[mr1303]

Out here in Mongolia, there doesn't seem to be any national rules. Obviously for international events we have to use WBF regulations, but for the domestic game I'm currently in a position to strongly influence what we should go with.

So what do you think would be a good place to start with? I'm interested in things like permitted conventions, alerting/announcing regulations and anything else that's similar.

[MickyB]

How varied are methods out there currently? If everyone plays multi it would be silly to ban it. If noone plays it then it may well be right not to allow it - depends on the views of the players IMO.

This is relevant in terms of alerting too. If most people play basically the same system, an ACBL "alert anything unusual" approach is probably best. If there's no such thing as 'usual', then an EBU-style "alert anything not natural" approach is probably the way to go.

I like announcements of 1NT opening and responses, and of two-level openings.

I dislike announcements of 2NT openings and responses.

I think transfer responses to 1C should be announcable, as it is a position where UI is frequently transferred, and it's not uncommon to see 1C!-P-1H!-1S as natural if you don't ask first but artificial if you do!

[helene_t]

I think you first have to research on the current situation in Mongolia:
- Is it so that local bridge is not really competitive so for the more ambitious players, serious competition means going for a week to China or Russia? If that is the case then it might be a good idea to stay close to Chinese or Rusian regulations.
- Does "everybody" play standard mongolian? In that case in may be a good idea to make standard mongolian alert-free and make significant departure from that system alertable
- Do people like to invent their own conventions? In that case it is important to have very simple rules for allowed systems so you don't bother players and TDs too much with figuring out whether a particular new gadget is allowed or not. The BSC definition is ok but I would avoid mentioning HUMs since the definition is too murky. Something like "minor suit openings can be anything as long as they are 8+, major suit openings have to be natural" might be a restriction that would be acceptable to everybody. Then again, so might "everything goes".

[paulg]

I'd take the Scottish route and just copy rather than create something that will be difficult for a local and small organisation to maintain. So Scotland now uses the WBF System Policy and WBF Alerting Policy, although there are some examples added pertinent to local customs.

[helene_t]

paulg, on 2014-March-17, 04:56, said:

I'd take the Scottish route and just copy rather than create something that will be difficult for a local and small organisation to maintain. So Scotland now uses the WBF System Policy and WBF Alerting Policy, although there are some examples added pertinent to local customs.

Yes if this is feasible I think it is very good advice. I have seen it happen so many times that small organizations without legal expertise at their offices try to make some home-baked statutes with disastrous consequences. Mark might not be staying many years in Mongolia, at which point the organization may be short of legal expertise. At some point in the future, there will be law changes that contradict the Mongolian regulations, or some new gadget from abroad reaches Mongolia and you need to decide on how to disclose it and which local variants of it would be legal. It will be easier to deal with such a situation if you follow some other country's regulations so that you can just adapt in the same way as that other country does.

[paulg]

helene_t, on 2014-March-17, 05:09, said:

Mark might not be staying many years in Mongolia ...

Even if you stay I hope there is more to life than maintaining such documents.

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2014-March-17, 05:09, said:

Yes if this is feasible I think it is very good advice. I have seen it happen so many times that small organizations without legal expertise at their offices try to make some home-baked statutes with disastrous consequences.

And ACBL is an example that shows that even a large organization with significant legal expertise can also fall into that trap.