[nige1]

lamford, on 2013-April-25, 07:01, said:

One problem with using the methods that the player believed prior to receipt of UI is that one has to accept his view of what would have been the continuations, as the actual methods are different. So, someone could pass 3D, stating that they don't play transfers, as many casual players don't, or bid 3NT stating that they only complete with three cards, as I do with some partners. I believe Jeff Rubens advocated using the actual methods of the partnership many years ago.

I agree Jeff Rubens had a valid point. Cascade also advanced the same argument.

paulg, on 2013-April-23, 09:27, said:

As K9 said on Doctor Who - "Optimism: belief that everything will work out well. Irrational, bordering on insane."

A fair summary of attitudes to the current state of Bridge rules. Why won't rule-makers try to fix them -- even just the blatant anomalies?

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2013-April-25, 07:01, said:

One problem with using the methods that the player believed prior to receipt of UI is that one has to accept his view of what would have been the continuations, as the actual methods are different.

This is a situation in which a committee is invaluable, as the members can make educated guesses as to what the continuations would be,

To use actual methods would, in many cases, result in the auction getting back on track with the aid of the UI.

[jeffford76]

lamford, on 2013-April-25, 07:01, said:

I believe Jeff Rubens advocated using the actual methods of the partnership many years ago.

I believe what Rubens actually advocates is that your actual system should always be authorized information even if you'd forgotten it earlier in the auction and misbid. This isn't what we're used to, but might be a cleaner solution than judging LA's based on imaginary continuations.

[blackshoe]

Which makes you kind of wonder what you're supposed to do if the actual methods of the partnership would never have put them in the position they're in.

[billw55]

nige1, on 2013-April-25, 07:19, said:

Why won't rule-makers try to fix them -- even just the blatant anomalies?

Because (1) the process is slow and tedious, and (2) the problem is not occurring in actual play, only in constructions debated on forums.

[mycroft]

Also, change is easy. Getting all the stakeholders that have a say to agree to the change, and then do something about it, is hard.

The Laws Committee of the ACBL passed a suggestion that potentially very weak 2s and 3s be no longer pre-Alertable, but an Alert on call (after deferring it at least once). That got to the BoD, who passed it (after deferring it at least once).

It's effective as soon as the Alert Chart is updated to reflect that. Which is done by a subsection of the Laws Committee. Which will happen RSN.

Oh, did I mention that all this was in 2010?

And that's just the ACBL. Now imagine all the rest of the Zonal Committees and other stakeholders who are in that process.

[Cascade]

billw55, on 2013-April-26, 06:26, said:

Because (1) the process is slow and tedious, and (2) the problem is not occurring in actual play, only in constructions debated on forums.

The problem highlighted in this thread is occurring in actual play. The wording in Law 16B1b is just being ignored. This is a problem in practice for the application of Law 16B1b and in consequence the application of Law 81B2.

[billw55]

Cascade, on 2013-April-26, 13:19, said:

The problem highlighted in this thread is occurring in actual play. The wording in Law 16B1b is just being ignored.

What I mean is, (almost) nobody seems to be bothered by this - so it isn't causing a problem.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2013-April-26, 11:13, said:

Also, change is easy. Getting all the stakeholders that have a say to agree to the change, and then do something about it, is hard.

The Laws Committee of the ACBL passed a suggestion that potentially very weak 2s and 3s be no longer pre-Alertable, but an Alert on call (after deferring it at least once). That got to the BoD, who passed it (after deferring it at least once).

It's effective as soon as the Alert Chart is updated to reflect that. Which is done by a subsection of the Laws Committee. Which will happen RSN.

I thought that first, such changes are effective when the minutes of the BoD meeting that approved them are published, unless those minutes say otherwise (which I don't think they do in this case). I also thought that the alert regulation (chart and procedure) is the purview of the Competition and Conventions (C&C) Committee, not the Laws Commission.

Ah. Looking at the minutes of the Summer 2010 BoD meeting, I see that they did specify "effective when the Alert chart is updated", and also that the update is indeed up to the C&C Committee. Which probably extends "real soon now" into the next century sometime.

