[gnasher]

nige1, on 2012-May-05, 06:38, said:

Unfortunately, the WBF is adopting retrograde ACBL practices such as allowing defenders to ask "having none?"

I'm not sure why you single out the WBF for criticism over this. The English Bridge Union and the Scottish Bridge Union have also both chosen to adopt this practice.

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2012-May-05, 08:20, said:

I'm not sure why you single out the WBF for criticism over this. The English Bridge Union and the Scottish Bridge Union have also both chosen to adopt this practice.

I'm told that the ACBL insisted on being allowed to ask. Other legislatures would probably like to go back to the old-fashioned principle of restricting partnership-communication to calls made and cards played, They may be worried, however, about what sanction they may legally impose on a player who obstinately asks "having none?". Under the old law, I believe the question was deemed to establish the revoke (if any),

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2012-May-05, 09:29, said:

I'm told that the ACBL insisted on being allowed to ask. Other legislatures would probably like to go back to the old-fashioned principle of restricting partnership-communication to calls made and cards played, They may be worried, however, about what sanction they may legally impose on a player who obstinately asks "having none?". Under the old law, I believe the question was deemed to establish the revoke (if any),

Why do you keep implying that non-ACBL legislatures were forced to adopt this rule? This is simply untrue.

Under the 1997 laws, the regulating authority (RA) could decide whether to allow a defender to ask his partner if he has revoked. Under the 2007 laws, the RA can still decide whether to allow a defender to ask his partner if he has revoked.

The 2007 Laws didn't in any way restrict an RA's right to allow or disallow this. In fact, the 2007 laws increased the RA's powers in this area, because the 1997 Laws stipulated the penalty for an improper question, whereas the RA can now make its own decision about that.

Nobody forced Scotland, England or any other country to allow this type of question: they chose to. If you're unhappy with what the SBU did, blame the SBU, not the ACBL.

The only non-ACBL rules that might have been influenced by the opinions of ACBL representatives are the regulations for USBF and WBF events. As you are ineligible for the former and never play in the latter, I don't see why that should give you cause for complaint.

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2012-May-05, 10:50, said:

Why do you keep implying that non-ACBL legislatures were forced to adopt this rule? This is simply untrue.

I detailed my understanding of the truth of the matter, without spurious implication. IMO: it's a retrograde step to allow a player to ask. gnasher is welcome to his opinion.

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2012-May-05, 11:55, said:

I detailed my understanding of the truth of the matter, without spurious implication. IMO: it's a retrograde step to allow a player to ask. gnasher is welcome to his opinion.

OK, can you give me an example of one of the "Other legislatures" that "would probably like to go back to the old-fashioned principle of restricting partnership-communication to calls made and cards played"? And then tell me why, according to your understanding, they haven't done so?

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-May-05, 12:32, said:

OK, can you give me an example of one of the "Other legislatures" that "would probably like to go back to the old-fashioned principle of restricting partnership-communication to calls made and cards played"? And then tell me why, according to your understanding, they haven't done so?

I have been told that the EBU would rather have kept the 1997 law, but that since the new laws stipulate no penalty, the option of disallowing the question has no teeth.

I always thought that the EBU could stipulate an automatic PP, but perhaps that is not legal.

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2012-May-05, 12:32, said:

OK, can you give me an example of one of the "Other legislatures" that "would probably like to go back to the old-fashioned principle of restricting partnership-communication to calls made and cards played"? And then tell me why, according to your understanding, they haven't done so?

Vampyr, on 2012-May-05, 15:33, said:

I have been told that the EBU would rather have kept the 1997 law, but that since the new laws stipulate no penalty, the option of disallowing the question has no teeth. I always thought that the EBU could stipulate an automatic PP, but perhaps that is not legal.

I'm not privy to the deliberations of laws-committees; but my impression from directors is the same as vampyr's. Frances Hinden may be able to clarify.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-05, 15:33, said:

I have been told that the EBU would rather have kept the 1997 law, but that since the new laws stipulate no penalty, the option of disallowing the question has no teeth.

I always thought that the EBU could stipulate an automatic PP, but perhaps that is not legal.

The offence would be a breach of procedure, and therefore subject to procedural penalty, just like any other breach of procedure.

If the offence caused damage, it would be subject to adjustment, just like any other offence that causes damage. The effect of asking the question would be to save the offending side from a revoke penalty. To restore equity, the adjustment should simply reinstate this revoke penalty. (Or, strictly speaking, play would continue without penalty, then at the end of the hand the score would be adjusted to the one that would have been obtained if the revoke penalty had been applied.)

It's possible that some regulatory authorities were too lazy or too stupid to work this out, but I don't see why the ACBL should be blamed for that.

If they were in doubt, they could also have tried reading Ton Kooijman's commentary on the 2007 Laws:

Ton Kooijman said:

the regulating authority may prohibit this question. If it does so, it would also need to decide what should happen if a player asks about a possible revoke. Contrary to the previous edition of the laws, this is not regulated anymore. It seems reasonable to describe a procedural penalty and not to convert such an infraction into an established revoke.

It's clear from this that he believes it to be legal to convert the infraction into an established revoke, though he prefers a different approach.

