[jillybean]

barmar, on 2025-March-05, 15:02, said:

I agree with this. I also think most players have never read the Laws.

In general, people don't learn games by reading the rules, they learn by osmosis from other players.

And as you pointed out earlier, the majority of players in North America want a simple version of the game.

barmar, on 2025-February-27, 16:45, said:

The impression I get is that the ACBL regulators believe that American players don't want comprehensive, detailed regulations like the colored books. They probably consider them too overwhelming and no one will read them.

ACBL regulations have generally been based more on establishing some general principles, and then applying them to specific cases. The problem has been that these principles are sometimes too vague; they made some improvements in the revisions of the convention charts and alert procedures a few years ago. But the general idea of keeping them short and general instead of long and detailed is still there.

I'm not sure they're wrong about what the majority of ACBL members want.

[akwoo]

pescetom, on 2025-March-05, 16:47, said:

If (like me and my RA and even the IOC) you consider bridge a sport rather than a mere game, then your expectations must be a little higher.
The dumber people learn by osmosis but also by any instruction that is available and by interaction with the referee, the smarter people read the rules and try to ensure they are followed.
Those who seemingly never learn (or wonder only what they can get away with) are certainly not interested in participating in a sport.

If I want to play against bridge players who are interested in participating in a sport, I have to travel at a minimum about 500 km, as I did last weekend.

We have to welcome less serious players if we want a game at all.

[jillybean]

akwoo, on 2025-March-05, 23:18, said:

If I want to play against bridge players who are interested in participating in a sport, I have to travel at a minimum about 500 km, as I did last weekend.

We have to welcome less serious players if we want a game at all.

I think we do welcome less serious players, we don't cater for the new players who do want to become tournament players.

[mycroft]

How? (And remember that many tournament players don't want a serious sport either - witness the "if there's no Gold Rush, we're not coming that day" people, never mind the "whaddaya mean we're in A? But we only have 1500 points, it's not like we are experts" people).

But seriously, how does either the OP "when will this odd call that appeals to scientists and foreigners be legal?" or the thread drift "it's hard to understand or find the regulations explaining what can be played and how it should be explained" inhibit "new players" from becoming tournament players (or even "bridge-as-a-sport" players (*))? I am right with you on "M:tG players, who are used to complications far beyond bridge bidding science, and are also used to far stronger penalties for legal mistakes (sometimes even "forgets"), even at "low level" tournaments (treating "Regular" REL games like FNM as "club games" equivalent, and "Competitive" REL as "tournament"), might find the ways we rule and protect "this game" as "not serious", but we had the opportunity to go after those and we didn't/failed at it. The average new bridge player who takes their games "seriously" and gets deep into it? They might just RTFLB, like they did with the Rules of Golf back in the day, or the Laws of Box Lacrosse when the(y|ir kid) got past intro level, and the CCs and Alert Procedures are really no worse than their condo bylaws or employment contracts. The attitude of us longtimers ("we know how bridge is played, don't confuse us with the Laws and Regulations") doesn't help, I will admit.

(*) If you play any sport at more than kick-around level, you'll be expected to have read the actual rules (or have a coach that has and can explan them). You'll get whistled, even when you "didn't mean to" or "didn't know about". You'll take your lumps, or you'll read up and know for next time. Really, bridge is the only thing close to a sport where not knowing the rules you play under, even at the top level, is a badge of honour, never mind *possible*.

[mike777]

mycroft, on 2025-March-06, 11:59, said:

How? (And remember that many tournament players don't want a serious sport either - witness the "if there's no Gold Rush, we're not coming that day" people, never mind the "whaddaya mean we're in A? But we only have 1500 points, it's not like we are experts" people).

But seriously, how does either the OP "when will this odd call that appeals to scientists and foreigners be legal?" or the thread drift "it's hard to understand or find the regulations explaining what can be played and how it should be explained" inhibit "new players" from becoming tournament players (or even "bridge-as-a-sport" players (*))? I am right with you on "M:tG players, who are used to complications far beyond bridge bidding science, and are also used to far stronger penalties for legal mistakes (sometimes even "forgets"), even at "low level" tournaments (treating "Regular" REL games like FNM as "club games" equivalent, and "Competitive" REL as "tournament"), might find the ways we rule and protect "this game" as "not serious", but we had the opportunity to go after those and we didn't/failed at it. The average new bridge player who takes their games "seriously" and gets deep into it? They might just RTFLB, like they did with the Rules of Golf back in the day, or the Laws of Box Lacrosse when the(y|ir kid) got past intro level, and the CCs and Alert Procedures are really no worse than their condo bylaws or employment contracts. The attitude of us longtimers ("we know how bridge is played, don't confuse us with the Laws and Regulations") doesn't help, I will admit.

