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.
Saturday, 7 August 2010
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/
Thursday, 27 August 2009
Regulating agreements. Good or Bad?
Whilst at Brighton recently I was buttonholed, at reception whilst checking in, at the bar, on Preston Street whilst finding a restaurant, in the Gents and before during and after sessions. The conversations started along the lines of “You’re chairman of the L&E and I think you ought to understand that…………………” They were all friendly enough but fervent.
One topic that came up more than once was that of regulation of agreements. There’s too much, there’s not enough, it is not enforced, it’s too difficult for many were amongst the views expressed.
Why does the EBU regulate what agreements players can have? Several reasons and they are all, perhaps, a matter of degree. First there is a need to protect beginners and inexperienced players from the full armoury that some like to employ. That is the reason for having a simpler level that might apply in the Really Easy Congress at Brighton, the County Newcomers Pairs or the gentle duplicate that some clubs offer. At the other end of the spectrum some want to play more complex methods and the L&E view is to accommodate them within reason although some will disagree with the boundaries. One reason to restrict is that their opponents may not be able to cope with everything thrown at them and in some cases the system played can affect what you do. For example if your opponents play a forcing pass so that pass by opener is a hand of at least 12 points then what is 1 from you? An opening bid? An overcall? Even when players take part in trials for their national team there are still restrictions. One pair play that 2 is a pre-empt in any suit, not legal even at level 4. They provide a suggested and complete defence to assist which they bring to the table. This is also done in USA congresses and sometimes it is suggested that it would be a good method here also but too many times people spend an inordinate amount of time studying a defence to something that doesn’t come up slowing down the game and adding what I think would be an unwelcome additional dimension.
Most tournaments are played at what is known as Level 4 and for the most part that works out well but some clubs feel that unfamiliar agreements don’t have a place in the weekly duplicate and restrict to Level 3. Clubs, of course, can do as they wish so a few have their own set of restrictions. The principle disadvantage of this is perhaps the difficulty experienced if their players go to other clubs or perhaps strangers come to theirs.
The L&E also regulate to keep the playing field level. It is a condition that what you play must be able to be explained properly to opponents and it must be fair. If you choose to play odd-even discards whereby you play an even card to encourage then that’s up to you but in the area of signals there has long been a problem whereby players with an absence of even cards cannot play their odd card in tempo thus giving information to partner to which he is not entitled. So common was this when they were allowed that this signalling convention had its licence withdrawn many years ago. You don’t have to agree with this reason but be aware that there is one rather than it just being a capricious decision. Similarly you can agree that if you overcall and then double 3NT it calls for another suit to be lead but you can’t do this in conjunction with a psychic overcall.
You can do some things that are just bad bridge. I’ve come across a pair who played that a double of a three level pre-empt asked partner to show how many points he had. You can just imagine how easy it is to find your fit when you double an opening of 3 and partner responds 4 to show any 12+ points! Although it is a terrible method you can employ it if you wish. Bridge merit is not a criterion for allowing something to be played although some think it ought to be.
One of the least popular restrictions of recent times has been the banning of agreeing to open an artificial two level bid with a hand with lots of playing tricks and few points. It was made even less popular because at first it was perhaps pitched too severely but since August 2007 you can agree to open an artificial two bid provided you have 16+ points OR you meet the Extended Rule of 25 (add your high card points to the sum of cards in your two longest suits) OR you have EIGHT clear-cut tricks and the values normally associated with a one level opening. A hand sent to me in the last few days which was opened 2 Benjamin at a local club was:
It’s not legal as it would fail all three tests. The opponents might be intimidated from coming in initially when hearing it described as strong. It is also bad bridge but that is not why it is disallowed to agree to do this. It does make you wonder what the pair concerned would consider a suitable hand for a 1 opening and a jump rebid of 3 though.
Some players are very resistant to anything new and/or unfamiliar. They don’t see why they should be removed from their comfort zone. If their decision is to play a very simple system then no-one has a right to stop them but they can’t reasonably foist that on everyone. Sometimes the complexity is imagined rather than real. Suppose your left hand opponent opened 1NT and right hand opponent bid 2H announced as spades then nearly all players would be familiar with this and know what it meant if they bid 2 or if they doubled 2 but if you change the familiar setting to an opening bid of 1 showing spades then the idea of the methods being the same for both is lost in a tirade against people who play unfair methods. Frances Hinden has written an excellent series of articles recently in English Bridge on defending against unfamiliar methods and this is one situation covered. One convention which is genuinely difficult to defend against is the Multi 2 and when that came along in the 1960’s there were many who foresaw the end of civilisation as we know it yet 20 years after this when some restrictions on allowing it were suggested the majority of players thought that it was an outrage to even suggest it let alone do it. This was, in my view, because they had got used to it.
One comment I got at Brighton was an objection from a player who modestly described himself as a below average tournament player. He felt that opponents who came along with complex systems and reams of paper to describe them were making his game difficult and less enjoyable and he was not alone. I agree with him but I don’t think it is a reason for regulating agreements. In any congress you need to be able to put your agreements down on a standard convention card and if there isn’t room you shouldn’t be doing it. If someone arrives at a table and offers you a ream of A4 then not only have you not got time to read it but there is no reason that you should. Tell them to put it away. In my experience even if you have lots of agreements most opponents don’t want to know or read about them but they do appreciate being told the basics so I sit down and always say “Weak NT, 5 card majors, Weak Twos in the majors and you might want to look at our 2 opening.” Many more players seem to do this now compared with three or four years ago which is good.
