If you had the liberty to........

[32519]

1. Change/dump just one of the bridge laws, which one would it be and why?

2. Change/dump just one GCC regulation, which onw would it be and why?

[Zelandakh]

#2 is easy. I would change "unless specifically listed below, methods are disallowed" to "all methods are allowed" :) OK, that is not the regulation I would prefer for GCC but there is so much wrong with the chart that ripping it up and starting from scratch is the best single step.

 

#1 is tougher. I guess the IB and COOT laws are prime candidates (see recent thread in Changing Laws). Getting rid of ACs would also be an option, providing that meant that RAs made a strong effort to improve the quality of TDs. Also, I think the change to L40 allowing the regulation of Partnership Understandings added absolutely nothing to the game and was a backwards step, so add that to my list. Which to actually change in practise (only one, right) would probably depend on how well I could draft a replacement.

[manudude03]

1. IB laws for me, most people's systems notes aren't detailed enough for the laws to be used effectively. It may seem harsh, but I would prefer if partner was barred any time the IB wasn't accepted (with the usual caveat of if the OS could have taken advantage etc).

 

2. Personally I think all the ACBL charts need redone, but the main thing would be to have all methods allowed unless specifically disallowed (rather than disallowed unless specifically allowed).

[Vampyr]

1. I would go with manudude03 on insufficient bids and also (as I have stated many times) with his proposed change.

 

2. I think that what would be a lot more helpful would be to make sure that other-chart events are available at as many tournaments as possible. But there may be a lot fewer systems designers in the ACBL than one would assume from reading these forums.

 

Anyway, given that the ACBL Super-Chart is more restrictive than the regulations available all the time in most of the world, tweaking the GCC a little bit is definitely not going to improve things as far as allowing people to play their pet methods, though I suppose that allowing Multi in all-length rounds would bring the ACBL charts a bit closer to the rest of the world.

 

Again, however, the majority of the ACBL members might be happy with things just as they are.

[Vampyr]

Getting rid of ACs would also be an option, providing that meant that RAs made a strong effort to improve the quality of TDs.

 

I have had shocking experiences with ACs, but I would keep them, because it seems to me that any other mechanism of appealing rulings would be worse.

[billw55]

Abolish the charts entirely. Any system allowed with full disclosure.

 

Sure, have side events with protections for those who want them. But for main events - no.

[TylerE]

2. I would make "subsetted" calls legal. What I mean by this is that given an allowed bid "A", say opening 2♠ to show 5 or more spades and 6-11, a bid "A2" which includes some subset of hands allowed by "A", is also allowed. For instance, a 2♠ opening showing 5♠ and a 4 card or longer minor, 6-11.

[hrothgar]

1. Change/dump just one of the bridge laws, which one would it be and why?

2. Change/dump just one GCC regulation, which onw would it be and why?

 

This isn't a "Law" per see, but the WBF describes the following as one of its key purposes:

 

to be in the Olympic Movement, remaining affiliated with International Olympic Committee (IOC) as a recognized International Federation (IF) in conformity with the requirements of the Olympic Charter;

 

On the GCC front, I'd scrap the GCC altogether and replace it with the EBU's Orange Book...

(That counts as a single change, right?)

[barmar]

(That counts as a single change, right?)

if the other recommendation to flip the sense of which methods are allowed in general does, why not this as well?

[Gerben42]

My preferred law change would be to be able to give a pair something else than A+ when doing something good against a pair who has already played the board. I had this situation and I thought the Law is unfair.

 

The situation was a wrong EW pair shows up at a NS table and claims to be at the right table. NS then avoid the 4-4 fit to play 3NT and get a top board. Now it comes out that the EW pair is actually in the wrong place and NS can wave their top board bye-bye.

 

About the GCC: My change would be to actually rephrase it an "Orange Book" kind of way. Instead of disallowing Relay systems or or identifying "all-purpose" bids, just write down what you mean. "I know it when I see it" meanings just lead to people being dependent on the good will of directors and regulators.

 

See here for a draft: http://www.geocities.ws/gerben42/gcc.html

[Vampyr]

2. I would make "subsetted" calls legal. What I mean by this is that given an allowed bid "A", say opening 2♠ to show 5 or more spades and 6-11, a bid "A2" which includes some subset of hands allowed by "A", is also allowed. For instance, a 2♠ opening showing 5♠ and a 4 card or longer minor, 6-11.

 

This makes a lot of sense, and in fact it seems really strange that it is not permitted.

 

But maybe not that strange, because the ACBL regulations do not seem to have been formulated in a systematic way.

