[NickRW]

bluejak, on Sep 26 2009, 04:26 PM, said:

RAs do not perpetuate "stone age tools": players do.

Now that is not entirely true is it.

For the unwashed masses the methods are in fact set by bridge teachers and writers. But bridge teachers and writers are not going to teach or write about things that either can't be played or which give rise to difficulties under the regulations - for example how many books have been written on the subject of forcing pass systems recently given that such things have almost been utterly suppressed out of existence despite their theoretical merits.

As you said recently in another thread, "Popularity should not be the prime aim of organisers". Exactly - perhaps things like leadership might feature somewhere in the mix?!

Nick

[bluejak]

In England, certainly, the EBU has always had an approach that allows people to play a lot of strange methods. The efforts of the EBU have demonstrably not been in the direction of stopping new methods: they encourage experimentation, and get criticised in consequence.

I think you are just wrong: I think that players lead the organisers in this. In practice bridge teachers do not tend to encourage players to do anything: they do not even teach that you can play anything different.

Leadership? No, I think that would be arrogant: it is certainly not the organisers job to tell the players how to play. What they do is to try to find th best compromise between what various groups of players do want to play.

[mycroft]

NickRW, on Sep 26 2009, 07:59 AM, said:

With reference to what the GCC says - well I don't specifically have that problem as I live in England.

My apologies, Nick, I:

- had you and Paul confused, who does play occasionally at the ACBL Nationals;
- missed that all-important "not".

Serves me right, catching up on a week's worth of posts in one evening.