[barmar]

paulg, on 2017-January-25, 06:39, said:

The USBF seems to address this problem by having complex documents created by a team of a dozen people, but a smaller NBO just does not have the resources to develop and maintain the 600-page documents that are really required

Isn't a common solution by many small NBOs to simply adopt the WBF rules?

I think the main problem they run into is that WBF events are mostly played with screens, and their regulations assume this. So they need to be tweaked for traditional styles of play.

[paulg]

barmar, on 2017-January-25, 09:39, said:

Isn't a common solution by many small NBOs to simply adopt the WBF rules?

As it happens the main problem is not screens, but when you want to do something that the WBF doesn't. For example, this weekend's SBU event is a dual-elimination knockout with both long triads, where one team wins and two lose a life, and short triads, where two teams win and only one loses a life - traditional tie-break procedures need to be tweaked.

And then there is the much more contentious 'how to select a team from a trial'. Do you permit a winning team of four to pick the third pair? Does the third pair have to have played in the trial? What if a team of five wins, with one player having two partners? Do you let people play who are not eligible to play for the country in the target event? Do you let people play who do not want to play for the country in the target event, but their team mates do? What happens when they win?

The list of such questions always seems endless and every event throws up more. It is also inevitable that the vast majority of selectors are participants with a good chance of winning, which is one reason that late changes to the CoCs are dangerous.

[barmar]

paulg, on 2017-January-25, 10:40, said:

The list of such questions always seems endless and every event throws up more. It is also inevitable that the vast majority of selectors are participants with a good chance of winning, which is one reason that late changes to the CoCs are dangerous.

I thought we were just talking about things like bidding and alerting regulations, not the more general conditions of contests. But I guess they're all just part of the same regulatory framework.

But it doesn't have to be specifically the WBF rules. A small NBO could mix and match, e.g. adopting the EBU CoC with the WBF bidding system regulations.

[Jeremy69A]

The School Uniform regulations at the place I used to work had significant detail and, of course, students could have a lot of fun with phrases like "logos on outdoor coats or jackets must not be bigger than the size of two postage stamps" Any idea how big a stamp from the Pitcairn Islands is? Much of this was resolved by adding one line that said "or any other item deemed unsuitable by the headteacher" Perhaps the time has come for a simple, brief, addition to the Blue Book?

It is getting harder to find volunteers for both the Selection and Laws & Ethics committees. It does not help when a frenzy of abuse from social media follows decisions whether they are right or wrong. The Blue Book is half the length its predecessor was partly in response to comments about 72 pages of regulation. Its reasonable to write regulations as clearly as possible and the wording of what you can or can't agree to open a strong artificial two will no doubt be looked at even if it would be preferable to watch paint dry. I'm not looking forward to the meeting and I bet I'm not the only one! The members of the committee can rest assured that whatever they decide will be put to the court of Facebook, this forum, Twitter, Bridgewinners and found deficient. A couple of the regular posters on this forum are amongst the worst and most guilty in this regard IMO.

[WellSpyder]

Jeremy - feel free to get in touch next time you need a volunteer for the L&E.

My posts on this thread have not been intended to criticise the wording of the regulation, let alone the people who wrote it, merely to get guidance on how to interpret it. But if change is being considered, I wonder whether a more direct reference to how the signal is made rather than what it means might be helpful, eg: signals must be based on one characteristic of the card played rather than two, for example its size or its parity, but not both.

[lamford]

Jeremy69A, on 2017-January-26, 11:58, said:

The School Uniform regulations at the place I used to work had significant detail and, of course, students could have a lot of fun with phrases like "logos on outdoor coats or jackets must not be bigger than the size of two postage stamps" Any idea how big a stamp from the Pitcairn Islands is? Much of this was resolved by adding one line that said "or any other item deemed unsuitable by the headteacher" Perhaps the time has come for a simple, brief, addition to the Blue Book?