So next time you think there should be more restrictions or even fewer bear in mind that there will be players who have the opposite view and there is room to cater for both sets.
One topic that came up more than once was that of regulation of agreements. There’s too much, there’s not enough, it is not enforced, it’s too difficult for many were amongst the views expressed.
Why does the EBU regulate what agreements players can have? Several reasons and they are all, perhaps, a matter of degree. First there is a need to protect beginners and inexperienced players from the full armoury that some like to employ. That is the reason for having a simpler level that might apply in the Really Easy Congress at Brighton, the County Newcomers Pairs or the gentle duplicate that some clubs offer. At the other end of the spectrum some want to play more complex methods and the L&E view is to accommodate them within reason although some will disagree with the boundaries. One reason to restrict is that their opponents may not be able to cope with everything thrown at them and in some cases the system played can affect what you do. For example if your opponents play a forcing pass so that pass by opener is a hand of at least 12 points then what is 1
from you? An opening bid? An overcall? Even when players take part in trials for their national team there are still restrictions. One pair play that 2 is a pre-empt in any suit, not legal even at level 4. They provide a suggested and complete defence to assist which they bring to the table. This is also done in USA congresses and sometimes it is suggested that it would be a good method here also but too many times people spend an inordinate amount of time studying a defence to something that doesn’t come up slowing down the game and adding what I think would be an unwelcome additional dimension.Most tournaments are played at what is known as Level 4 and for the most part that works out well but some clubs feel that unfamiliar agreements don’t have a place in the weekly duplicate and restrict to Level 3. Clubs, of course, can do as they wish so a few have their own set of restrictions. The principle disadvantage of this is perhaps the difficulty experienced if their players go to other clubs or perhaps strangers come to theirs.
The L&E also regulate to keep the playing field level. It is a condition that what you play must be able to be explained properly to opponents and it must be fair. If you choose to play odd-even discards whereby you play an even card to encourage then that’s up to you but in the area of signals there has long been a problem whereby players with an absence of even cards cannot play their odd card in tempo thus giving information to partner to which he is not entitled. So common was this when they were allowed that this signalling convention had its licence withdrawn many years ago. You don’t have to agree with this reason but be aware that there is one rather than it just being a capricious decision. Similarly you can agree that if you overcall and then double 3NT it calls for another suit to be lead but you can’t do this in conjunction with a psychic overcall.
You can do some things that are just bad bridge. I’ve come across a pair who played that a double of a three level pre-empt asked partner to show how many points he had. You can just imagine how easy it is to find your fit when you double an opening of 3
and partner responds 4 to show any 12+ points! Although it is a terrible method you can employ it if you wish. Bridge merit is not a criterion for allowing something to be played although some think it ought to be.One of the least popular restrictions of recent times has been the banning of agreeing to open an artificial two level bid with a hand with lots of playing tricks and few points. It was made even less popular because at first it was perhaps pitched too severely but since August 2007 you can agree to open an artificial two bid provided you have 16+ points OR you meet the Extended Rule of 25 (add your high card points to the sum of cards in your two longest suits) OR you have EIGHT clear-cut tricks and the values normally associated with a one level opening. A hand sent to me in the last few days which was opened 2
Benjamin at a local club was:| 9 |
| K Q 8 |
| A K Q J 10 9 |
| 8 7 4 |
It’s not legal as it would fail all three tests. The opponents might be intimidated from coming in initially when hearing it described as strong. It is also bad bridge but that is not why it is disallowed to agree to do this. It does make you wonder what the pair concerned would consider a suitable hand for a 1
opening and a jump rebid of 3 though.Some players are very resistant to anything new and/or unfamiliar. They don’t see why they should be removed from their comfort zone. If their decision is to play a very simple system then no-one has a right to stop them but they can’t reasonably foist that on everyone. Sometimes the complexity is imagined rather than real. Suppose your left hand opponent opened 1NT and right hand opponent bid 2H announced as spades then nearly all players would be familiar with this and know what it meant if they bid 2
or if they doubled 2 but if you change the familiar setting to an opening bid of 1 showing spades then the idea of the methods being the same for both is lost in a tirade against people who play unfair methods. Frances Hinden has written an excellent series of articles recently in English Bridge on defending against unfamiliar methods and this is one situation covered. One convention which is genuinely difficult to defend against is the Multi 2 and when that came along in the 1960’s there were many who foresaw the end of civilisation as we know it yet 20 years after this when some restrictions on allowing it were suggested the majority of players thought that it was an outrage to even suggest it let alone do it. This was, in my view, because they had got used to it.One comment I got at Brighton was an objection from a player who modestly described himself as a below average tournament player. He felt that opponents who came along with complex systems and reams of paper to describe them were making his game difficult and less enjoyable and he was not alone. I agree with him but I don’t think it is a reason for regulating agreements. In any congress you need to be able to put your agreements down on a standard convention card and if there isn’t room you shouldn’t be doing it. If someone arrives at a table and offers you a ream of A4 then not only have you not got time to read it but there is no reason that you should. Tell them to put it away. In my experience even if you have lots of agreements most opponents don’t want to know or read about them but they do appreciate being told the basics so I sit down and always say “Weak NT, 5 card majors, Weak Twos in the majors and you might want to look at our 2
opening.” Many more players seem to do this now compared with three or four years ago which is good.So next time you think there should be more restrictions or even fewer bear in mind that there will be players who have the opposite view and there is room to cater for both sets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)