[blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Congratulations to blmler Adam Wildavsky, who
has been promoted to Vice-Chair of the ACBL
Laws Commission.

*     *     *

1. 12C1(e) shall be used in ACBL not 12C1(c)
[we elect no weighted adjustments].

2. 16B2: do not use the option that prevents
players from reserving their rights.

3. 18F: continue the statement in the current
laws concerning bidding methods.

4. 20G: do not permit players to consult their
own convention cards.

5. 40A2 and 40B1 concern conditions of contest
decisions rather than legal options and the
Commission leaves it to Conventions and
Competition Committee to advise the ACBL.

6. 40B2(a): Accept the default of the general
requirement that the meaning of a call or play
shall be the same regardless of which member
of the pair makes it - no election. This
continues the current ACBL requirement that
both members of a partnership must play the
same system.

7. 40B2(b): Accept the default that, except
for the declaring side during the
clarification period, a player may not consult
his convention card once the auction period
starts until the end of play - no election.

8. 40B2(c): It is suggested that, in addition,
a player be permitted to consult an opponent's
convention card at RHO's turn to call.

9. 40B2(d): The Commission leaves it to
Conventions and Competition Committee to
advise the ACBL.

10. 40B3: ACBL should select this option to
disallow prior agreement to vary partnership
understandings during the auction following a
question, response or irregularity.

11. 61B3: ACBL should not prohibit defender's
from asking each other whether he holds a card
of the suit led. Not prohibiting this
continues current ACBL practice.

12. 70E2: It is for the ACBL Tournament
Department to present such a proposal to the
ACBL Board of Directors for approval. However,
the Commission requests that any proposal be
sent to the Commission for review and
comments.

13. 93C1: The ACBL already has a regulation
concerning further appeal from the decision of
a bridge appeals committee.

Since time permitted, a review of the laws
needing an interpretation was started to be
continued by e-mail and at subsequent
meetings.

12B1 was discussed. There was a consensus that
the wording of the first sentence was to be
interpreted such that there is no change to
current practice.

12C1(e)(ii) is to be interpreted such that the
words "had the irregularity not occurred" are
inserted between "probable" and the period
ending the sentence.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills
Governance & Standards Section
National Training Branch
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
Telephone: 02 6223 8439
Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au

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