[TylerE]

If you're going to require CC's, enforce it at the time that makes sense - when buying the entry. Require at least one valid CC to be present before a pair is seated. Done.

[aguahombre]

TylerE, on 2013-October-07, 08:40, said:

If you're going to require CC's, enforce it at the time that makes sense - when buying the entry. Require at least one valid CC to be present before a pair is seated. Done.

Borrow one from the guy behind you in line, or dig through your handbag at time of purchase to irritate the whole queue.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-07, 08:51, said:

Borrow one from the guy behind you in line, or dig through your handbag at time of purchase to irritate the whole queue.

And with a little luck the ACBL will enter the 21st century and offer the possibility of entering events online/in advance.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-07, 09:22, said:

And with a little luck the ACBL will enter the 21st century and offer the possibility of entering events online/in advance.

Apparently Bridge Winners is offering this for the upcoming NABC.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-October-07, 09:28, said:

Apparently Bridge Winners is offering this for the upcoming NABC.

How are Bridge Winners able to offer ACBL entries?

[ddrankin]

gnasher, on 2013-October-07, 01:36, said:

But he's not granting you permission to change systems for the duration of the event. He is requiring you to play SAYC temporarily until you have properly documented your original system.

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.

[TylerE]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-07, 08:51, said:

Borrow one from the guy behind you in line, or dig through your handbag at time of purchase to irritate the whole queue.

Properly filled out = includes names of players,

[Vampyr]

ddrankin, on 2013-October-07, 09:33, said:

But they are not exempt. They are required by the laws not to vary their system.

Not by the laws, by ACBL regulation. In the EBU you are permitted to change your system every round, if you like.

[billw55]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-07, 08:51, said:

Borrow one from the guy behind you in line, or dig through your handbag at time of purchase to irritate the whole queue.

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.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-07, 09:31, said:

How are Bridge Winners able to offer ACBL entries?

I don't know how they're doing it. But if you go to their site, it says:

[blackshoe]

TylerE, on 2013-October-07, 08:40, said:

If you're going to require CC's, enforce it at the time that makes sense - when buying the entry. Require at least one valid CC to be present before a pair is seated. Done.

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.

[GreenMan]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-07, 09:31, said:

How are Bridge Winners able to offer ACBL entries?

By saying to the ACBL, "We'd like to offer ACBL entries," and the ACBL saying, "OK."

[ddrankin]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-07, 09:40, said:

Not by the laws, by ACBL regulation. In the EBU you are permitted to change your system every round, if you like.

No. By the laws. It is an election made by the ACBL and forms part of the law.

[blackshoe]

ddrankin, on 2013-October-07, 11:51, said:

No. By the laws. It is an election made by the ACBL and forms part of the law.

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.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-07, 12:44, 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.

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.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2013-October-08, 02:44, 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.

Surprise! I was right - someone argues otherwise.

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.

[pran]

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:

Defenders may ask declarer but, unless the Zonal organisation so authorises, not one another.

(My enhancement)

[blackshoe]

Ah. Thanks, Sven.

[jillybean]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-07, 09:22, said:

And with a little luck the ACBL will enter the 21st century and offer the possibility of entering events online/in advance.

barmar, on 2013-October-07, 10:15, said:

I don't know how they're doing it. But if you go to their site, it says:

Interesting, I talked recently at our Unit Board about pre registration and offering credit card payment option, and got a very cool response.

[TylerE]

The credit card thing I can understand. At low transaction levels (And low means anything less than like $10k/month), the fees on a $5 CC charge will be in the neighborhood of $0.36, maybe more, and that's not factoring in the expense of maintaining a merchant bank account, a POS terminal/card reader, etc.