No CC

[blackshoe]

If you carefully read the first few pages of the ACBL's version of the Laws, you will find that the ACBL is the promulgator of the Laws used in its events, so it can rewrite them as it sees fit.

Surprise! I was right - someone argues otherwise. :D

 

In that case, the only logical reason for not writing the laws as they see fit in the first place (leaving out the bits that don't apply) is that they didn't want to impose their ideas on the rest of the Western Hemisphere. If that's the case, they could just as well have left the "elections" out of the law book, and imposed their changes by regulation. Of course, given the state of ACBL regulations (where are they? What are they? Who knows?) it may be that the LC thought that would be a bad idea. <shrug>

 

I have a vague memory that some earlier version of the laws explicitly mentioned the possibility of elections, in the Introduction perhaps, and/or that the places where elections were allowed explicitly did so. However, in a quick glance at the 1997 laws I didn't find anything like that, so either my memory is faulty, or it was an earlier version.

 

IAC it doesn't really matter — the ACBL will do what it wants regardless what anyone else thinks.

[pran]

[]...]

I have a vague memory that some earlier version of the laws explicitly mentioned the possibility of elections, in the Introduction perhaps, and/or that the places where elections were allowed explicitly did so. However, in a quick glance at the 1997 laws I didn't find anything like that, so either my memory is faulty, or it was an earlier version.

 

IAC it doesn't really matter the ACBL will do what it wants regardless what anyone else thinks.

Defenders may ask declarer but, unless the Zonal organisation so authorises, not one another.

 

(My enhancement)

[blackshoe]

Ah. Thanks, Sven.

[jillybean]

And with a little luck the ACBL will enter the 21st century and offer the possibility of entering events online/in advance.

 

 

I don't know how they're doing it. But if you go to their site, it says:

http://media.bridgewinners.com/info_blocks/Advance-NABC-Entry-Teaser.png

 

Interesting, I talked recently at our Unit Board about pre registration and offering credit card payment option, and got a very cool response.

[TylerE]

The credit card thing I can understand. At low transaction levels (And low means anything less than like $10k/month), the fees on a $5 CC charge will be in the neighborhood of $0.36, maybe more, and that's not factoring in the expense of maintaining a merchant bank account, a POS terminal/card reader, etc.

[barmar]

My guess is BW will use Google Wallet, since they're already using that to accept contributions to the site. I have no idea what that means in terms of fees to the merchant.

[TylerE]

CC fees, while they vary, will generally be structured at somet like $x + y%. Typical values for small merchants are x = $0.30 and $y = 2.9% - with smaller charges it's the 30 cents that kills you. Less of an issue if you're charging $25 or whatever an NABC entry is these days.

[jillybean]

I imagine players pre purchasing entries will be playing several sessions over multiple days so the typical transaction will be significantly more than $5. You can't even get 1 club game here for $5 :)

[Zelandakh]

I think I will start keeping my CC under my seat. :)

The last non-club tournament I played was a "friendly" island bridge festival. We asked the organiser about CCs and were informed that there was no requirement due to the fun nature of the event. That was something of a relief to me because I had little desire to write a CC in a foreign language (what is an undisciplined style preempt in German, for example?) and thereby embarass myself. Instead we verbally warned our opponents every round of the unusual aspects of our (simple Acol) system.

 

During the first session, we arrived at the table of a pair of ladies with one CC placed on the table. As is my way, I immediately picked it up and started scanning for anything important and went into the system blurb. After a few seconds, the lady on my right asked where my CC was in a particularly terse tone. My partner explained that we did not have one, whereupon she ripped the CC out of my hands and stuffed it into her bag saying "then we don't either!" I have to admit, the performance made me smile. As it happened the opps did not play anything particularly unusual either, so the effect was simply to create a bad atmosphere. That was by no means the only example of unfriendliness at the festival either. In fact, I would say it is the least friendly bridge event I was ever at, and that is actually quite an achievement.

 

 

This is another rather extreme regulation. Suppose I arrive two minutes before starting play with a new partner. We agree "2/1, standard carding, and wing it" for the first round. Finishing the first round early, we now want to add a defence to 1NT. Do we realy have to get the director's permission before we do so?

It is surely even worse than this Andy. Say that this pair have a bidding misunderstanding. Their initial agreement is essentially "no agreement". But whichever meaning for the bid they now choose it is a change of system.

 

Similarly, suppose they meet a Precision pair in round 2. One says they should play Mathe against the 1♣ opening and draws their cards. The SB opponent now pipes up and says that they are not allowed to alter their agreements in the session without permission of the TD and it is now too late for that to happen since the board has begun. What happens next?

 

Here's an even better one. A player from a regular pair psyches a response. Their SB opponent remembers a discussion at the bar from a couple of weeks earlier about a similar psyche having been made. He calls the TD to complain that the history has created an implicit partnership understanding. But creating such an understanding during a session without TD permission is illegal, since the system may not be changed. Therefore either the psyche was illegal or the system now being played by the pair is illegal.

 

This is surely not the design of the regulation. Pairs alter their systems all the time within a session, both explicitly and implictly. In fact, I think any regulation that tries to prevent that is simply unworkable. Obviously, like most ACBL regulations, this is a case of writing the wording in strong enough terms that the TD can make pretty much any ruling they want but giving enough leeway that the TD can interpret it as desired. The same applies to the CC regulation being discussed as well as stop cards, system charts, etc. The only question is why anyone would be surprised at this style of regulation.