[Vampyr]

My preferred law change would be to be able to give a pair something else than A+ when doing something good against a pair who has already played the board. I had this situation and I thought the Law is unfair.

 

The situation was a wrong EW pair shows up at a NS table and claims to be at the right table. NS then avoid the 4-4 fit to play 3NT and get a top board. Now it comes out that the EW pair is actually in the wrong place and NS can wave their top board bye-bye.

 

Law 7D:

Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table.

 

So, NS have forfeited their top by not checking that the right pair have arrived at the table.

 

However, L15:

 

PLAY OF A WRONG BOARD

 

A. Players Have Not Previously Played Board

 

If players play a board not designated for them to play in the current round (but see C):

 

1. The Director normally allows the score to stand if none of the four players have previously played the board.

 

A score that was reached at the table is not usually discarded.

[Vampyr]

About the GCC: My change would be to actually rephrase it an "Orange Book" kind of way. Instead of disallowing Relay systems or or identifying "all-purpose" bids, just write down what you mean. "I know it when I see it" meanings just lead to people being dependent on the good will of directors and regulators.

 

See here for a draft: http://www.geocities.ws/gerben42/gcc.html

 

You have not just clarified the language; you have made changes. For example, I don't think this:

 

3. ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an opening bid with at least 10 HCP, and showing one or more of:

 

a. A Natural opening bid in the bid suit

b. A balanced or semibalanced hand

c. A 3-suiter, short in the bid suit

d. A strong hand with at least 13 HCP

 

is allowed on the GCC.

 

By the way, do you frequently play in GCC events, or are you just preparing for when nige1 succeeds in getting ACBL regulations exported to the whole world?

[blackshoe]

My preferred law change would be to be able to give a pair something else than A+ when doing something good against a pair who has already played the board. I had this situation and I thought the Law is unfair.

 

The situation was a wrong EW pair shows up at a NS table and claims to be at the right table. NS then avoid the 4-4 fit to play 3NT and get a top board. Now it comes out that the EW pair is actually in the wrong place and NS can wave their top board bye-bye.

My law book says average plus is "at least 60% in pairs [sic]". Seems to me that if NS are in no way at fault (as seems to be the case here), the TD can let them keep their top.

[TylerE]

But NS *are* at fault. They didn't verify the identity of the EW pair. Now, if, say, the guide cards had been wrong, that's a different matter.

[blackshoe]

Law 7D:

 

 

So, NS have forfeited their top by not checking that the right pair have arrived at the table.

 

However, L15:

 

A score that was reached at the table is not usually discarded.

The way I read the OP, the director decided that 15B, rather than 15A, applied. I did consider 7D, and one could argue that perhaps North didn't ask enough questions, but again, he was there, and we weren't - or at least I wasn't. B-)

[awm]

1. I'd remove Law 25A and make the necessary minor changes to 25B. Since there are no "takebacks" for inadvertantly played cards I see no reason to have them for inadvertant bids. In fact the usual interpretation of 25A allows a lot of shenanigans with both "unintentional" and "without pause for thought" being very open to abuse.

 

2. I would add the sentence "All natural calls" under "allowed."

[Siegmund]

Laws changes - I like the suggestions so far, and am sorely tempted to nominate an automatic revoke penalty rather than the equity-based one now which requires so much extra director work -- but I will go for a new Law 40, similar in spirit to the 1997 one but going a bit farther to protect one's right to psych and to play any natural system, and would entertain the idea of using the Laws to push much harder for allowing anything reasonably easy to disclose.

 

GCC changes - barring a sweeping rewrite or wholesale replacement, how about allowing all transfer bids? I'd understand if you only want them from responder's first call onward rather than allowing transfer openings. From a wordsmithing standpoint, moving the Midchart item about any call promising length in a known suit would work for me.

[mikestar13]

My preferred law change would be to be able to give a pair something else than A+ when doing something good against a pair who has already played the board. I had this situation and I thought the Law is unfair.

 

The situation was a wrong EW pair shows up at a NS table and claims to be at the right table. NS then avoid the 4-4 fit to play 3NT and get a top board. Now it comes out that the EW pair is actually in the wrong place and NS can wave their top board bye-bye.

 

About the GCC: My change would be to actually rephrase it an "Orange Book" kind of way. Instead of disallowing Relay systems or or identifying "all-purpose" bids, just write down what you mean. "I know it when I see it" meanings just lead to people being dependent on the good will of directors and regulators.

