[blml] Disclosure f2f

[Stefanie Rohan]

> [nige1]
> It may be hard to persuade local beneficiaries from jingoist local
> legislatures but my experience coincides with Brian's: Players find it
> hard to understand current over-sophisticated, over-subjective,
> incomplete laws. Rulings seem incomprehensible, subjective and
> inequitable (dictionary sense). Chauvinistic regulation variants are
> the last straw for many would be-players.
>
I find this last statement surprising.  I think that most club players are not even aware that their regulations are "chauvinistic".  And if they were, I think that they would be pleased that disclosure regulations are relevant to the bridge-playing culture in which they actually play.

> [nige2]
> By "local beneficiaries" I meant those local players who are ...
> - familiar with the idiosyncracies of local disclosure regulations and
> - enjoying favourite methods that have been locally licensed.
What is wrong with becoming familiar with one's local disclosure regulations?  Why is a system that is unfamiliar to everyone likely to be superior?

> Strangers and foreigners, however, ...
> - are likely to be *completely* unfamiliar with local methods;
> - on top of that, they struggle with unfamiliar *system cards*
> - they must also cope with unfamiliar disclosure *regulations*.
Strangers and foreigners can take the initiative to research the bridge-playing culture in the area where they intend to play.  Even if they have neglected to do this, they needn't worry much about being unfamiliar with the system card in use; they can ask before the round about the basic methods in use and ask about specifics during the auction. They could also take the trouble to read a blank card before sitting down to play, in order to familiarise themselves with the layout.

What is far more important than catering to the occasional traveller or expatriate is ensuring that the disclosure standards in use in a particular place are relevant to the players using them, and serve to inform, rather than being redundant or irrelevant.

I do not have extensive international experience, but I have played extensively in the USA, the UK and Russia, and have played a bit in Estonia. I have never had the problems which you, Nigel, and the players you wish to serve seem to have.  

> As well as this information famine, foreigners have to play with
> favourite clubs removed from their bidding-bag.
That depends.  A UK player playing reasonably normal methods could go to the United States and find that the only one of their treatments that is disallowed at most levels that are available to play at is the Multi.  Sad, perhaps, but my guess is that they will be able to struggle through. Players who play complex homegrown or brown-sticker methods can also, presumably, fend for themselves.

Most jurisdictions have levels of allowed conventions designed to suit their players.  Even the ACBL probably has the support of most of its players, even if catering for a largely elderly and intolerant population is the wrong approach.  In the EBU, these levels evolve to suit the needs of the players.  A recent change was to allow any defenses to NT openings and strong clubs at most (if not all) levels.  The Multi is allowed at (all?) levels due to custom and practice, even though other similar bids are not permitted at lower levels.

Many on this list believe that most jurisdictions should allow more freedom in permitted conventions, perhaps while protecting beginners from having to struggle with the likes of forcing passes and 2S=weak to intermediate with at least one suit of at least four cards, but not a club single-suiter (a  cute little gadget I encountered recently).  But this is a different matter from adopting a one-size-fits-all approach across the globe.  Because one size really does not fit all.

Another poster (RW I think) has asked if you know how many players are affected by the problems you have experienced.  It is true that no one has compiled this information for you, but it seems as though someone who wants to introduce a set of regulations that would significantly affect all players of all levels in all countries for all time has the burden of discovering whether there are any players that would actually be served by them.

But in any case, it has also been pointed out by other posters that the WBF do have a set of disclosure regulations, and that most NBOs have opted out, which you have conceded that they may do.  So the situation you wish to see already exists.

Having said all this, I personally believe that it would be best if the EBU used the WBF CoP.  I suspect that this is true of many people who are burdened with a book of regulations that is, at the very least, unreadable and poorly organised.  But I would expect a few modifications, especially in the area of disclosure and HUMs.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071108/40dbd709/attachment.htm