BBO Discussion Forums: Law 46A - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 6 Pages +
  • « First
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Law 46A Is it flawed?

#101 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,128
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2013-December-04, 17:26

View Posthautbois, on 2013-December-04, 17:23, said:

Please consider the deaf and hard-of-hearing and other scenarios where the card is neither touched nor called from dummy in a language understood by opponents.
Eariler, I wrote

View Postnige1, on 2013-November-26, 09:50, said:

The law shouldn't even bother interpreting illegal designations. It should just insist on <suit> <rank> (unless declarer is handicapped in some way). This would save time and unnecessary hassle.
Anyway, I agree with hautbois that rules and players should continue to make blanket allowances for disabilities.

Whatever the official language, card-designation will be more comprehensible if vocabulary is restricted and elegant variation discouraged.
0

#102 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2013-December-04, 17:32

View Postcampboy, on 2013-December-04, 17:15, said:

I for one am not happy to comply with rules which inconvenience everybody for no purpose other than to save the people who write the rules some work. There is absolutely no benefit to players from making "small" an irregularity. If a player gains an advantage by varying the manner in which he calls for cards from dummy, we can deal with that under other existing laws.

Yes, using an irregularity irregularly should be an irregularity.

I regularly call
for top or small;
in between,
I call what I mean.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#103 User is offline   WellSpyder 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,627
  • Joined: 2009-November-30
  • Location:Oxfordshire, England

Posted 2013-December-05, 04:39

View Postaguahombre, on 2013-December-04, 17:32, said:

Yes, using an irregularity irregularly should be an irregularity.

But the question is whether using an irregularity regularly should be an irregularity....
0

  • 6 Pages +
  • « First
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

3 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users