[balddee]

Please describe the most significant differences between ACBL tournament play Laws and International Laws.

Who are the members of the International Committee and what are their terms?

[blackshoe]

If you're asking about the membership of the World Bridge Federation Laws Committee, the answer is here. If you're asking about some other committee, please specify which one.

The laws are substantially the same everywhere. There are, however, options available to Zonal Authorities (ZAs) and Regulating Authorities (RAs) (the ACBL is both). The ACBL lists its elections in the back of its publication. Compare with the WBF publication. For elections of other ZAs and RAs, you'll have to check with the appropriate authority.

[bluejak]

The English Bridge Union has the following regulation describing its options:

7 D Law Book options

7 D 1 Certain Laws have Regulating Authority options. Those applicable to EBU events are:

(a ) Law 12C1 (c ) applies, so a TD or Appeals Committee may weight an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity: this is the norm.
(b ) Law 18F authorises such methods as Bidding Boxes and Silent Bidders.
(c ) Law 40B1 refers to special partnership agreements. Any agreement that is subject to a regulation in this Orange book is deemed to be a special partnership agreement.
(d ) Under Law 40B2 (a ) the EBU can regulate certain natural bids directly that were previously regulated indirectly – see 10 E.
(e ) Under Law 40B2 (c ) (iii) a player may look at his opponents’ system card at any time, though this may create unauthorised information.
(f ) Under 40B3 (a ) a pair is NOT allowed to vary its understandings by prior agreement during the auction or play consequent on a question asked by either side.
(g ) Under Law 40B3 (b ) a pair is allowed to vary its understandings by prior agreement during the auction or play consequent on a response by the opponents to a question by this pair.
(h ) Under Law 40B3 (c ) a pair is NOT allowed to vary its understandings by prior agreement during the auction or play consequent on a response by this pair to a question by the opponents.
(j ) Under Law 40B3 (d ) a pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity by either side, except that following its own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so that it is brought within the criteria of Law 27B1 (b ).
(k ) Under Law 40C3 (a ) a player is not allowed aids to memory, calculation or technique: for example, looking at the scores on the back of bidding cards during the hand is considered an aide-memoire and therefore illegal.
(l ) Under Law 61B3 defenders may ask each other whether they have any cards left of the suit led, though this may create unauthorised information.
(m ) Law 78D allows ‘other scoring methods’, for example in the Hubert Phillips honours count.
(n ) Law 93C allows the possibilities of differing methods of appeals and thus permits special methods to deal with special cases. EBU Appeals procedures are unchanged.

[Rossoneri]

Zone 6 Elections of the laws.

[suprgrover]

balddee, on Jul 14 2009, 08:32 AM, said:

Please describe the most significant differences between ACBL tournament play Laws and International Laws.

Except for the elections that the ACBL can make as a Regulating Authority under the Laws, there really ought to be no differences.

Alas, there is at least one.

Law 12C1e, for adjusted scores when a Regulating Authority opts not to allow weighted scores, reads as follows in the WBF version of the laws:

Quote

(e) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all or part of
the following procedure in place of (c ):
(i) The score assigned in place of the actual score for a nonoffending
side is the most favourable result that was likely had the
irregularity not occurred.
(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most
unfavourable result that was at all probable.

The ACBL version of the Laws includes "had the irregularity not occurred" at the end of clause (ii).

The irony here is the the ACBL is the main user of 12C1e and managed, despite four members on the Drafting Committee, to get a version with which it apparently does not agree.

There are a few other differences that I know of, but they seem immaterial (chapter headings and some omissions from the Preface).

[blackshoe]

One might argue that the ACBL does not have the authority to make that change to the laws. Not that the ACBL will care.

[bluejak]

Rossoneri, on Jul 15 2009, 12:08 AM, said:

Zone 6 Elections of the laws.

Amazing: Zone 6 does not allow reserving rights "to obtain a friendlier environment" when in fact this decision will do exaclty the reverse.

In England:

"You thought a bit before doubling, didn't you?" "Sure"

In Zone 6:

"Director!"

[OleBerg]

bluejak, on Jul 15 2009, 02:48 PM, said:

Rossoneri, on Jul 15 2009, 12:08 AM, said:

Zone 6 Elections of the laws.

Amazing: Zone 6 does not allow reserving rights "to obtain a friendlier environment" when in fact this decision will do exaclty the reverse.

In England:

"You thought a bit before doubling, didn't you?" "Sure"

In Zone 6:

"Director!"

In Denmark:

We play on regardless, and can call the director at the end of hand with full rights, without making the announcement.

Seems to me like the best way to create a friendly environment.

[bluejak]

You can in England. But when the opposition say there was no BIT you are in a considerably weaker position than if you had agreed the BIT at the time.

