[mycroft]

Law 40B2a, in part: The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods.

Law 40B4: A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these Laws require is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score. (my emphasis)

The first makes clear that how disclosure happens is up to the RA. The latter says that whatever regulations are set up by the RA are "required disclosure".

I'm not sure I am happy about it - especially when I don't play transfers, and have to endure the endless questions and stares - but it's the way it works. I do understand the mindset of the ACBL, having had more than its share of "win by all legal means" pros-partnering-clients. I do think they've gone too far, but I've had my share of "come on, *you* of all people know better than that, and the regulations require you to not play these sorts of games" calls.

[blackshoe]

Methods of disclosure are one thing. A requirement to "protect yourself" is something else again. Absent the "protect yourself" stuff, it is absolutely clear that if one contestant fails to properly disclose their methods, through failure to alert or inadequate explanation, the other is entitled to a score adjustment if damaged. With it, whether one is entitled to that rectification is considerably less clear. It seems that, sometimes, the offender gets a free pass for his irregularity.

Question: if I protect myself by asking, thus give UI to my partner, and his attempt - successful or otherwise - to ethically deal with that UI damages us, who caused the damage? I would maintain that it was caused by the opponents who failed to alert properly.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-06, 09:32, said:

If I were in fourth seat, and heard the auction (1NT)-P-(2♥) to me, and I have spades and a hand which might want to compete, I probably want to know if RHO has spades. Do I really have to "protect myself" by asking? Forget the regulation for a minute. What does the law say? Well, it says that if I bid on the assumption that RHO has hearts, and I get a bad board because there was a failure to disclose properly, I'm entitled to a score adjustment. Why have a regulation that takes away that right? More importantly, is there anything in the laws that authorizes a Regulating Authority to make such a regulation?

If we interpret the ACBL's regulations as reading "Try to remember to announce transfers, but it doesn't matter if you forget", forgetting to announce the transfer is legal, and not misinformation.

Quote

Question: if I protect myself by asking, thus give UI to my partner, and his attempt - successful or otherwise - to ethically deal with that UI damages us, who caused the damage? I would maintain that it was caused by the opponents who failed to alert properly.

The way to deal with the UI problem is to avoid it: make a point of always asking in such a situation, regardless of whether you're actually considering action.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2012-September-06, 13:58, said:

If we interpret the ACBL's regulations as reading "Try to remember to announce transfers, but it doesn't matter if you forget", forgetting to announce the transfer is legal, and not misinformation.

WhyinHell should we interpret the regulations that way? Certainly the ACBL doesn't say that.

gnasher, on 2012-September-06, 13:58, said:

The way to deal with the UI problem is to avoid it: make a point of always asking in such a situation, regardless of whether you're actually considering action.

Maybe. I can see this happening:

Player: We always ask in these situations.
TD: Can you prove that?* No? See ya.

*The answer to this question is "of course not".

[bluejak]

jillybean, on 2012-August-24, 18:45, said:

Where in the laws does it say that the NOS should protect themselves by asking about the auction?

blackshoe, on 2012-September-06, 09:32, said:

If I were in fourth seat, and heard the auction (1NT)-P-(2♥) to me, and I have spades and a hand which might want to compete, I probably want to know if RHO has spades. Do I really have to "protect myself" by asking? Forget the regulation for a minute. What does the law say? Well, it says that if I bid on the assumption that RHO has hearts, and I get a bad board because there was a failure to disclose properly, I'm entitled to a score adjustment. Why have a regulation that takes away that right? More importantly, is there anything in the laws that authorizes a Regulating Authority to make such a regulation?

The answer to jillybean's question lies in Ed's post. Ed writes "... I get a bad board because there was a failure to disclose properly ...". The critical word is "because". If it is felt that you could and should have protected yourself - as in the example of the unalerted transfer - then the legal basis for not giving you an adjustment is that it is the failure to ask the question that led to the result, not the failure to alert/announce.

Fluffy, on 2012-September-05, 21:16, said:

If you are responsible for not protecting yourself it doesn't mean that opponents aren't guilty of not alerting, so a split score should apply, but I have the feeling that this almost never happens.

I have given split scores as a TD in such situations.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-06, 17:08, said:

WhyinHell should we interpret the regulations that way? Certainly the ACBL doesn't say that.

It doesn't say it in those words, but the phrase "Players ... will be expected to protect themselves" forms part of the ACBL's regulations about disclosure. Doesn't that mean that the effect of the ACBL's disclosure regulations is as I described it?

Quote

Maybe. I can see this happening:

Player: We always ask in these situations.
TD: Can you prove that?* No? See ya.

*The answer to this question is "of course not".

The best solution to that is to find a club with a better director, but I realise that this may be impractical.

In this particular case, though, you probably wouldn't have to actually ask a question - an expectant look would probably do the job, and it's hard to argue that this showed anything.

[barmar]

I don't see the "protect yourself" regulation as completely absolving the side that fails to disclose properly. I see it as an attempt to apply common sense to the disclosure process. The players with that responsibility have to be experienced enough to recognize the situation; by implication, I think the other side should be inexperienced enough that their mistake is understandable. Or if an alert regulation has recently changed, many players can be expected to make mistakes for a while (it's been 9 months since ACBL dropped the alert for Puppet Stayman, but many players, my partner included, still haven't internalized it), and players who were more attentive to the change should realize this and make allowances.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-September-07, 10:42, said:

it's been 9 months since ACBL dropped the alert for Puppet Stayman, but many players, my partner included, still haven't internalized it, and players who were more attentive to the change should realize this and make allowances.

The fact that clubs (at least around here) are still putting out the old cards, where Puppet Stayman is in red, doesn't help. One might argue that clubs should just toss those, and take the loss, but that seems a bit much. By far the better solution is for the ACBL/Baron-Barclay to quit printing a score card on the back of the SC. Better even than that would be for the ACBL to use that area for system description.

Interestingly, Baron-Barclay sells a "score card" which is just that - but only on one side of the page. The back side is blank. I suppose this reduces printing costs, but it seems stupid to me. Print them two-sided, and use the back side of the system card for more system description. Win-win. Assuming you can get the dinosaurs to go along.

For those who don't know, the ACBL no longer has an online store - they turned over sale of their products (books, SCs, etc.) to Baron-Barclay.

[Fluffy]

gnasher, on 2012-September-06, 13:58, said:

The way to deal with the UI problem is to avoid it: make a point of always asking in such a situation, regardless of whether you're actually considering action.

Have you stop to think of this? with all the problms with stop cards.... can you imagine someone calling director because opponents forgot to ask when it is needed?, let alone the cheating helps because the fact that when opponents must ask, you are certain to answer!, and you can codify things by how you answer questions (if you have support for example)

[gnasher]

Fluffy, on 2012-September-08, 07:51, said:

Have you stop to think of this? with all the problms with stop cards.... can you imagine someone calling director because opponents forgot to ask when it is needed?, let alone the cheating helps because the fact that when opponents must ask, you are certain to answer!, and you can codify things by how you answer questions (if you have support for example)

I wasn't suggesting that people be required to do this. I was merely suggesting a way for players to avoid giving UI if they are concerned about the risk.

Similarly, I think it's a good idea to ask about alerted calls that occur early in the auction, but I'm not suggesting that players should be forced to do this.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-September-09, 01:08