 

See here for a draft: http://www.geocities...rben42/gcc.html

 

Quite a good piece of work, given the design goals of retaining the general tone of the GCC but clearing up the (sometimes nonsensical) language. Not everyone here will agree with these objectives (I don't, maybe Gerben himself doesn't) but this is an improvement that might be achievable. The more far reaching changes that many of us would prefer just aren't going to happen in the ACBL in the near term. (The glacial pace of change in the ACBL in this area suggests something like "near term" = "before 2025".)

 

Substantively, the only alteration I would offer to Gerben's work is to remove the restrictions on NT defenses (as many areas within the ACBL already do for games in their jurisdiction).

[gnasher]

If I'm only allowed to change one law, I'd change 16C2c from "allow completion of the play of the board, standing ready to award an adjusted score ..." to "allow completion of the play of the board. If necessary he awards an adjusted score ...", because it irritates me, and also because I think the director should be allowed to sit down whilst he waits.

 

There are about 90 other Laws that I'd like to either reword or replace entirely.

[Vampyr]

1. I'd remove Law 25A and make the necessary minor changes to 25B. Since there are no "takebacks" for inadvertantly played cards I see no reason to have them for inadvertant bids. In fact the usual interpretation of 25A allows a lot of shenanigans with both "unintentional" and "without pause for thought" being very open to abuse.

 

I like 25A, but I agree that many players and even directors don't understand what "inadvertent" means. About the "pause for thought" thing, though, I have never seen someone try to change their bid without taking action as soon as they have noticed the bid in front of them.

 

Laws changes - I like the suggestions so far, and am sorely tempted to nominate an automatic revoke penalty rather than the equity-based one now which requires so much extra director work

 

I would go with: Two-trick penalty for any revoke; if that is not enough to restore equity, then the director restore equity + one trick for the NOS.

[the hog]

Abolish the charts entirely. Any system allowed with full disclosure.

 

Sure, have side events with protections for those who want them. But for main events - no.

 

I agree with this point of view.

[Gerben42]

You have not just clarified the language; you have made changes. For example, I don't think this:

 

 

 

is allowed on the GCC.

 

By the way, do you frequently play in GCC events, or are you just preparing for when nige1 succeeds in getting ACBL regulations exported to the whole world?

 

If any, I only play online GCC events. However given their power, I worry about having those restrictions kill bridge around here too. BTW I didn't intend to make any changes - that's up to the locals to fight for that. I just think that anyone who puts humpty-dumpty definitions in the rules should be kicked.

[awm]

I like 25A, but I agree that many players and even directors don't understand what "inadvertent" means. About the "pause for thought" thing, though, I have never seen someone try to change their bid without taking action as soon as they have noticed the bid in front of them.

 

Here is the sequence of events I've seen several times. North opens 1♠. East bids 3♥. South bids 2♠. West waits about twenty seconds and then calls the director. South looks down at the table and notices for the first time that East bid 3♥. He makes some comment indicating surprise ("Oops!") and immediately tries to change his call to 3♠. Director arrives and asks if South intended to bid only 2♠. South indicates that of course he wanted to bid 3♠. West states that he would like to accept the original 2♠ bid, but the director rules under 25A that South's 2♠ call was inadvertent, the correction was without pause for thought (because South evidently wasn't thinking during the twenty seconds of West's pause, and anyway the pause for thought timer only starts once South notices his insufficient call, which clearly wasn't until West called the director). Thus south can correct to 3♠ without penalty, and West is denied the opportunity to accept the insufficient bid. The auction continues with a pass from West and now North amazingly finds a pass on a hand where most would bid 4♠ over a "normal" competitive 3♠ raise. Nine tricks make exactly. At the end of the hand, West calls the director again to complain, but the director says that there was no UI (since 25A does not specify that the insufficient bid is unauthorized information) so... good judgment, North!

 

Compare to a situation where West is on lead. He tries to pull a card from his hand, but the card next to it falls out and lands face up on the table. West immediately tries to pick it up, but the director is called by South. Despite the fact that West certainly did not intend to play this card (in fact he was in the process of leading another card), the director rules that the card is face up on the table and thus "played."

 

Why such a different ruling?

[blackshoe]

Compare to a situation where West is on lead. He tries to pull a card from his hand, but the card next to it falls out and lands face up on the table. West immediately tries to pick it up, but the director is called by South. Despite the fact that West certainly did not intend to play this card (in fact he was in the process of leading another card), the director rules that the card is face up on the table and thus "played."

 

Why such a different ruling?

Because the laws regarding plays are different from the laws regarding bids.

 

BTW, in this case, the director's ruling is incorrect. A card dropped in the course of playing a different card becomes a penalty card, either major or minor.