gnasher Posted September 7, 2012 Report Share Posted September 7, 2012 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? Maybe. I can see this happening: Player: We always ask in these situations.TD: Can you prove that?* No? See ya. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif *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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted September 7, 2012 Report Share Posted September 7, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 7, 2012 Report Share Posted September 7, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 (edited) 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. Edited September 9, 2012 by gnasher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.