Re: Local regulation.

Am 19.07.2016 um 15:21 schrieb Nigel Guthrie:
>
> {Gordon Rainsford]
>
> Nigel starts from a point with which many of us could agree, that the 
> Bridge Laws would be better if they were simpler and clearer so that 
> they could be more uniformly applied. Unfortunately he goes from that 
> to believing that all regulations should be in the laws, which it 
> seems to me would make them longer and more complicated as well as 
> removing any allowance for geographical differences in procedure.
>
> Many NBOs already have advice about polling (the EBU’s ishere 
> <http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/articles/notes-on-polling-&-consulting.pdf>) 
> and it’s part of a TD’s training. Replacing that by putting Nigel’s 
> suggested protocol in the law book would not be an improvement.
>
> [Nigel]
>
> This topic merits a separate thread. Currently, you could argue that 
> local regulations are needed in a few areas like system-regulation.
>

You think knock-out teams have basically the same structure in England, 
Germany, and whatever country you would like to think of? Dream on.... 
And what good would it do to have Iceland, where Bridge is played nearly 
exclusively in Rejkjavik, and Norway, where 2000 km might be the 
distance to cover, have the same regulation for local encounters? Not to 
mention the U.S. where 2000 might look like a bargain. Fat lot of good 
would it do for anybody. Of course I can see where Iceland and China are 
fundamentally the same... except for the differences....

> IMO, for other purposes (e.g. bidding-boxes, polling), players would 
> benefit from a single set of rules.
>

The Australians are going to thank you profusely for your high-headed 
attempt to foist bidding-boxes on them. Why don`t you learn written 
bidding, instead?

> In principle, such integrated rules would take **less** space.
>

Rofl

> They would be easier for players to understand and to follow.
>

Oh sure, players would find it easy to follow bidding-box regulations, 
when they have never seen such a thing, and, more importantly, are not 
going to do so anytime soon. Do you think they would care to learn 
regulations that will have _no_ relevance to their way of playing 
Bridge? And no, the Australians are not alone. Why should they learn 
abbout bidding-box regulations? Because you use them? Well, so do I, but 
so what?

> Directors would need only one book of rules. Ruke-makers would be able 
> to distil best practice from the current tower of Babel.
>

And what, pray, is the best practice to run an event in Monaco? India? 
Practically the same thing, isn`t it? Both are a couple of 1000 m 
across. OK, it`s _k_m in the case of India, and slighly more people, but 
what is factor of 1000 or so for standardization? The fact that England 
and Germany have 1 language each (let us forget about Yorkshire and 
Bavarian dialects for the purpose of this discussion, they are not in 
the regulations anyway), where India has...? 40? 50? Not dialects, 
_languages_. Even Belgium has 3, even if there is no club in the part 
where German is spoken. Switzerland has 3, 4 if you count in 
Rhaeto-Roman (which is probably as relevant to Bridge as German is in 
Belgium), and those 3 languages are spoken in different parts of the 
country. Sure, some are bi- or even trilingual, and others are not. Let 
us try the Belgian way. where English is the official language in the 
top division. I imagine that is not actually used all the time, people 
preferring to understand French or Flemish instead, but I might be 
wrong. Herman can surely tell us. On the other hand, it would be much 
more fair to let the whole learn some language from a country where 
Bridge is not played at all. That way no one would be at an advantage, 
right?

> Admittedly, , in practice, when rule-makers  introduce simpler rules 
> that players and directors can understand, they **might not** save 
> space -- even after they expurgate unnecessary rules.  Well-organised, 
> well-structured, comprehensive rules,  using short active sentences, 
> and plain unambiguous words, without elegant variation,  might end up 
> being longer.
>
> IMO, it’s also possible to have uniform system/disclosure rules; but 
> that’s more controversial and a different argument.
>

Ah, OK, then we have one bloated rulebook, and _still_ another one for 
e.g. systems regulations. That is a big step forward, giving us _two_ 
books where previously we had , err, two? If you can read German, or 
know someone who does, have a look at Austrian and German systems and 
alert regulations, which are radically different in some areas, even 
though we can actually talk to each other. I am going to Austria (I 
would like to go to Australia, too, but it is too far for my liking) to 
play in 3 weeks, and I am going to take the time to actually look them 
up and learn the differences, and explain them to my partner on the 
voyage. And tell you what: those differences are there for a purpose, 
and they actually make sense for the relevant countries, but not for the 
other, else they would be the same.

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml


_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml