert Phillips (a mixed event) will not.

As far as knockout events go, that seems a reasonable balance.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2010-June-15, 07:31

[helene_t]

Sounds fair enough to me. OK, as a system regulation anarchist I would personally have preferred artificial major suit openings to remain legal but if they have received multiple complaints I suppose it's understandable that it outweighs the interests of the very small minority who want to play such systems and who without doubt can play some system with natural majors suits openings also.

Maybe it would have been better to only ban certain artificial major systems. I don't think many people would have problems with a strong heart system (beyond those who would also have problems with a strong diamond system). Then again, I don't really know which artificial major systems have been played at level 4 events and which of them have caused complaints so I suppose I shouldn't really comment on this.

Frankly I think we should appreciate that there are some (unpaid) board members who do this unthankful work, and trust that they are reasonably intelligent people who do their best to come up with solutions that please the majority of EBU members. I think the gut reactions from my fellow system anarchists quite a nuisance I must say. Paul's remark about "s"/"sh" is funny but maybe it would have been better to spare it for a less flammable discussion as I can imagine that some people don't find it funny in this context.

BTW what's that change about WBF cards? At the level 4 events I have played many pairs had no system cards so I would say that a pair who has a WBF card is above average. I see in the 2009 version I see that WBF cards are allowed at unusual systems events (?) and other level 4 events at the discretion of the organizer. It wouldn't occur to me when going to events abroad that I would have to use the local system cards, for example when Shogi and I went to India we didn't bring Indian system cards but just used our normal ones. I can certainly understand why organizers would like everyone to use the same format so that opps will know where to look for what info. Just worried that if it is a requirement that a specific template be used then even more people would not bother to fill in system cards.

[paulg]

helene_t, on Jun 15 2010, 02:45 PM, said:

BTW what's that change about WBF cards? At the level 4 events I have played many pairs had no system cards so I would say that a pair who has a WBF card is above average. I see in the 2009 version I see that WBF cards are allowed at unusual systems events (?) and other level 4 events at the discretion of the organizer. It wouldn't occur to me when going to events abroad that I would have to use the local system cards, for example when Shogi and I went to India we didn't bring Indian system cards but just used our normal ones.

The big change is that the EBU has actually confirmed when they are permitted, rather than leaving it as a voyage of discovery. This is being consistent - those who want the artificial 1M openers banned also cannot cope with the WBF cards.

[hanp]

I don't agree with Helene, I thought the s/sh post was good. And short, that counts for something too!

[gnasher]

helene_t, on Jun 15 2010, 02:45 PM, said:

Frankly I think we should appreciate that there are some (unpaid) board members who do this unthankful work, and trust that they are reasonably intelligent people who do their best to come up with solutions that please the majority of EBU members.

This is an internet discussion board. There's no place for opinions like that here.

[helene_t]

You are violating Pooltuna's copyright, gnasher. I will have to report you

[jeremy69]

Quote

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.

The ban on playing 1H and 1S in the way described is at Level 4 and below.
The EBU only uses Level 4 and 5 for its tournaments. Level 2 is for novice events. Level 1 is for simple systems.
Clubs can do as they wish but in practice most stick with an EBU level. It is not true that you can play anything at Level 5. My county decided on events for next season last night and there was no appetite for allowing 1♥ openings to show ♠

Quote

Gold cup not sure.

The Gold Cup is not an English event. It also involves Welsh and Scottish teams. The Welsh often follow the same regulations. The Scots prefer anything that is not English but it is possible the rules for this will be the same as Crockford's etc principally because it involves longer matches.

Gnasher is right in an earlier post about the NICKO. It maybe 24 boards but involves many more club level players and also has occasioned more complaints per board about system than any other 4 events put together. It is to events what Ghestem is to conventions!