(*) If you play any sport at more than kick-around level, you'll be expected to have read the actual rules (or have a coach that has and can explan them). You'll get whistled, even when you "didn't mean to" or "didn't know about". You'll take your lumps, or you'll read up and know for next time. Really, bridge is the only thing close to a sport where not knowing the rules you play under, even at the top level, is a badge of honour, never mind *possible*.

Strongly disagree.
The vast majority of professional sports players don't know many of the league rules. This is for several reasons.
Rules change often and careers are short.
These are adults with many things going on in their lives.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-March-06, 11:59, said:

(*) If you play any sport at more than kick-around level, you'll be expected to have read the actual rules (or have a coach that has and can explan them). You'll get whistled, even when you "didn't mean to" or "didn't know about". You'll take your lumps, or you'll read up and know for next time. Really, bridge is the only thing close to a sport where not knowing the rules you play under, even at the top level, is a badge of honour, never mind *possible*.

Exactly.
But how it is that bridge sets the bar so much lower, to the point that players or even Directors who try to follow the rules are often shunned?
I spent decades in other sports, in particular cycling and athletics.
Cycling then had serious issues, but many infractions led more or less directly to a high speed fall with only a strip of lycra between you and the road. For the rest, I learned a lot about sport the one time I told the referee where to go (he had rung the bell for the last round one round too early, a mistake which cost me the race).
Athletics has an excellent culture of respect of the rules, they are few and simple and if you don't know or follow them it is very much your problem.
Bridge? I was appalled, and decided I had no choice but to become a referee myself.

[mike777]

Rules being shunned?
Sports have a long history of disrespect for the rules.


Look at history, the surprise is more that rules are followed

Rereading several books on rules being shunned in bridge, long history.
Cycling Ditto...

Referring is a tough job, in sports or in politics or in life..
No respect

One saying here in America that you hear over and over, fans don't pay to see the ref.

[akwoo]

pescetom, on 2025-March-06, 16:58, said:

But how it is that bridge sets the bar so much lower, to the point that players or even Directors who try to follow the rules are often shunned?

The problem is that bridge rules are completely unworkable for weaker players.

A couple months ago, I called the director on myself because it was possible I had taken advantage of UI from partner's hesitation. (I wasn't sure if my bid had any logical alternatives, so I made it and then called the director after the hand.) I explained what I was doing to my beginner opponents. (Actually - it was more complicated - the director was playing, so I polled him after he played the hand and agreed on a ruling based on that.)

One of my opponents pointed out that she hesitated on every hand, since she rarely had any idea what she was doing. Her beginner partners were also hesitating on every hand, and she had no idea if she was in fact subconsciously taking into account the hesitation in deciding her next action. She doesn't know enough to have a logical thought process and, once out of the rules for opening bids and responses, just bids based on intuition which certainly might be subconsciously influenced. It's even worse during the play.

I told her that she should just try her best to maintain an even tempo and make sure not to consciously take partner's tempo into account. (Forget what the rules say - there is no way she could handle the mental gymnastics of figuring out what was and was not demonstrably suggested and deciding what was and was not a logical alternative.)

However - her point stands - if we go strictly by the rules, the director would be making a ruling on her on every hand, and the result on every hand would be not what happened at the table but rather whatever the director rules. At that point, she isn't playing anymore.

Both weekly games within 130km have majorities of social players who are also beginners. If we tried to play according to the rules, it would basically be the director playing against himself or herself.

[mike777]

Along the same theme, in American football the refs could call a penalty on every play.

In Basketball travelling or palming the basketball almost never called.
Sports are entertainment, refs walk a fine line.


If you did, no sports.

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2025-March-06, 11:59, said:

Really, bridge is the only thing close to a sport where not knowing the rules you play under, even at the top level, is a badge of honour, never mind *possible*.

I can believe this in North America. I would like to know if this is true Globally?

akwoo, on 2025-March-06, 17:52, said:

The problem is that bridge rules are completely unworkable for weaker players.

