The 2012 versions of the Orange, Tangerine and White Books will come out on August 1st. Changes are minor. With the Orange Book all the Level 2 stuff has been taken out of the main text and placed on its own to both slightly shorten and simplify the book.
At least twice this year I have come across people using the original 2006 book and ignoring 6 years of updates is unlikely to assist in getting the right information except, perhaps, by luck even though large tracts have not changed. The most up to date version can always be found on the website and can be downloaded and printed in pdf form. The L&E will also provide e reader versions of both Orange and White Book in time for the 2012 update for those who want to put it on to their Kindle.
For 2013 the L&E are going to consider a more significant revision. By then it will be 7 years since he last major re-write. It may be appropriate to review alerting and announcing regulations for example. Items which are allowed or disallowed will also be reviewed. This blog is by way of advance notice. If you have any views that you wish to put before the L&E then please let the secretary John Pain(john@ebu.co.uk ) know. We will first discuss the topic at our meeting in the second half of September.
Tuesday 19 June 2012
Saturday 7 August 2010
August Update
New, updated versions of the Orange Book, Tangerine Book and White Book have been posted on the website to apply from August 1st.
The changes to the latest Orange Book are listed separately and shown in red in the book.
The changes to the latest Orange Book are listed separately and shown in red in the book.
Sunday 16 May 2010
Changes to Regulations from August 1st 2010
The L&E and the Tournament Committee have met to discuss possible changes to licensing in the wake of comments received about 1
and 1
openings.
The following decisions have been made:
• A revision to the regulations will apply from August 1st 2010 when the updated Orange Book is published.
• There will be two revised levels. Level 4 will be the same as now except that 1 and 1 opening bids must show that suit.
• Level 5 will permit all that was already licensed at this level plus anything already licensed at the current Level 4. The main effect of this will be that 1 and 1 openings that do not show the suit will be permitted at this level only.
• The WBF convention card will be permitted in all Level 5 events and not at any lower level.
• There are no changes below Level 4.
• All county associations and clubs that permit Level 4 can continue exactly as now unless they wish to permit non natural 1/1 openings.
• The events which will be played at Level 5 are the Spring Foursomes, Crockford’s Cup and Plate, The National Swiss Teams Congress, the Ranked Masters (at Life master and above level only) and the Tollemache (both qualifying round and Final ). BGB sets its own regulations for the Gold Cup and Silver Plate but these have traditionally closely followed EBU levels and the Premier League is currently played under Level 5 regulations.
and 1 openings.The following decisions have been made:
• A revision to the regulations will apply from August 1st 2010 when the updated Orange Book is published.
• There will be two revised levels. Level 4 will be the same as now except that 1
and 1 opening bids must show that suit.• Level 5 will permit all that was already licensed at this level plus anything already licensed at the current Level 4. The main effect of this will be that 1
and 1 openings that do not show the suit will be permitted at this level only.• The WBF convention card will be permitted in all Level 5 events and not at any lower level.
• There are no changes below Level 4.
• All county associations and clubs that permit Level 4 can continue exactly as now unless they wish to permit non natural 1
/1 openings.• The events which will be played at Level 5 are the Spring Foursomes, Crockford’s Cup and Plate, The National Swiss Teams Congress, the Ranked Masters (at Life master and above level only) and the Tollemache (both qualifying round and Final ). BGB sets its own regulations for the Gold Cup and Silver Plate but these have traditionally closely followed EBU levels and the Premier League is currently played under Level 5 regulations.
Tuesday 16 March 2010
New White Book
The EBU has produced its new White Book (White Book 2010) which applies immediately. It is aimed at tournament directors and may also be useful to clubs and those organising tournaments. It replaces the last version and is a substantial update. Thanks to David Stevenson for doing the work on compiling it and to all the proofreaders for their time spent in thoroughly checking the various drafts.
This version is only produced electronically. One benefit of this is that it will be much easier to update.
Anyone who has comment on the content or indexing is invited to let the Secretary to the L&E know(John@ebu.co.uk)
This version is only produced electronically. One benefit of this is that it will be much easier to update.
Anyone who has comment on the content or indexing is invited to let the Secretary to the L&E know(John@ebu.co.uk)
Monday 15 February 2010
Tangerine Book
The Tangerine Book is now available for download from this website, at http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/articles/tangerine/default.htm. It was written in response to criticism that the current Orange Book, although comprehensive, was too long and too complex for most players. It is intended to be a simple guide mainly to EBU regulations covering bidding agreements - what you are allowed to play, and how you explain to other people what you play.
There's supposed to be nothing new in it by way of what's actually allowed (that's under ongoing discussion by the L&E) rather it is aimed at those people who are reasonably interested in understanding the current rules, but don't want to work through a huge amount of detail. If the TB disagrees with the OB, the OB wins - but they shouldn't do unless the proof-readers have missed a trick somewhere (always possible).
