[blml] Alert and alarmed (was continued) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Steve Willner:

[snip]

>Under the prior rules (now at least a decade out of date), Richard's
>proper procedure would have been to say "special alert."  Prior to
>that, "alert" would have sufficed, despite the possible confusion.
>
>The point is that SOs are empowered to make alert rules, and players
>should follow them.

Richard Hills:

The point is that various systems of alert rules put in place by
various National Bridge Organisations during various decades had (and
have) various degrees of compliance with the "fully and freely
available to the opponents" criterion of Law 75A.

A question unanswered is whether the "possible confusion" caused by
the 1970s version of the ACBL alert rules was sufficiently unfair to
the opponents as to make the 1970s ACBL alert regulation illegally
contrary to Law 75A.

Jeff Rubens noted that ethical ACBL players of that time before the
introduction of "special alert" went so far as to wear badges on
their shirts giving prominent advice to their opponents of their
special methods.

On the other hand, in a Bridge World editorial a few years ago, Jeff
Rubens' anecdotal impression was that more prominent nowadays were
Secretary Bird ACBL players who attempted to exploit the loopholes in
the ACBL alert regulation.

In my personal opinion, the ACBL and the EBU have taken the wrong
approach to Secretary Birds who exploit loopholes in their alert
regulations.  What they have done is create ever more detailed and
complex rules in an attempt to plug every little individual hole in
their alert regulations.

In theory, the more details in a bidding system the better.  But
there comes a point of diminishing returns, when greater detail loses
more imps and matchpoints than it gains, due to one partner or the
other forgetting the methods and having a bidding disaster.

Likewise, the death by detail approach taken by the ACBL and the EBU
to their alert regulations has, in my opinion, reached the point of
diminishing returns.  Indeed the EBU implicitly admits that, by
adopting a year-long semi-amnesty in its Orange Book.

EBU Orange Book, clause 5A2:

"Because this is the first major change in alerting for over fifteen
years it is expected that players will take some time to adjust to
the new rules. Thus for the first year players, TDs and Appeals
Committees are expected to give latitude to players who err in the
application of the new rules."


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm