[RMB1]

NickRW, on Jun 17 2010, 03:06 AM, said:

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.

I think it is true that the L&E had to reverse the decision for one level for (almost) all events, and that they were reluctant.

There were suggestions to splitting level 4 into 4(restricted) and 4(not restricted) or 4-/4+ or 3.5/4.5 or some such; but we had "restricted" before and no one knew if the events were restricted or the agreements.

So two numerical labels were needed, and level 3 was still needed (and still much different from "new" level 4). There had been a level 5 previously and it had been withdrawn for some years, so "level 5" was an available label.

It looks awkward to "relabel 4 as 5 and introduce a new 4" but it can be spun as "restrict level 4 (to meet the wished of the membership) and introduce a new level 5 (for the big events)".

[jeremy69]

Quote

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.

Level 5 is not mystical. It is well defined i.e. WBF category 3 plus a few bits from a long time ago that are technically brown sticker but have always been allowed at level 4e.g. 3D showing a major suit pre-empt which is brown sticker for the WBF.

The L&E decided to stop using Level 3 some 3 or 4 years ago but left it in the Orange book for those clubs who wished to adopt it or smething similar which some clubs do.

My county has no difficulty in setting a level and does not feel "pressured" by the EBU. I doubt whether anyone would actually want to play 1♠ showing ♥ in the County Mixed Pairs but if they did they now can't.

In the days when some events were level 3 and some level 4 that had two fundamental disadvantages which were a. there were some differences for the unwary that could leave then not sure what to do from one event to the other and sometimes led to a change from one day to another of a Swiss weekend necessitating two convention cards which wasn't very customer friendly and b. it empowered the barrack room lawyers. Level 5 will only be played in smallish number of top tournaments and will, IMO, make playing in a congress more enjoyable for the majority who want to live in their comfort zone.

[WellSpyder]

jeremy69, on Jun 17 2010, 05:10 AM, said:

Level 5 is not mystical. It is well defined i.e. WBF category 3 plus a few bits from a long time ago that are technically brown sticker but have always been allowed at level 4e.g. 3D showing a major suit pre-empt which is brown sticker for the WBF.

And WBF category 3 is.....???

In trying to understand this I came across a WBF definition of Highly Unusual Methods and Brown Sticker conventions, but I didn't find an explanation of how these were used in defining category 3. Is the assumption that anything that isn't a HUM or brown sticker is allowed?

[nige1]

Once a local jurisdiction starts to go down the route of system restriction, it is inevitable that whatever regulations they devise, there will always be unhappy groups of players. At any level, some will always deem regulations to be too restrictive; others too permissive. Most players feel that methods are simple and natural if they like them and are accustomed to them. Anything else is poison gas. It doesn't help to keep adding more and more licensing levels because there are so many different tastes. In the end, the simple solution is two levels: standard system and anything goes. To begin with, there might be protests but probably fewer than the current morass of regulation engenders.

[gnasher]

This is really the fault of the L&E committee from the 1990s. If they'd had the foresight to number the levels 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50, it would have been simple to create a new level 45. Or they could have used colours; if, for example, the top two levels were "green" and "blue", we could have inserted a "turquoise" level.

That's the trouble with having bridge run by committees of amateurs - they spend so much time trying to screw the maximum out of the expenses system and making up rules to suit themselves that they don't have time to think of elementary precautions like this.

[OleBerg]

gnasher, on Jun 17 2010, 04:51 PM, said:

That's the trouble with having bridge run by committees of amateurs - they spend so much time trying to screw the maximum out of the expenses system and making up rules to suit themselves that they don't have time to think of elementary precautions like this.

I thought this thread was about the English Bridge Union, but you describe the Danish Bridge Federation.

Disclaimer: A few notheworthy exceptions can be made, but that would make me a kiss-ass

[blackshoe]

nige1, on Jun 17 2010, 10:47 AM, said:

…it is inevitable that whatever the system of regulations that they devise, there will always be unhappy groups of players…In the end, the simple solution is two levels…

You contradict yourself. Your "solution" will not solve the problem — some players will be unhappy with it. You cannot make everyone happy on this question.

[jeremy69]

Quote

This is really the fault of the L&E committee from the 1990s. If they'd had the foresight to number the levels 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50, it would have been simple to create a new level 45

You shouldn't restrict blame to committees from the 90's (the good old days) as Level 4+ was a working name at one stage. fortunately the L&E's marketing sub committee got to work and came up with a better name but they forgot to get sponsorship for it.

There is an SF book by (I think) Mordecai Richler called Level 7 which revolves around the furthest level underground after a nuclear holocaust. Slowly those on Levels 1-4 die and the remainder are under threat. Will Level 7 survive. you'll just have to read the book? A variant could, of course, be that those playing the simpler systems die out and gradually the world is reduced to those playing Strong Heart and transfer weak two's.

[helene_t]

gnasher, on Jun 17 2010, 03:51 PM, said:

This is really the fault of the L&E committee from the 1990s.  If they'd had the foresight to number the levels 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50, it would have been simple to create a new level 45.  Or they could have used colours; if, for example, the top two levels were "green" and "blue", we could have inserted a "turquoise" level.

There could still be a level 4+, or 4B, or 4.5 or w/e. As long as nobody requires a transfinite number of levels. In that case, the "favorite function" thread might become relevant.

FWIW I don't think adding more levels would help, though. There are already too many. In an ideal World, I would vote for Nigel's two levels.

[jeremy69]

Quote

And WBF category 3 is.....???

You mean you want more detail than is seen on the WBF site viz Brown Sticker and HUMS not allowed?

They don't need an orange or tangerine book! Perhaps all Categories and descriptions could go into the Satsuma Book.

[gnasher]

helene_t, on Jun 17 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

There could still be a level 4+, or 4B, or 4.5 or w/e. As long as nobody requires a transfinite number of levels. In that case, the "favorite function" thread might become relevant.

We could also have a level pi, for people who don't want play complex methods themselves, but do like to complain ad infinitum about the complextity of their opponents' methods.

[helene_t]

gnasher, on Jun 17 2010, 05:04 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 17 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

There could still be a level 4+, or 4B, or 4.5 or w/e. As long as nobody requires a transfinite number of levels. In that case, the "favorite function" thread might become relevant.

We could also have a level pi, for people who don't want play complex methods themselves, but do like to complain ad infinitum about the complextity of their opponents' methods.

I think complex methods should be allowed only at levels x+yi, where y is postive.

[hrothgar]

gnasher, on Jun 17 2010, 07:04 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 17 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

There could still be a level 4+, or 4B, or 4.5 or w/e. As long as nobody requires a transfinite number of levels. In that case, the "favorite function" thread might become relevant.

We could also have a level pi, for people who don't want play complex methods themselves, but do like to complain ad infinitum about the complextity of their opponents' methods.

Is there something specific about the number pi per see or is the defining characteristic the "irrational" nature of pi...

[NickRW]

jeremy69, on Jun 17 2010, 10:10 AM, said:

Level 5 is not mystical. It is well defined

Think you should re-read the Orange book - there is one scant reference to level 5. If that is "well defined", I am the monkey's uncle.

jeremy69, on Jun 17 2010, 10:10 AM, said:

The L&E decided to stop using Level 3 some 3 or 4 years ago but left it in the Orange book for those clubs who wished to adopt it or smething similar which some clubs do.

Yes, I am quite well aware of that - and I am also well aware of the above 'EBU style' gloss on that decision. However, it woefully fails to address the issue of what will fly versus what is wanted in the real world. The EBU, with its tournament avant guarde and the wishes of international selectors in mind, quite properly in my view, wants "serious" competition to be as unfettered and as much like what will be found in European/World competition as possible. Fair enough. But the EBU also wants money - and that means attracting club players - and that means some of them will be out of their depth - and a few of those will complain rather than take getting beaten up as a learning experience.

Now there are various approaches to at least attempting to ameliorate this imbalance, none of which, probably, will be fully successful. However, defining a level 3 - which is what clubs generally use (if unstated by them) and then washing your hands of it for EBU competitions was sweeping the issue under the carpet and bound to end in tears.

Nick

[jeremy69]

Quote

Think you should re-read the Orange book - there is one scant reference to level 5. If that is "well defined", I am the monkey's uncle.

I don't think so. Said uncle is rarely, if ever, offensive. However the point I was making was that the revised book would contain a clear definition. I agree that the current one does not as it was rarely used.

Quote

But the EBU also wants money - and that means attracting club players - and that means some of them will be out of their depth - and a few of those will complain rather than take getting beaten up as a learning experience.

You are entitled to your opinion but clubs can do as they wish and if they wish to play Level 3 or anything else they can. In my experience most clubs in my area either play level 4 or do not state any level but effectively that is the same thing and there is never the slightest problem. That is certainly not because they are all top players or anything like. I think some people make problems where there aren't any.

[nige1]

nige1, on Jun 17 2010, 10:47 AM, said:

…it is inevitable that whatever the system of regulations that they devise, there will always be unhappy groups of players…In the end, the simple solution is two levels…

blackshoe, on Jun 17 2010, 09:57 AM, said:

You contradict yourself. Your "solution" will not solve the problem — some players will be unhappy with it. You cannot make everyone happy on this question.

I didn't contradict myself. My repeated thesis (snipped by Blackshoe) is that you can't please everybody all the time.

Current local system-regulations (like the Orange book) are so complex and labile, that many players don't comply with them. Paradoxically, ignorance of them often confers an advantage, because they're so rarely enforced.

Hence, accepting that many will object to any solution, legislators may as well implement a simple one that players can understand and directors can enforce.

[paulg]

nige1, on Jun 18 2010, 12:50 AM, said:

Current local system-regulations (like the Orange book) are so complex and labile, that many players don't comply with them. Paradoxically, ignorance of them often confers an advantage, because they're so rarely enforced.

Hence, accepting that many will object to any solution, legislators may as well implement a simple one that players can understand and directors can enforce.

This is the ACBL approach and we've endlessly debated what their single page means. Just goes to show that it is not easy.

[helene_t]

I think the EBU regulations are easy to interpret. OK they are quite long but I'd rather have a long coherent text than a short piece of gibberish like the WBF HUM definition.

Ideally, we would have a short and coherent text, but that would then necessarily have to rely on some technocratic computer-code-style criteria which I would personally be happy with but most players (to the extent that they care about the issue at all) probably wouldn't.

[nige1]

nige1, on Jun 18 2010, 12:50 AM, said:

Current local system-regulations (like the Orange book) are so complex and labile, that many players don't comply with them. Paradoxically, ignorance of them often confers an advantage, because they're so rarely enforced. Hence, accepting that many will object to any solution, legislators may as well implement a simple one that players can understand and directors can enforce.

cardsharp, on Jun 18 2010, 03:47 AM, said:

This is the ACBL approach and we've endlessly debated what their single page means. Just goes to show that it is not easy.

If the ACBL approach is simple for players to understand and for directors to enforce, then why the endless debate?

[helene_t]

nige1, on Jun 18 2010, 11:12 AM, said:

If the ACBL approach is simple for players to understand and for directors to enforce, then why the endless debate?

LOL. It is simple to enforce, just like the following rule is simple to enforce: whenever there is a dispute between two parties, flip a coin!