A couple months ago, I called the director on myself because it was possible I had taken advantage of UI from partner's hesitation. (I wasn't sure if my bid had any logical alternatives, so I made it and then called the director after the hand.) I explained what I was doing to my beginner opponents. (Actually - it was more complicated - the director was playing, so I polled him after he played the hand and agreed on a ruling based on that.)

One of my opponents pointed out that she hesitated on every hand, since she rarely had any idea what she was doing. Her beginner partners were also hesitating on every hand, and she had no idea if she was in fact subconsciously taking into account the hesitation in deciding her next action. She doesn't know enough to have a logical thought process and, once out of the rules for opening bids and responses, just bids based on intuition which certainly might be subconsciously influenced. It's even worse during the play.

I told her that she should just try her best to maintain an even tempo and make sure not to consciously take partner's tempo into account. (Forget what the rules say - there is no way she could handle the mental gymnastics of figuring out what was and was not demonstrably suggested and deciding what was and was not a logical alternative.)

However - her point stands - if we go strictly by the rules, the director would be making a ruling on her on every hand, and the result on every hand would be not what happened at the table but rather whatever the director rules. At that point, she isn't playing anymore.

Both weekly games within 130km have majorities of social players who are also beginners. If we tried to play according to the rules, it would basically be the director playing against himself or herself.

This argument has been used as rationale for not teaching or enforcing the Laws, because by doing so we would scare the newbies away.
Just as often, it has been pointed out the enforcement of the Laws at the 0-50, 50-200, 200-500, 500+ levels can be tailored and tamed appropriately.

Perhaps too, there are players who simply couldn't follow the Laws, even at the basic level and perhaps Sanctioned, Duplicate Bridge isn't the right game for them.
Social Duplicate Bridge is. Unfortunately, the draw of Master Points is so great that the best attendance at the Regionals is for the Gold Rush Pairs.

[akwoo]

jillybean, on 2025-March-06, 18:39, said:

Unfortunately, the draw of Master Points is so great that the best attendance at the Regionals is for the Gold Rush Pairs.

I think you should look at this from the other direction. Unfortunately there are so few serious bridge players that there would be no Regionals (they'd be financially unviable) if it weren't for Gold Rush Pairs.

[jillybean]

akwoo, on 2025-March-06, 20:02, said:

I think you should look at this from the other direction. Unfortunately there are so few serious bridge players that there would be no Regionals (they'd be financially unviable) if it weren't for Gold Rush Pairs.

Yes, thankfully we still have GR pairs.

[mycroft]

If they "hesitate on every hand", then it is their legal responsibility to moderate their tempo so it's not so obvious.

Yes, that means slowing down a bit on the "obvious ones". Yes, they're already being told they play too slowly. Yes, this is a problem, mostly because they don't know when to think, and because they don't yet know how to not waste time (or allow the opponents to waste time).

However, I have frequently given a ruling of "that hesitation means 'I've never seen this auction before' which, while UI, doesn't demonstrably suggest anything. It would, of course, if it were you or me hesitating in this sequence; it will for them in another thousand hands or so, too." You can ease the concerns of the beginners with that (in less "flight A-ese", of course).

You can point out to them that, apart from the Law and the [evil] Director, if they practise moderating their tempo a little to hide the "thinks" a bit, it will help them against the better players, who can and do read their tempo better than their partners do. (Yes, they won't get good enough to hide it completely - I can't, and I bet neither can you - but every little bit helps, and it's an incentive they can understand).

[jillybean]

We are not concerned with Newbies here, who don't know what the heck is going on and hum and ha, squirm, reach for the bidding box and pull their hand back like it's bit them. Atleast, I am not concerned with those players.
We should be concerned about the players who have been playing for 10-20+ years, teach the newbies what is allowed and fill the GR tables at the Regionals.

I have a smart, young (compared to the rest of us) pair fresh out of the bridge lessons whom are climbing their way off the bottom of the results page. They have had a few Director calls at their table and they now coming to me with questions. I'd say there are 2 reasons for this , #1 As a Director, I am one of the fabulously approachable ones and #2 what they have been told by experienced players at the table doesn't match what I say on every occasion.