The only judgement ruling I have given in Denmark involved my friend Jens Brix Christiansen who had reserved his rights. Mind you, he was also the one who had broken tempo!!!!

[Trinidad]

I think "reserving rights" is a misnomer. You do not lose any right by not reserving them.

What it is all about is agreeing on facts, when the evidence is still fresh.

When there was a small -but significant- BIT, players will easily agree to that when it is pointed out immediately. And if all agree, just play on. There is no reason to call the TD, since a BIT is not an infraction.

But if the TD is called when the board is finished and the players didn't immediately agree on the facts as they happened, it is very difficult to agree on these facts now.

There are two obvious reasons for this:
1) Five minutes have gone by. The alleged offending side will have forgotten how long each player has been thinking. But the non offending side knows it exactly. They have been thinking about this during the whole board (and possibly exagerated things in the process ).
2) After the board has been played, there is a result directly depending on these facts. To be specific: The alleged offending side has bid on after a BIT where pass may have been an LA. And it gave them a good result. (Otherwise there was no damage and players don't call the TD if they are not damaged.) This leads to players retreating in their trenches: allegations and denials. In contrast, when players agree to a BIT as it occurs, it doesn't have any consequences yet. The trenches aren't needed.

I don't like the use of the phrase: "I reserve my rights." It is vague (what rights? and what for?) and it sounds pedantic. It's a phrase for Secretary Birds. A friendly "Do we all agree that it took some time to double?" works much better: It is normal language that everyone understands and it is specific.

Rik

[bluejak]

When you get an agreed name it is unhelpful to try and change it. Perhaps you do not like the term "no trumps", and I have heard an argument that no trumps is a misonomer. It would be very unhelpful to the masses of players to change it, and similarly it is unhelpful to the many many players to change the term "reserving your rights" which is a reasonable name, appears in the Law book, and in many people's view - including my own - is not a misnomer. You reserve the right to call the TD at the end of the hand, a right specifically laid down by Law.

[geller]

bluejak, on Jul 15 2009, 09:48 PM, said:

Rossoneri, on Jul 15 2009, 12:08 AM, said:

Zone 6 Elections of the laws.

Amazing: Zone 6 does not allow reserving rights "to obtain a friendlier environment" when in fact this decision will do exaclty the reverse.

In England:

"You thought a bit before doubling, didn't you?" "Sure"

In Zone 6:

"Director!"

The document cited above ( http://www.scba.org.sg/files/documents/Zon...f_2007_Laws.doc ) is from the web site of the Singapore CBA, and appears to be their instructions to their delegate (on how to vote at the meeting that decided the PABF elections) rather than the official and final PABF elections.

Unfortunately the official PABF website ( http://www.pabf.org/home.asp ) doesn't show the final and official PABF elections. I will drop the webmaster a note.

-Bob

[geller]

blackshoe, on Jul 15 2009, 03:19 PM, said:

One might argue that the ACBL does not have the authority to make that change to the laws. Not that the ACBL will care.

This is a grey area. Before the WBF existed the ACBL was the promulgator of the Laws for the western hemisphere. My understanding is that (WBF Constitution and Bylaws notwithstanding) the ACBL position is that it is the Laws promulgator for ACBL-land and that the WBF laws are merely advisory. As I might be wrong, I'd appreciate any additions/corrections regarding this matter.

-Bob

[blackshoe]

I don't think you're wrong. But reading the WBF Constitution and Bylaws, we find that the NBOs in a Zone are supposed to get together and form a "Zonal Conference" which is to be an administrative subdivision of the WBF. Later, when the WBF decided it wanted bridge to become an Olympic sport, the Constitution and Bylaws were amended to require the member NBOs of the WBF to conform with the Olympic Charter (OC)'s requirements for national sports organizations (for bridge, NBOs). Under the OC, an organization cannot be both an NBO and a ZC. In my layman's opinion, this should have required the ACBL to either declare itself the NBO for the US, and get together with the other Zone 2 NBOs and form a new ZC, or to declare itself the ZC for Zone 2, and divest itself of its NBO functions. Instead, they created the USBF and designated it as the NBO for the US, while keeping all of their control and power over local bridge in the US (not to mention in Canada and Mexico, and in spite of the fact those countries already had their own NBOs).

Maybe what the ACBL actually did was legal, and maybe it was the best thing for bridge, but to me it smells of dead fish. IAC, they did it, they do maintain the position that they are the final authority over the laws in North America, and the WBF is not going to call them on it. Which is why I said they don't care about my opinion.

It really doesn't matter what I think, anyway. And we sure aren't going to change anything by discussing it here.

[geller]

Here is a link to the official PABF elections.
-Bob