You seem to be defending shoddy regulations. As Longfellow wrote: "It takes less time to do a thing right than to explain why you did it wrong." I believe the world's smallest stamp measures 8 mm by 9.55 mm or .315 inches by .376 inches. It was issued by Bolivar, a province of Columbia, in 1863 and is called the Bolivar 10c green. Why school uniform regulations should deliberately be ambiguous by referring to postage stamps is anybody's guess. Perhaps the phrase "logos on outdoor coats or jackets must not be bigger than 20 mm x 10 mm" which is shorter and clearer is not readily understandable to the mathematically challenged.

In today's world, social media will peruse and criticise the regulations and their implementation for all sports, and we know that bridge is a sport, don't we? This is, in my opinion, healthy for the game and has led to beneficial change in sports such as cricket, tennis and football where poor regulations and poor refereeing are rightly pilloried or referees demoted. And yes, the minutes of the L&E and the decisions of ACs will be scrutinised by forums such as this. Strange how the L&E actually encourages this scrutiny by publishing booklets with comments on all the AC decisions every year, even making a big effort to catch up on missing years recently. I think you should be looking forward to the meeeting, and reacting to the comments of top players on both regulations and decisions.

And I was not aware that the L&E was struggling to find volunteers. I thought there were elections most years.

[helene_t]

lamford, on 2017-January-26, 12:43, said:

You seem to be defending shoddy regulations.

Yeah but apparently it is not easy to write regulations which satisfy everyone. I can't understand this since I would find it reasonably easy to write regulations for my taste and I strongly believe everybody ought to have the same taste as I. But apparently that is not the case.

Overall, I think EBU has the least ridiculous regulations of all the NBOs I am familiar with.

[blackshoe]

Just because a statement has numbers in it doesn't mean it has anything to do with mathematics or that one needs not to be mathematically challenged to understand it.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-26, 15:19, said:

Just because a statement has numbers in it doesn't mean it has anything to do with mathematics or that one needs not to be mathematically challenged to understand it.

You highlighted your own point within the statement.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

And I was not aware that the L&E was struggling to find volunteers. I thought there were elections most years.

Since I started as chairman there were no elections in 2014 or 2016 and one person stood to replace a retiring member in 2015.

Quote

You seem to be defending shoddy regulations.

Not my intention. First of all I don't accept your definition. Secondly they are regulations which have been studied, updated and refined by some dedicated volunteers whose expertise comes from their quality of play in some cases, their experience as national directors in others and their knowledge of the law in all cases.

Quote

the minutes of the L&E and the decisions of ACs will be scrutinised by forums such as this. Strange how the L&E actually encourages this scrutiny by publishing booklets with comments on all the AC decisions every year,

Scrutiny is fine.Persistent negativity is not. It will deter volunteers. The booklets are intended for all to see how the appeals process works. It isn't actually all the appeals as some are as dull as ditchwater but all those with any point of interest. The same criterion is applied to those discussed at L&E meetings.

Quote

This is, in my opinion, healthy for the game and has led to beneficial change in sports such as cricket, tennis and football where poor regulations and poor refereeing are rightly pilloried or referees demoted.

If you read stories about football refereeing at lower levels you will see that one reason for the shortage of volunteers is the constant questioning of decisions (sometimes violent). At least the violence has not yet made its way to bridge in this regard thus far! At one time i was a volunteer cricket umpire for my school. I'm quite sure I made mistakes. I went on a course to seek to become better at it but even if I had been perfection itself that would have not stopped the carping usually not from participants but proud parents.
Given that pillory means "attack or ridicule publicly" I think that reveals your motivation in this and your refusal to understand the difference between constructive criticism and what you choose to engage in here and on other forums.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

Jeremy - feel free to get in touch next time you need a volunteer for the L&E.

Thanks for the offer. A couple of members of the L&e will retire(in rotation) at the next AGM in November 2017. Nominations for election have to be in around 4 weeks before this and each county is notified of this in advance of that date. All that is needed is for you to be nominated for the committee.

