[PrecisionL]

I forgot my solution to the ACBL prohibition against transfers by responder to a 2♣ Precision Opener promising 5+♣ and maybe a 4-card major.

Since Dwayne and I do NOT open 2♣ with a 4-card Major (Hxxx+), we have used a 2♦ response as asking for a 3-card major suit (maybe Hx in a strong hand). Thus, the adjunct is that 2♣ (p) 2M = constructive, but not forcing and less than G.I. values.

We will probably get called on this sometime this year.

Larry

[blackshoe]

Frankly, if I were playing such a method, and "got called on it", I'd ask the director to show me the pertinent regulation. In writing.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on May 31 2008, 08:44 PM, said:

Frankly, if I were playing such a method, and "got called on it", I'd ask the director to show me the pertinent regulation. In writing.

Frankly if I were the director, I'd say no.

[blackshoe]

When I was learning how to be a director, I was taught that one should always read rulings "from the book". I don't always do it because, around here, players have no patience for it. But if a player asked me to do it, I would never refuse. I've heard several excuses from directors as to why they can't read some ruling or other from the book. "I don't have a book here." "It's in the car." Blah-blah-blah. Such a director is either incompetent or lazy, or both.

Directors make wrong rulings. They're human. But they won't learn to make the right rulings if they aren't called on their mistakes. If I asked a director to read something "from the book" and he refused, I would appeal. I feel strongly that this particular ruling is wrong, and that I would be wrong to just let it go. YMMV.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Jun 1 2008, 10:47 AM, said:

When I was learning how to be a director, I was taught that one should always read rulings "from the book". I don't always do it because, around here, players have no patience for it. But if a player asked me to do it, I would never refuse. I've heard several excuses from directors as to why they can't read some ruling or other from the book. "I don't have a book here." "It's in the car." Blah-blah-blah. Such a director is either incompetent or lazy, or both.

Directors make wrong rulings. They're human. But they won't learn to make the right rulings if they aren't called on their mistakes. If I asked a director to read something "from the book" and he refused, I would appeal. I feel strongly that this particular ruling is wrong, and that I would be wrong to just let it go. YMMV.

Oh I agree it's wrong. I also don't believe the director is under any obligation to show you diddly. You of all people, Mr. Stickler for the laws, should agree unless you can find a rule that says he has to.

[blackshoe]

If a director makes a ruling from memory, and someone asks him to read it "from the book", then in effect that person is saying "I believe you, Mr. Director sir, are in violation of Law 81B2 (

Quote

The Director is bound by these Laws and by supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring organization.

) I'm from Missouri - show me where I'm wrong.

You are correct that nothing in Law explicitly requires a director to comply with such a request — but as I said above, any refusal to comply with it should IMO lead directly to an appeal.