I would dearly like to spend more time with these players but there is so little time before or after the game.
I would like to refer them to a publication that is understandable for players of their level.
I can't send them in the Direction of the Laws Of Duplicate Bridge. I am very tempted to refer them to the EBU Blue Book, with the caveat that things are a little different in North America.

[mycroft]

What, specific, question (yes, I am getting repetitive) would you send someone to the FLB and to the Blue Book, because they both have the answer? What specific part of the Blue Book do you think helps with the Law? I sure hope it's in Chapter 2, wherein the regulations and interpretations of the EBU at least relate to Full Disclosure, UI, and what, exactly, is considered a Partnership Understanding. The rest of the book is great if you're using an EBU Card, or if you're using EBU terminology, or you want to know what is legal or Alertable in an EBU event. None of which could possibly be answerable in the Laws (which *allow* RAs to do all of that, sure) - but also, is not in fact relevant at all to ACBL play (where the *equivalent* Convention Charts and Alert Procedure apply).

If they can't understand the CC and the AP, some simple (for directors and others who have read a contract) explanation of how you would go looking and finding the answer can help; after two or three of those, if they are interested, I'm sure they'd be able to do as good a job as most experienced players who actually care about what the documents say/whether their treatment is legal or Alertable.

Now, if they're wondering about the arcanities of the Law and how it might be ruled, being sent to the *White* Book as a supplement to the FLB (while being told that some things are different Over Here) might be useful, yes. But the White Book, exemplar of the field though it is, isn't exactly grade-school either. While you're at it, you could pass them Duplicate Decisions (an ACBL equivalent, more aimed at "easy reading of the FLB for Club Directors who are, frankly, pushed into it or care more about table count/profit than absolute correctness". Which, for newer players investigating how things are (supposed to be) legally done, is about right, really, and certainly better than experienced players' old wives' tales) or Kooijman's/WBF's Commentary on the 2017 Laws (but again, not exactly easy reading!)

Yes, the Blue Book is a wonderful document. And the regulations therein, especially at the "open" level 4, would make a nice change both in what is legal and how it is explained, and how Alerting is done. But its relevance to the ACBL at all is specious at best (again, excepting Chapter 2, and even there be careful - for instance, I would like if 2A3 still applied in the ACBL but it has been replaced).

[jillybean]

Good morning.
"Introduction The Blue Book contains information that players are most likely to need. The White Book is mainly for Tournament Directors although some players may also find the content of interest. In 2022, both the Blue Book and White Book were extended to contain guidance and regulations for online bridge. We'd like to thank the committee members and other volunteers who put much work into improving this publication and making it fit for the membership we now serve. We also thank everyone who has sent suggestions for improvement or pointed out where the regulations are unclear."

EBU Player Blue Book 2004. (the bold is mine)
https://www.ebu.co.u...k/blue-book.pdf

The first 5 chapters of the EBU Blue Book contain information that is easy to read and understand, all in one place.
2. Disclosure of system
3. System Cards
4. Alerting and Announcing
5. Rules for Partnership Understandings.

Obviously it contains specific details in regards to EBU regulations but otherwise, the content is valid, for example

2.B.3 A player should explain only the partnership understanding for a call, not how they intend to interpret it. They should say if there is no agreed meaning, but if there is any relevant partnership experience the answer should include it. A player who knows that there are multiple possible meanings for a call should explain all of them. For example, if a pair plays 1NT P 4♥ as a transfer to spades but have not discussed intervention, the last bid in the auction 1NT (2♦) 4♥ should be alerted and explained as ‘on the uncontested auction this would show spades, we haven’t discussed what we play in competition’ and not simply as ‘no agreement’.
. EBU Blue Book

[jillybean]

Perhaps the question is, how do we cater for the friendly game at the local bridge club while progressing the sport, and keeping it competitive ?
Some think it is possible to have both

https://www.youtube....&ab_channel=CNN

[mycroft]

M:tG's Rules Enforcement Levels. And really, we do that. We just don't label it "Relaxed Enforcement", or warn players that when they go to tournaments, or even more serious club games, that there is a "Competitive Enforcement Level", and some of the things we'll just let you get away with here will be penalized there.

As far as I am concerned, a friendly game *is* run by the rules, with players calling the Director when "something goes wrong", listening to the Director, and accepting the ruling with a "thank you." I do realize that many - many - don't, and they consider a Director call - even one where the call is "we did something wrong, and we want you here to protect *them*" - to be "unfriendly" in itself.

