[blml] Encrypted signals

[richard willey]

> [richard willey[
> > I believe that the ACBL regulations are
> > deliberately vague in order to maximize
> > discretionary power.
> > Personally, I find this highly problemic.
> > I'd prefer rule of law to whims of
> > individuals.
>
> [nige1]
> The EBU is the same. Thus, for the purpose of
> restricting agreements, the new EBU Orange book
> has replaced the objective "rule of x" with the
> subjective "rule of x or equivalent playing
> strength." In spite of my pleas, no borderline
> examples are provided. This maximises the
> confusion for players and the subjective latitude
> for directors.

I don't have much directly playing experience in Britain, however, I
consider the White and the Orange book order's of magnitude better
than anything we have available here in ACBL land.

For what its worth, I would disagree slightly with the way you
characterize the recent changes to the Orange book.  My understanding
is that the EBU had regulations based on "Rule of X", however, said
regulations did not match common practice.  (You've made any number of
complaints that other players were violating "Rule of XYZ" and that
the Directors were shrugging off your complaints).  From my
perspective, this issue could be resolved in one of three ways:

1.  The EBU could enforce the laws that were currently on the book and
ding anyone who opens a hand that doesn't correspond to rule of XYZ...

2.  The EBU could relax the laws (admittedly making them more subjective)

3.  The EBU could switch hand evaluation metrics in an attempt to add
more definition to the boundaries...

Personally, I'd prefer case 3. However, case 2 (which was chosen by
the EBU) seems better than have rules on the books that are not
enforced.




-- 
"It's no disgrace not to be able to run a country nowadays, but it is
a disgrace to keep on trying when you know you can't"

Will Rogers