[blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Ed Reppert]

On Sep 8, 2007, at 7:19 AM, Brian wrote:

> The downside to your devolved system comes for those of us who play
> online, where a substantial percentage of players seem to be of the
> view that it's THEIR local regulations which are in force  
> (particularly
> the ACBL members, I have to say) and nobody really knows what is or
> isn't alertable in a game where the players are from widely differing
> locations.

Law 80 says, among other things, "A sponsoring organization  
conducting an event under these Laws has the following duties and  
powers:

[snip]

F. Supplementary Regulations
to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in  
conflict with, these Laws."

So if somebody sets up a game online, and doesn't specify any  
alerting regulations, then arguably *nothing* is alertable.  
Additionally, one could argue that failure to specify certain  
regulations, in particular as to what conventions are permitted (or  
not permitted) and how and what to alert, is dereliction of the SO's  
duty - for which the appropriate penalty ought, it seems to me, to be  
refusal to play in that SO's games.

ACBL club owners/managers typically don't specify such regulations.  
Recently, when I asked a local club owner who'd asked me to direct  
her game (last night's game, in fact) what convention regulations she  
wished to be in place, she said "just be nice to the players". I'm  
told by some correspondents that "it's just a club game, who cares?"  
Doesn't seem a very professional attitude for a TD - or an SO - to  
take, but given that attitude it's not surprising that nobody  
specifies what alert regulations should be in force in their online  
games.