[lamford]

Jeremy69A, on 2017-January-27, 04:25, said:

Given that pillory means "attack or ridicule publicly" I think that reveals your motivation in this and your refusal to understand the difference between constructive criticism and what you choose to engage in here and on other forums.

There is a non sequitur there in that I, and most others, usually just publish the facts of any ruling, or the wording of any regulation, and invite comment, so your assumptions about motivation are flawed. Often constructed hands are designed to highlight lacunae in regulations. If that leads to a large number of top players ridiculing either the decision or the regulation then I will indeed have achieved my goal which is solely to have the highest standard of regulations and the highest standard of directing. You say that this makes it more difficult to get volunteers, but produce no evidence of that. And do directors not normally receive a fee?

Graham "Three Yellows" Poll was never nominated by the FA for a major international event after the 2006 World Cup. Do you think it wrong that his error led to "pillory" on social media? I understand that it led to the fourth official having to advise the referee if he booked someone twice without issuing a red card.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

Do you think it wrong that his error led to "pillory" on social media?

Yes.

Quote

I, and most others, usually just publish the facts of any ruling, or the wording of any regulation, and invite comment

I don't think that is true. The regulation or ruling in question and/or those that produced it come in for some ridicule first. Maybe you should reread your contributions to a thread of over 900 posts on another forum.

Quote

If that leads to a large number of top players ridiculing either the decision or the regulation then I will indeed have achieved my goal

Indeed. Whether that is the most helpful or constructive way is perhaps open to question.

Quote

And do directors not normally receive a fee?

If they work at a congress then sure but not for any voluntary work on a committee.

[lamford]

Jeremy69A, on 2017-January-27, 08:46, said:

I don't think that is true. The regulation or ruling in question and/or those that produced it come in for some ridicule first. Maybe you should reread your contributions to a thread of over 900 posts on another forum.

Maybe it came in for ridicule because it was ridiculous? I have reread the thread, and my first post on that thread was number 130 of the 900, on a thread not started by me, but by another player, and not prompted either by me or the person ruled against. Around 95% of the posts, including mine, thought the decision was wrong, for a variety of reasons. Only 29 of the 900 posts were mine, many of them discussing matters not directly related to the decision. Incidentally my first post had 26 "upvotes" and any ridicule of the decision had already occurred.

I don't agree that social media discussion of all aspects of bridge regulation and related issues is not "constructive criticism". "Volunteers" should not be so sensitive that they cannot debate the rights and wrongs of decisions and the regulations that triggered off those decisions. There was much criticism of the open investigation of F-S and others on social media. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of the methods employed.

[weejonnie]

paulg, on 2017-January-25, 06:39, said:

I've given up helping the SBU write Conditions of Contest and other regulations because of the playing community, so I have every sympathy for the volunteers on the EBU committees. I have no idea why they do it!

<rant>
It is very frustrating trying to create a compact document that delivers everything that is needed, only to find one group of people exploiting every loophole to their advantage, a second group complaining about them, and a third group saying that you cannot make 'common sense' adjustments for unforeseen circumstances once the event has started.

The USBF seems to address this problem by having complex documents created by a team of a dozen people, but a smaller NBO just does not have the resources to develop and maintain the 600-page documents that are really required (and even the USBF seems to end up missing vital elements, such as an alerting policy and screen regulations). The players, and directors, don't want a 600-page CoC either.
</rant>

All I want is a few definitions into such difficult words as "weak", "intermediate", "strong", "gross" and by how much you can vary the strength of a call or the length of a suit whilst still remaining within the same "system".

[mycroft]

And all I want is a pony. You do realize that you are either asking for the most difficult things, or those that will immediately be jumped on for "regulating judgment"; or (as we've seen this year) both?

I absolutely agree that we should have these things, and they should be simple and unambiguous - and enforced. And an attitude of "yeah, we're regulating judgment. If your judgment is that you want to play right to the borderline, then we're going to regulate how much you can screw around. Deal with it, or get on the committee and suggest something better. Note: we *will* apply your level of scrutiny when we attempt to pick apart your suggested regulations. And we won't accept 'but why would anyone want to do that, it's losing bridge' as an answer - that's what other people are saying about you."