But I also know what happens in the games where that is acceptable. You can't say or do anything against the North at table 1, because it won't matter; even when it goes well past OBM and into "partner, you need to pass/bid/read this card as a signal". You get the players at table 3 making their own rulings "to be nice", but then screaming for the Director when it turns out that "nice" meant the opponents luck into the right contract. You get rulings, if there are any, in favour of the locals, or the ones who won't show up if they're ruled against, or the ones who are leaders of the social circles. You get games where, to be clear, there are rules - very rigid and detailed rules - they're just not written down. And, even if you get one of the less toxic versions of these games, you get the pair who gets brought to the tournament with their friends, and finds out that "following the rules" gets people calling the Director, and getting rulings in their favour - and never, ever, comes back. [Edit: or they find that playing according to the Laws is actually rather pleasant, especially after coming back to the club and being reminded of all the "friendly" - so they never, ever, come back to the club instead].

How do you resolve this? By explaining right from day 1 that "Bridge is a game with Laws, and is a competitive game. The Director is there to ensure that the Laws are followed, and is there to protect *you* as well, even when you do something wrong. Sit down, have fun, learn and follow the (small bit of the) rules (you need to know), call the Director if something is amiss; the game is very enjoyable and interesting." And keep saying it. And shut the "we could call the director and get that call reversed, but we'll be nice" people up, too, while we're at it - either call or don't, and if there's any lecturing or education (there should never be any shame) to be done, let the director do it. Remember 81C5, if you really want to be "nice".

But, all in all, RELs, and expecting people that move up to Competitive or Professional REL to actually know how to play the game (not just how to bid and play cards).

If you're concerned about how "mean" and "unfriendly" things are in bridge, read the Magic IPC (also read "Judging at Regular" to see what the difference in philosophy is.) One specific thing you might want to see, though - the "weakest" penalty is a Warning, which is *reported and tracked*. Imagine at a Sectional if every BooT, oLooT, revoke or misclaim was sent back to Memphis, and if you got three or so in a tournament, they get upgraded to Game Loss (whatever that means in bridge). That's over and above "fixing the problem" and getting the game back to a correct state - if that's impossible, that also is a Game Loss.

[mycroft]

And heh, a line from the Annotated IPG: "Disqualifications are for the most severe infractions. Don’t feel bad about these. Remember, you don’t give penalties. Players earn them."

That's a very interesting line for yer average Judge Director, neh?

Some more interesting annotations:
"Making a slow play call as a judge is subjective, therefore judges have to use their best judgment when making them. Two methods judges have reported using are:

• If you have had time to assess the board, figure out what to do, and then get bored, it’s slow play.
  
• If you start wondering if you should give Slow Play, you should have already given it.

"

[Rule]All players have the responsibility to play quickly enough so that their opponents are not at a significant disadvantage because of the time limit. A player may be playing slowly without realizing it. A comment of “I need you to play faster” is often appropriate and all that is needed.
[Annotation] A player who is deep in thought may not be aware that they have used a lot of time. People are bad at estimating time and might think it’s only been ten seconds when it’s been fifty. In these cases it’s OK to step in a give a little nudge to play faster. This nudge is not a formal penalty or a Warning, it’s a ‘caution.’ If the player makes their play quickly and continues at a reasonable pace, everything is fine. It’s also worth noting that some judges don’t start with a Caution. This is also OK.
[Rule continues]Further slow play should be penalized.

[akwoo]

jillybean, on 2025-March-08, 07:58, said:

Obviously it contains specific details in regards to EBU regulations but otherwise, the content is valid, for example

2.B.3 A player should explain only the partnership understanding for a call, not how they intend to interpret it. They should say if there is no agreed meaning, but if there is any relevant partnership experience the answer should include it. A player who knows that there are multiple possible meanings for a call should explain all of them. For example, if a pair plays 1NT P 4♥ as a transfer to spades but have not discussed intervention, the last bid in the auction 1NT (2♦) 4♥ should be alerted and explained as ‘on the uncontested auction this would show spades, we haven’t discussed what we play in competition’ and not simply as ‘no agreement’.
. EBU Blue Book

Is this actually correct in the ACBL? I've been told, IIRC by a director, that in the case where there is no agreement there should be no alert, and that a 'no agreement' response to a question does in fact suffice.