[jeffford76]

The agenda for the Atlanta ACBL Board of Directors meeting is available here.

One proposal is to make "Purposefully, regularly and repeatedly making unusual bids in an effort to prevent a partner from declaring hands" a disciplinary offense punishable by up to a 1-year suspension and 50% reduction in masterpoints.

Is hand hogging even against the laws of bridge?

[barmar]

ACBL requires both members of a partnership to play the same system, and I believe justifies this from their right to regulate partnership understandings. They say this doesn't apply to style, just system, but the line is pretty fuzzy there (I almost always open 1♦ with 4-4 minors, my partner varies, although the criteria isn't immediately obvious -- we consider that a style difference, but I could be persuaded otherwise).

They probably think that this new rule falls under similar scope.

[billw55]

It sounds like a personal beef to me. I suspect that either one influential person is really bothered by this, or just a few (perhaps one) particular "perpetrators" are being targeted, or both.

[mfa1010]

Where in the paper do I find that proposal?

[jeffford76]

mfa1010, on 2013-July-23, 15:21, said:

Where in the paper do I find that proposal?

It's on the second page, item 132-02.

[mfa1010]

Thanks

[nige1]

jeffford76, on 2013-July-23, 14:45, said:

The agenda for the Atlanta ACBL Board of Directors meeting is available here. One proposal is to make "Purposefully, regularly and repeatedly making unusual bids in an effort to prevent a partner from declaring hands" a disciplinary offense punishable by up to a 1-year suspension and 50% reduction in masterpoints. Is hand hogging even against the laws of bridge?

If a player adjusts his "style" to prevent partner playing the hand, on a regular basis, then, arguably, he isn't playing the same system as his partner. Anyway, presumably, his partner is oblivious to the details, so cannot disclose them, hence opponents are disadvantaged.

IMO, asymmetric systems should be legal, and hence disclosable.

[JLOGIC]

Haha that's amazing. Had to check if it was april first.

Seems like it conflicts with always try your best to win or w/e rule that is. Also seems unenforcable...I can't wait to cal the director on meckstroth for hoggin the dummy in a national pair game or something and filing a recorder form lol. Should go over really well, I'm sure after enough times they will suspend him from bridge and take away 40,000 of his masterpoints.

[PhilKing]

I'm guessing this will go through.

[jillybean]

Regardless of what I think of this rule, it seems rather senseless to add another rule that won't be applied or enforced on a consistent basis.

[blackshoe]

I agree with billw55, this sounds like somebody has an ax to grind, and with Jilly that it's likely not to be enforced consistently.

[trevahound]

jeffford76, on 2013-July-23, 14:45, said:

The agenda for the Atlanta ACBL Board of Directors meeting is available here.

One proposal is to make "Purposefully, regularly and repeatedly making unusual bids in an effort to prevent a partner from declaring hands" a disciplinary offense punishable by up to a 1-year suspension and 50% reduction in masterpoints.

Is hand hogging even against the laws of bridge?

What do they want me to do? Let CHO get his grubby hands on dummy? I think not. He's been set before, you see.

[aguahombre]

our district Representative sends out emails to everyone prior to Natl Board meetings with a list of agenda items, and it was there.

District Representatives allegedly represent their constituents, and I urge ACBL members to make their views known to these people on any upcoming issue. The Bridge politicians don't always have the Bridge savvy to form their own opinions or to automatically know what the playing public wants. Speak up now, don't grouse later.

[the hog]

Sounds like someone got a bad result because the pro played more hands than the sponsor.

[aguahombre]

the hog, on 2013-July-23, 19:19, said:

Sounds like someone got a bad result because the pro played more hands than the sponsor.

They give you a bad name.

[FM75]

ROFL.
Alert.
Yes?
Partner is a hand-hogger. He is a far better declarer than I. (Our system as we jointly understand it. He also knows better than I what he is doing.)

Alert.
Yeh. I got it.

Questions?

_______________________________________

I suppose the club, or the ACBL, could look at the "Rules of Golf" with respect to amateur status, and write their own rules.


Club pros, touring pros.

maybe in another era?

[inquiry]

I knew a partnership where one player was not allowed to bid Notrump (open or otherwise) when playing matchpoints. This was not sponsor and pro, and in fact, they did quite poorly. I think they also played transfer responses by the player who couldn't open 1NT and not by the other player. I say let them do it if they want... here was one partnership that it never seemed to help-- in large part because they played contracts often from the "wrong hand". True they got some tops because of the direction change but got more well below averages.

[gnasher]

Whoever suggested this rule is an idiot in more ways than one.

If you do something regularly and repeatedly how can it also be unusual?

And if you do it purposefully and repeatedly, but at irregular intervals, does that make it OK?

[iviehoff]

In theory everything about a partnership's methods ought to be disclosed to you. In reality if you play against a player regularly you learn their foibles and can take advantage of them. Thus the reality is that there is useful information about a player's methods that in practice is not disclosed, and can only be learned by experience of them. This issue comes into the same category as that. If you know an opponent is a hand hog, you can take advantage of it: it is no more annoying than players' other foibles. If you know your partner is a hand hog, and you do not like this, you have the ultimate sanction available. This is an utterly mistaken proposal.

[trevahound]

Another item on the agenda (or perhaps already passed?) is to make blue ribbon qualifications expire after 3 years. Could someone explain what the purpose of this rule would be?