No CC
#61
Posted 2013-October-07, 08:40
#62
Posted 2013-October-07, 08:51
TylerE, on 2013-October-07, 08:40, said:
Borrow one from the guy behind you in line, or dig through your handbag at time of purchase to irritate the whole queue.
#63
Posted 2013-October-07, 09:22
aguahombre, on 2013-October-07, 08:51, said:
And with a little luck the ACBL will enter the 21st century and offer the possibility of entering events online/in advance.
#65
Posted 2013-October-07, 09:31
barmar, on 2013-October-07, 09:28, said:
How are Bridge Winners able to offer ACBL entries?
#66
Posted 2013-October-07, 09:33
gnasher, on 2013-October-07, 01:36, said:
A pair which brought two convention cards is obliged to play the same system for the entire session, so why should a pair which has already broken the rules be exempt from this requirement?
But they are not exempt. They are required by the laws not to vary their system. But we are talking about a pair that has not documented their system, which may be SAYC or close to it. If they had copied the SAYC onto a regular convention card, and presented them to the TD, he has no option but to allow it. I don't think they are changing systems, since they had no documentation of one before.
Once they have documented their system, whatever it is, it would be petty not to allow it, unless the TD is prepared to prove it is not their system. Good luck with that.
#68
Posted 2013-October-07, 09:40
ddrankin, on 2013-October-07, 09:33, said:
Not by the laws, by ACBL regulation. In the EBU you are permitted to change your system every round, if you like.
#69
Posted 2013-October-07, 10:00
aguahombre, on 2013-October-07, 08:51, said:
I was thinking that many people have a few handy, and could just adopt one of those for the partnership, perhaps using a post-it to add the correct names. "Well I play this one with Bob, how about we just use that?" (glances over it) "OK sure." Seems pretty common, I have done it myself more than once. Of course that won't help when neither player has even one card handy.
-gwnn
#71
Posted 2013-October-07, 11:00
TylerE, on 2013-October-07, 08:40, said:
This would be a sensible addition to the CoC but until the addition is made, it's not in force, and is highly unlikely to happen.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#72
Posted 2013-October-07, 11:16
Vampyr, on 2013-October-07, 09:31, said:
By saying to the ACBL, "We'd like to offer ACBL entries," and the ACBL saying, "OK."
#74
Posted 2013-October-07, 12:44
ddrankin, on 2013-October-07, 11:51, said:
This is indeed what the ACBL has done. However, a careful reading of the relevant laws leads me to question the approach. It seems to me that what the laws actually say is that the RA is permitted to make pertinent regulations, not to change the law itself. But I wouldn't be surprised to hear someone argue otherwise.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#75
Posted 2013-October-08, 02:44
blackshoe, on 2013-October-07, 12:44, said:
If you carefully read the first few pages of the ACBL's version of the Laws, you will find that the ACBL is the promulgator of the Laws used in its events, so it can rewrite them as it sees fit.
#76
Posted 2013-October-08, 07:47
gnasher, on 2013-October-08, 02:44, said:
Surprise! I was right - someone argues otherwise.
![:D](http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
In that case, the only logical reason for not writing the laws as they see fit in the first place (leaving out the bits that don't apply) is that they didn't want to impose their ideas on the rest of the Western Hemisphere. If that's the case, they could just as well have left the "elections" out of the law book, and imposed their changes by regulation. Of course, given the state of ACBL regulations (where are they? What are they? Who knows?) it may be that the LC thought that would be a bad idea. <shrug>
I have a vague memory that some earlier version of the laws explicitly mentioned the possibility of elections, in the Introduction perhaps, and/or that the places where elections were allowed explicitly did so. However, in a quick glance at the 1997 laws I didn't find anything like that, so either my memory is faulty, or it was an earlier version.
IAC it doesn't really matter the ACBL will do what it wants regardless what anyone else thinks.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#77
Posted 2013-October-08, 07:57
blackshoe, on 2013-October-08, 07:47, said:
I have a vague memory that some earlier version of the laws explicitly mentioned the possibility of elections, in the Introduction perhaps, and/or that the places where elections were allowed explicitly did so. However, in a quick glance at the 1997 laws I didn't find anything like that, so either my memory is faulty, or it was an earlier version.
IAC it doesn't really matter the ACBL will do what it wants regardless what anyone else thinks.
1997 Law 61B Last sentence said:
(My enhancement)
#78
Posted 2013-October-08, 08:03
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#79
Posted 2013-October-08, 18:54
Vampyr, on 2013-October-07, 09:22, said:
barmar, on 2013-October-07, 10:15, said:
![Posted Image](http://media.bridgewinners.com/info_blocks/Advance-NABC-Entry-Teaser.png)
Interesting, I talked recently at our Unit Board about pre registration and offering credit card payment option, and got a very cool response.
(still learning)
#80
Posted 2013-October-08, 19:37