Yes some of this change is driven by those who prefer their comfort zone so a judgement needs to be made on whether something such as this which is restrictive will help. There are many new EBU members(now about 49000 in total, half of them new) the overwhelming majority of whom only play in their club who may in future be attracted to events. It is a sad fact of life that 1♠ showing ♥ won't assist the process

Quote

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

The Tournament Committee received complaints and comments and discussed it. There was a wish by them to become more restrictive and they asked the Laws and Ethics committee to devise a method(The L&E decides method legality, The TC decides what events legal methods may be played at and which ones). The L&E consulted via blog and also via the questionnaires completed at congresses. In general not all that many are completed unless players feel strongly and that might be about anything such as the heating to the cleanliness of fellow competitors. The feedback was such as to suggest there was a case for being more liberal south of Birmingham but more restrictive in the North. The LK&E apprised that the TC required something to happen came up with the proposals that are earlier in this thread. It is to be expected that this decision will offend some of the scientists and a sizeable segment of the "it is our inalienable right to do as we wish" brigade. As a general rule it is my opinion that big boys and girls ought to be able to cope with most things where there are long matches but even in World Championships there are limits set becuase of the onerous nature of playing against HUMS or Brown Sticker conventions. Where the standard is lower,where people go for their holiday and where the number of boards per round is small it is less reasonable to hit them with defending against some of the juvenile efforts to disrupt.
This maybe, of course a boneheaded view and I look forward to several of the "Groove is in the Heart" or similar system proponents standing for the L&E or perhaps the Tournament Committee. If the majority agree it is wrong then the current deluded incumbents will be voted out. Nominations in September.

[hrothgar]

jeremy69, on Jun 15 2010, 08:03 PM, said:

Quote

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

The Tournament Committee received complaints and comments and discussed it. There was a wish by them to become more restrictive and they asked the Laws and Ethics committee to devise a method(The L&E decides method legality, The TC decides what events legal methods may be played at and which ones). The L&E consulted via blog and also via the questionnaires completed at congresses. In general not all that many are completed unless players feel strongly and that might be about anything such as the heating to the cleanliness of fellow competitors. The feedback was such as to suggest there was a case for being more liberal south of Birmingham but more restrictive in the North. The LK&E apprised that the TC required something to happen came up with the proposals that are earlier in this thread. It is to be expected that this decision will offend some of the scientists and a sizeable segment of the "it is our inalienable right to do as we wish" brigade. As a general rule it is my opinion that big boys and girls ought to be able to cope with most things where there are long matches but even in World Championships there are limits set becuase of the onerous nature of playing against HUMS or Brown Sticker conventions. Where the standard is lower,where people go for their holiday and where the number of boards per round is small it is less reasonable to hit them with defending against some of the juvenile efforts to disrupt.
This maybe, of course a boneheaded view and I look forward to several of the "Groove is in the Heart" or similar system proponents standing for the L&E or perhaps the Tournament Committee. If the majority agree it is wrong then the current deluded incumbents will be voted out. Nominations in September.

Thanks for taking the time to describe this.

I might not like the decision that was reached; however, its comforting to see a reasonable process being used.

[OleBerg]

For those of you who wondered why I even bothered:

I thought it was the European Bridge Union.

[ajm218]

Thanks for the detailed explanation Jeremy - I'm sure the counties (in their infinite wisdom) would never let a "GITH" exponent anywhere near the L&E committee

[paulg]

jeremy69, on Jun 15 2010, 06:03 PM, said:

The Gold Cup is not an English event. It also involves Welsh and Scottish teams. The Welsh often follow the same regulations. The Scots prefer anything that is not English but it is possible the rules for this will be the same as Crockford's etc principally because it involves longer matches.

The current Gold Cup uses the EBU system regulations and it will continue to do so - presumably they'll now have to decide whether to use Level 4 or 5 but I guess 5. It was only the possibility that the Orange Book would be put in an EBU members-only area that threatened this, as far as I am aware.

