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

[Jerry Fusselman]

I have some reactions and questions:

[2007 Laws - ACBL's options, as reported by Richard Hills:]
> Congratulations to blmler Adam Wildavsky, who
> has been promoted to Vice-Chair of the ACBL
> Laws Commission.

Yes, congratulations.  What is the new composition of the laws commission?

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

Thanks.  A+.

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

Law 16B2 is "2. When a player considers that an opponent has made such
information
available and that damage could well result he may announce, unless
prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the
Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the Director
later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they
dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been
conveyed)."

This election sounds to me like a change, and I wonder:  1.  When
reserving rights as now allowed, what would be an example of the
proper form to say so.  Perhaps, "Are we in agreement that the double
was very fast?"  If the answer is yes, then to say "I reserve my
rights?"

2.  How is the footnoted phrase, "it is not an infraction to call the
Director earlier or later," interpreted?  E.g., is there some doctrine
of "failure to protect oneself" that kicks in when calling too early
or late, even though it is not an infraction per se?
>
> 3. 18F: continue the statement in the current
> laws concerning bidding methods.
>

I don't understand this one all.  Law 18F is "Regulating Authorities
may authorize different methods of making calls."

> 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.
>

A+

> 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.
>

A+.  This seems an excellent suggestion to me.

> 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.

Ah, but what does this mean?  They must not be using anything like
Grattan's meaning of "vary partnership understandings."

>
> 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.
>

Yes, sounds good to me.

Jerry Fusselman