The alert chart says "natural opening preempts of 2♦, 2♥, and 2♠" do not require an alert. There is no mention of strength requirements, nor of alerting weak preempts. It does say (down at the bottom) that we should pre-alert "systems based on very light openings or other highly aggressive methods" so I suppose nothing has really changed. The alert procedure, as far as I can tell, still requires the pre-alert. The chart has on it "effective January 1, 2012". The procedure doesn't seem to have an effective date.

I think if I were on the BoD, I'd be making a motion to require the C&C to produce a revised and comprehensible (by the average player) alert regulation before the next NABC (so if the motion passes in July, they have until November to comply). Maybe I'll suggest that to my BoD rep.

As for "stakeholders" pfui. Is the C&C dragging their feet because they don't want this regulation? If that's what they're doing, well, harking back to a discussion on another site, I'd feel dirty if I did that.

[barmar]

Cascade, on 2013-April-26, 13:19, said:

The problem highlighted in this thread is occurring in actual play. The wording in Law 16B1b is just being ignored. This is a problem in practice for the application of Law 16B1b and in consequence the application of Law 81B2.

But that's not a real problem. By ignoring the literal wording of 16B1b, they're doing what was almost certainly intended. So changing the Law would simply bring the words into conformance with actual practice, not actually change any rulings.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-19, 08:30, said:

This strikes me as fairly straightforward....

And, eight pages later, we all tried to make it as complicated as possible; and I still agree with the ruling. N/S had a lucky accident. We don't like it when the opponents have a lucky accident. Next.

[Cascade]

barmar, on 2013-April-27, 21:09, said:

But that's not a real problem. By ignoring the literal wording of 16B1b, they're doing what was almost certainly intended. So changing the Law would simply bring the words into conformance with actual practice, not actually change any rulings.

As I wrote in a different forum what appears to be intended is flawed:

"The obvious and IMO serious flaw in this ammendment is that there is no verifiable way to determine the methods of the partnership after a misbid."

In the example that began this thread if I open 2NT with a strong balanced hand that is well outside my system then there is no way to determine what my methods are after this misbid and therefore no way to determine what my logical alternatives are.

The actual wording has the benefit of making it clear what on what the logical alternatives are based.

Secondly, it is outside proper procedure to rule according to the intent given that the director is "bound" by the laws.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-April-27, 21:09, said:

But that's not a real problem. By ignoring the literal wording of 16B1b, they're doing what was almost certainly intended. So changing the Law would simply bring the words into conformance with actual practice, not actually change any rulings.

It's not a problem that a Law has to be ignored in order to produce what is universally considered sensible procedure? Really?

Should this apply only to 16B1b, or also to whatever other Laws we personally (or as a ZA*) don't like?

*Of course there is one ZA that just gets the Laws changed to what it likes.

[barmar]

Ruling on LAs after misbids is tricky. Someone playing the actual methods of the partnership wouldn't be in the situation in the first place.

We're not ignoring laws we "don't like". We're re-interpreting laws whose literal interpretation is obviously wrong. Yes, the difference is subjective, what's wrong with that? One of the nice things about being human rather than a robot is we can make judgement calls like this. And when the judgement is shared almost universally, that's good enough to go by.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-April-28, 20:33, said:

Ruling on LAs after misbids is tricky. Someone playing the actual methods of the partnership wouldn't be in the situation in the first place.

We're not ignoring laws we "don't like". We're re-interpreting laws whose literal interpretation is obviously wrong. Yes, the difference is subjective, what's wrong with that? One of the nice things about being human rather than a robot is we can make judgement calls like this. And when the judgement is shared almost universally, that's good enough to go by.

Well, it's good enough for government work I guess. Are you by any chance a civil servant?

[billw55]

barmar, on 2013-April-28, 20:33, said:

We're not ignoring laws we "don't like". We're re-interpreting laws whose literal interpretation is obviously wrong. Yes, the difference is subjective, what's wrong with that? One of the nice things about being human rather than a robot is we can make judgement calls like this. And when the judgement is shared almost universally, that's good enough to go by.

+1