The Scots actually prefer to do as little as possible and look for ways to reduce even this, and copying WBF policies is one way of achieving that. The EBU system regulations are seen as too complex to maintain given the smaller bridge population here.

[nige1]

helene_t, on Jun 15 2010, 02:45 PM, said:

Frankly I think we should appreciate that there are some (unpaid) board members who do this unthankful work, and trust that they are reasonably intelligent people who do their best to come up with solutions that please the majority of EBU members.

gnasher, on Jun 15 2010, 11:10 AM, said:

This is an internet discussion board.  There's no place for opinions like that here.

gwnn, on Jun 15 2010, 05:32 AM, said:

They ban submarine club but not vuvuzelas

Cyberyeti, on Jun 15 2010, 08:08 AM, said:

I need to work on a system called vuvuzela involving making a lot of noise so nobody can make sense of anything, hang on isn't that what I play already ...

[FrancesHinden]

Cyberyeti, on Jun 15 2010, 02:06 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jun 15 2010, 06:17 AM, said:

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.

Crockfords yes, NICKO no (why not from last 16 or 32 on for example), Gold cup not sure.

There are some other national KOs than the ones you mention.

The NICKO and also the Garden Cities (a sort-of KO event) are being slightly re-forumulated to aim them more squarely at genuine club teams so it's hardly surprisingthis approach is taken for both. The idea being that both events are dominated by teams who simply recruit all the best players from the neighbouring three counties to put together a really strong team, rather than them being for the best playing members of each club.

There's also the Hubert Phillips, which is an excellent and extremely high standard KO event for mixed pivot teams. However, the pivot nature does mean it will be harder for people to have ready-made defences to complex systems, because they need them for (at least) three different partnerships. Many of the teams who enter do not have detailed systemic agreements across all their pairs.

I thought the biggest mistake was not making the Brighton weekends and the Portland Bowl "level 5". (The Portland Bowl is the inter-university championship).

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 16 2010, 06:59 PM, said:

I thought the biggest mistake was not making the Brighton weekends and the Portland Bowl "level 5". (The Portland Bowl is the inter-university championship).

I agree about the part of the Brighton field where you'd expect to encounter Frances. However, the field encompasses a wide range of abilities and experience, and it might be unreasonable to expect players at the lower end to put up with the Garvey Spade opening.

The obvious answer is to split the field into flights, with different system regulations for the two flights.

(In case any non-English reader is wondering what we're talking about, the two weekend events at Brighton are a 14-match Swiss teams and a 14-match Swiss Pairs, each with one large field.)

[paulg]

I presumed (from afar) that protecting Brighton (in the sense of attendance and hence income) was one of the real reasons to introduce this change, because flighting has never been popular in the UK.

[NickRW]

RMB1, on Jun 15 2010, 01:12 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 15 2010, 01:48 PM, said:

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

Although involved in the "Orange book process", I only know what happens in the committees from their minutes.

At some time the EBU abandoned level 3 for it own competitions (although continuing to document it for other tournament organisers) and all proper competitions became level 4.

Yes, well, rather than say on the one hand that (nearly) all (supposedly) serious events will be level 4, as the EBU did (and it seems as good as imposed on the counties), then, on the other hand, ban something at level 4 contrary to the publications of the Laws and Ethics people (while saying that [supposedly really] serious other things can be this mystical undefined level 5), it might have been better to admit the fact that a lot of club players play in these (supposedly) serious events and clubs are, by default, level 3 - even though most don't actually say it in so many words.

But that would take admitting that the decision to go blanket level 4 was wrong in the first place. Hmm. Or that it needed a level 3.5 - or whatever.

Anyway, appreciate you taking time to explain - even if I think it is potty.

Nick

[hanp]

cardsharp, on Jun 16 2010, 03:27 PM, said:

I presumed (from afar) that protecting Brighton (in the sense of attendance and hence income) was one of the real reasons to introduce this change, because flighting has never been popular in the UK.

That's not what we learn in history classes.