Finally, "gross", as I've said several times, can not be universally quantified - at least not in terms of absolute cards and points. Anything that makes KT86 AJ53 6 KJT8 not a gross distortion if opened 2♦ Flannery (standard, "11-15 HCP, 4 spades and 5 hearts") is broken; but clearly deciding to open the same hand 1♥ "5+ hearts, 11-21" is not (although it's probably pretty quickly a partnership agreement). So good luck.

Also, remember that if you ask a table of bridge players for opinions, you'll get 5 at least.

Sometimes, the Potter Stewart Rule needs to be pulled out. I hate it as much as you do.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2017-January-30, 10:19, said:

Finally, "gross", as I've said several times, can not be universally quantified - at least not in terms of absolute cards and points. Anything that makes KT86 AJ53 6 KJT8 not a gross distortion if opened 2♦ Flannery (standard, "11-15 HCP, 4 spades and 5 hearts") is broken; but clearly deciding to open the same hand 1♥ "5+ hearts, 11-21" is not (although it's probably pretty quickly a partnership agreement). So good luck.

One of the best examples I've ever seen of the problem of defining psychs.

[jallerton]

Jeremy69A, on 2017-January-27, 04:25, said:

Since I started as chairman there were no elections in 2014 or 2016 and one person stood to replace a retiring member in 2015.

That's not quite the whole story. The Board of Directors had proposed abolishing the Standing Committees. It is hardly surprising if people were reluctant to put their names forward for elections which were not necessarily going to take place.

[jallerton]

jallerton, on 2017-January-23, 18:34, said:

I share your concerns about the wording of this regulation.

In an old version of the Orange Book, the restriction applied only to specifically odd-even signals (in following suit), with one of odd & even being encouraging and the other suit preference. That was a perfectly clear regulation! Them some bright spark worked out that there could be similar analogous situations and decided to make the regulation more generic. However, I find the current wording "dual meaning signals" to be particularly unfortunate, in that it could be interpreted as not catching the original method it was intended to catch, whilst arguably catching by accident some mainstream signalling methods.

Suppose West leads an ace and East follows with the queen. How would you describe this signal?

Description 1: top of a sequence. That's a single meaning, surely. Or is it?

Description 2: denies the king and shows the jack. So the queen has two meanings; so does it not come under the umbrella of a "dual meaning"?

As you will have noted 1 have described the same standard signalling method in two different ways.

Or take your example when someone has shown a long suit and high/low cards are suit preference. It's OK to agree that a middle card is also suit preference (maybe for the suit led!), but it is described as "encouraging" then that is apparently a different meaning than either neutral or "suit preference" and suddenly the pair is playing a "dual meaning signal"!

Perhaps it would be better for the restriction to be placed on "dual message signals" rather than "dual meaning signals!.

Tony Forrester has written in today's Daily Telegraph newspaper an article about signalling. He observes:

Quote

....However, be aware of one thing - a card cannot indicate two different things simultaneously. There may be inference as to a second meaning, as above, but that conclusion we draw from experience.

Whilst Tony is writing from the perspective of bridge merit, not bridge regulations, it occurs to me that what he says might be a good way of explaining what is meant by the term “dual meaning signal”.

[WellSpyder]

jallerton, on 2017-February-11, 16:04, said:

Whilst Tony is writing from the perspective of bridge merit, not bridge regulations, it occurs to me that what he says might be a good way of explaining what is meant by the term “dual meaning signal”.

Yes, i think that might help clarify the meaning a bit. But I'm not sure it clarifies what is actually intended by the current regulation. Taking the example of the Italian signal with which I started this thread. An odd card has the single meaning "I like this suit", a high even card has the single meaning "I like the higher of the other two suits" and a low even card has the single meaning "I like the lower of the other two suits". Isn't the issue more about attributing meaning to two different attributes of the card played (its rank, parity, suit, colour or whatever)?