[blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Brian]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:27 +0100 (BST)
"Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk> wrote:

> Brian wrote:
> 
> > Hmm. Well I can tell you that in the EBU's "Rule of 19" days, there 
> > was at least one 'A' list EBU TD who insisted that the Ro19 applied
> > with mathematical precision, pointed me at the regulation in the
> > Yellow Book, and told me I could appeal but I'd be wasting my time,
> > and likely my money. 
> 
> I don't recall the Yellow book and am not familiar with the wording of
> the regulation in question but:
>  
> > The hand in question was a Precision 1D opener on a good 4333 11 
> > count.
> 
> The Precision 1D (IIRC) is a conventional bid.  As such it may be
> regulated any way an SO chooses.
> 

But the decision we were given related solely to Ro19, Tim. There was
**no mention made** as to whether it was on the basis of 1D being
conventional. Something along these lines...

Opp: TD please! The opposition opened 1D on a hand which is less than
Ro19. 

TD: <looks at my hand> I assume you agree with the fact that you opened
1D? Would you always open that hand? 

Me: Yes on both counts. I think the fillers are more than worth the
extra 1 HCP. 

TD: Then opponent's complaint is justified, you are not allowed to open
1 of a suit on a hand which contravenes Ro19. 

<snip detailed explanation of Ro19, statement that it was a
mathematically exact rule, etc. etc.>. 


> > I remember that because our opponents (teams) seemed to be able to 
> > open it 1NT with impunity. 
> 
> 1N, being natural, would not be subject to direct regulation by Ro18
> (being within a king of average strength).
> 

See above. To the best of my (hazy, by now) recollection, the question
of natural and conventional never arose. I don't recall the TD even
bothering to look at my CC, though I could be wrong this long after
the event. 

> > And no, I didn't appeal it, let alone take it to the L&EC - but if 
> > lack of money (the appeal fee in those days represented a
> > significant amount of cash to me) and experience equals idiocy,
> > then I guess I plead guilty. 
> 
> An impoverished junior at Brighton was getting input on whether to
> appeal a particular ruling.  Those he consulted offered
> (collectively) more than twice the sum he needed as a deposit.
> 

This was in the first round of the Gold Cup, in the days when the first
couple of rounds were held over a single weekend at six or seven
different locations. In those days I wouldn't really have known who to
consult, and since the TD had pointed me to a clause in the Yellow Book
that seemed perfectly clear to me, I felt I was on a loser. 

I also suspect that a well-known (I assume) junior at Brighton might
have rather more offers of charity than some anonymous long-haired
student type from a totally unknown team. 


But all this is really irrelevant anyway. The bottom line is that the
rules of a game should be clear and unambiguous. It's lunacy to have
one body make the laws and other bodies add regulations, the difference
between the two being an academic one as far as the vast majority of
players are concerned, when those regulations can conflict with the
laws. And then when the WBFLC finally gets off its collective
backside and sorts things out, that's *IF* the ACBL doesn't happen to be
your ZO, the WBFLC will claim that it's the job of the ZO and
NCBO to let decisions filter down to the grass roots level. Yeah right.
Happens every day. 


Brian. 

- -- 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGwbeAX39R2QaHMdMRApQcAKCtPzPhgYxaa4xO6ERiKHwO2t7apwCfQcwp
8MQqw+vIWG94ktowQM/wNns=
=YSrn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----