If you can't see the point of it, then please don't tell us. As long as a reasonable number of people find it useful, then it is worth having. Just as not everyone is interested in reading articles on complicated squeezes, there's no reason everything we publish has to be appreciated by everybody.
Together with the TB is an Appendix, which is aimed squarely at people who like to write their own systems, or play unusual (to the UK) methods. It tries to summarise in a set of tables exactly what is permitted at each of Levels 2, 3 and 4. Again, you may not be interested it - but I wish it had been available when I first started writing system!
There's supposed to be nothing new in it by way of what's actually allowed (that's under ongoing discussion by the L&E) rather it is aimed at those people who are reasonably interested in understanding the current rules, but don't want to work through a huge amount of detail. If the TB disagrees with the OB, the OB wins - but they shouldn't do unless the proof-readers have missed a trick somewhere (always possible).
If you can't see the point of it, then please don't tell us. As long as a reasonable number of people find it useful, then it is worth having. Just as not everyone is interested in reading articles on complicated squeezes, there's no reason everything we publish has to be appreciated by everybody.
Together with the TB is an Appendix, which is aimed squarely at people who like to write their own systems, or play unusual (to the UK) methods. It tries to summarise in a set of tables exactly what is permitted at each of Levels 2, 3 and 4. Again, you may not be interested it - but I wish it had been available when I first started writing system!
Sunday 7 February 2010
Congratulations
Congratulations to Laws and Ethics member David Stevenson who finished first out of around 80 European tournament directors in the concluding exam at the recently held European Bridge League seminar in San Remo.
Tuesday 27 October 2009
They shouldn’t be allowed to play that!
A pair at the recent Autumn Congress was playing a system whereby 1
showed , 1
showed , 1 was a balanced hand and 1 was a strong and forcing opening. The pair concerned had well completed convention cards, were as co-operative as they could be about disclosing and had a suggested defence to help their opponents. There was some discussion over the weekend about whether this sort of system ought to be allowed or not. In a club it is up to the members to decide. The club can play at Level 3 which would not allow this or at Level 4 and prohibit such systems if they want but I guess they are very rare anyway at most clubs.
Virtually all EBU tournaments, however, are played at Level 4 so this system and others that include transfer openings at the one level can be played. I know that the Tournament Committee have discussed this recently and the next Laws & Ethics Meeting will feature an item on the agenda concerning such systems.
One view expressed is that players should, with very few exceptions, be allowed to play what they want in a tournament setting but others feel that these systems ought to be more tightly restricted than they are. Is it, for example, reasonable to have to consider a defence for a two board round? Should these types of system perhaps be restricted to longer rounds, say 16 boards and not permitted in two or three board pairs rounds or short Swiss matches? Are players put off entering the NICKO or going to Brighton for fear of meeting such a system or don’t they care.
I asked a number of top players what their view was about these types of system being played in the Autumn Congress and about 80% would favour being more restrictive than current practice in short rounds. Any views on this topic would be welcome in advance of the next L&E meeting coming up early in the New Year.
In an earlier blog the web address of the International Bridge Laws Forum was given. Recently it has moved to the BBO site and the address is now http://forums.bridgebase.com/
showed , 1 showed , 1 was a balanced hand and 1 was a strong and forcing opening. The pair concerned had well completed convention cards, were as co-operative as they could be about disclosing and had a suggested defence to help their opponents. There was some discussion over the weekend about whether this sort of system ought to be allowed or not. In a club it is up to the members to decide. The club can play at Level 3 which would not allow this or at Level 4 and prohibit such systems if they want but I guess they are very rare anyway at most clubs.Virtually all EBU tournaments, however, are played at Level 4 so this system and others that include transfer openings at the one level can be played. I know that the Tournament Committee have discussed this recently and the next Laws & Ethics Meeting will feature an item on the agenda concerning such systems.
One view expressed is that players should, with very few exceptions, be allowed to play what they want in a tournament setting but others feel that these systems ought to be more tightly restricted than they are. Is it, for example, reasonable to have to consider a defence for a two board round? Should these types of system perhaps be restricted to longer rounds, say 16 boards and not permitted in two or three board pairs rounds or short Swiss matches? Are players put off entering the NICKO or going to Brighton for fear of meeting such a system or don’t they care.
I asked a number of top players what their view was about these types of system being played in the Autumn Congress and about 80% would favour being more restrictive than current practice in short rounds. Any views on this topic would be welcome in advance of the next L&E meeting coming up early in the New Year.
In an earlier blog the web address of the International Bridge Laws Forum was given. Recently it has moved to the BBO site and the address is now http://forums.bridgebase.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)