Edit: Note that I'm not saying that anyone actually was lazy or stupid - the EBU, SBU, and other organisations may well have had good reasons, different from the one suggested by Vampyr, for the decision they made about this law.

[Cthulhu D]

gnasher, on 2012-May-05, 06:08, said:

That's another example of a regulation that would work well in some countries but not in others. Have you ever played in an ACBL event?

Ha, no. That said, it makes logical sense to alert or announce both or neither. I forgot about announce before because I play in a jurisdiction with no announcements. Despite my ignorance, I'm confident that the ACBL's problem with convention cards is linked to having the private score on the convention card (why is this the case anyway? That is total madness)

[kenberg]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-08, 03:39, said:

I'm confident that the ACBL's problem with convention cards is linked to having the private score on the convention card (why is this the case anyway? That is total madness)

At times I have dealt with this by recording the result for board x on line y. Other times I write small and cryptically. Lately I play less and have become careless about such things. Or maybe I am just recovering from a bout with paranoia.

[blackshoe]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-08, 03:39, said:

Ha, no. That said, it makes logical sense to alert or announce both or neither. I forgot about announce before because I play in a jurisdiction with no announcements. Despite my ignorance, I'm confident that the ACBL's problem with convention cards is linked to having the private score on the convention card (why is this the case anyway? That is total madness)

I can only repeat something I've mentioned before: In his 1956 (I believe) book on directing, Alex Groner mentioned that "you can even put your conventional agreements on the back of your score card!" So it seems the score card came first, and the convention card second. Bass-ackwards, I know, but there it is.

Frankly, I think the ACBL should scrap the current card entirely and hire a professional forms designer, preferably one who plays duplicate bridge, to design a new one from scratch. But I hear voices saying things like "when pigs fly" and "when Hell freezes over".

Yes, the voices are in my head. Shut up.

[Phil]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-08, 08:35, said:

Frankly, I think the ACBL should scrap the current card entirely and hire a professional forms designer, preferably one who plays duplicate bridge, to design a new one from scratch.

+1. CC's should be designed with the opponents in mind. But they appear to be set up for as a form to be completed by casual partnerships.

The WBF card is better in this regard.

[barmar]

Phil, on 2012-May-08, 08:56, said:

+1. CC's should be designed with the opponents in mind. But they appear to be set up for as a form to be completed by casual partnerships.

Maybe we have more casual partnerships? How busy is the partnership desk at most European tournaments, or people showing up at club games without a partner? Here it's quite common to form partnerships within 30 minutes of game time, so a CC that assists in this process is helpful.

But that doesn't explain why the private score has to be on the reverse side. I've been saying for years that ACBL should print score sheets with scores on BOTH sides, simply because of all the waste this would reduce. If you're playing with a regular partner, you probably have a prewritten CC, so you don't use that side of the score sheet. And tournament events are usually two-session, so it would make sense to use one piece of paper for both sessions.

[S2000magic]

In the regular Monday night duplicate game in Charlotte yesterday I failed at one table to announce our notrump range when my partner opened 1NT. At a later table I opened 1NT, LHO waited a bit, then asked my partner for the range. A lively discussion (amicable) ensued about announcing notrump ranges. On the next hand my partner overcalled 1NT and my RHO waited a bit before mentioning that I failed to announce the range. I did so (15-18 HCP), then pointed out that on the ACBL convention card it doesn't require announcing the range of a notrump overcall (it's not in blue), although it does require announcing the range of a notrump opening bid. Although I understand that the circumstances of the two are different, I do find the inconsistency a bit . . . I'll be nice here . . . peculiar.

[barmar]

Opening NT announcements were created because of the prevalence of varying defenses. Players were frequently asking opponents for their range, so they simply made it automatic. This never came up with NT overcalls (probably 99% play them in the same standard way, within about a point of each other), so there was no need to announce them -- if you have a nonstandard NT overcall, you alert it.

[mycroft]

Opening NT announcements were created because the WeaSeL defence to an Alerted (yes, we had to Alert non-strong NTs back in the '80s) NT worked so well. It ended up working so well against strong NTs, too (because the non-Announceable range was "somewhere in 15-18", so the reason given for the WeaSeL trigger question then became "but I needed to know if it was 15-17, 15-18 or 16-18!") that they extended the Announcements to ALL balanced opening NT ranges.

Since WeaSel *still works* against unAnnounced NTs, it is in one's best interest to do the Announcement, even though "everybody plays 15-17, why should we have to say that?"

What, cynical, me?

[barmar]

And apparently there are still rumors going around that the 15-17 announcement has been rescinded. Someone asked about this in this month's "Ruling the Game" column in the ACBL Bulletin.

[S2000magic]

mycroft, on 2012-May-08, 11:03, said:

. . . "everybody plays 15-17 . . . ."

That's what my LHO said last night.

(For the record, although last night my partner and I played a 15-17 NT, I prefer a 12-14 NT.)

[Vampyr]

Phil, on 2012-May-08, 08:56, said:

+1. CC's should be designed with the opponents in mind. But they appear to be set up for as a form to be completed by casual partnerships.

Here in the EBU we have both. "Normal" convention cards are two sides of A4, but casual partnerships can write their agreements on the back of their scorecard.