[blackshoe]

"Here are the regulations written by the Spanish Regulating Authority. You have to follow them, but if you don't, nobody will do anything."

Spain isn't the only place with this problem, but wherever it occurs it's a certified Bad Thing™. You shouldn't get to choose which rules you will follow and which not.

[aguahombre]

The contention that a rule should not exist, or should not be initiated, because some people might not obey it or might abuse it --is so feeble, I can't believe it is even discussed.

Rules set an expectation of behavior, whether they are sometimes broken and not adjudicated...or whether they just let us know how the game should be played....or whether they are always enforced.

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-24, 15:02, said:

Bad Thing™

You have "Bad Thing" trademarked? Do I owe you a royalty for reproducing it?

[TylerE]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-24, 15:07, said:

The contention that a rule should not exist, or should not be initiated, because some people might not obey it or might abuse it --is so feeble, I can't believe it is even discussed.

Rules set an expectation of behavior, whether they are sometimes broken and not adjudicated...or whether they just let us know how the game should be played....or whether they are always enforced.

Here I strongly disagree. A rule explicitly not enforced is worse than no rule at all, as it brings every ruling and action of the ruling body into question.

[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on 2013-June-24, 15:16, said:

You have "Bad Thing" trademarked? Do I owe you a royalty for reproducing it?

<Foghorn Leghorn>It's a joke, son, a joke.</Foghorn Leghorn>

But if you want to pay me royalties, feel free.

[Zelandakh]

TylerE, on 2013-June-24, 12:00, said:

1NT (2♦) 2♥ ("Transfer!" and cue deer in headlights look)

After 1NT - (2♦) - 2♥ "Alert" and cue deer in headlights look, do you really think Opener is in any different position than after an announcement? Throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of some bad TD rulings is just silly, like arguing that football should get rid of the offside rule because of a bad linesman's decision. Is this not really an argument for better TD training more than anything else? This should not be a difficult one to get right, even for a club level TD.

[aguahombre]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-24, 15:07, said:

The contention that a rule should not exist, or should not be initiated, because some people might not obey it or might abuse it --is so feeble, I can't believe it is even discussed.

Rules set an expectation of behavior, whether they are sometimes broken and not adjudicated...or whether they just let us know how the game should be played....or whether they are always enforced.

TylerE, on 2013-June-24, 15:32, said:

Here I strongly disagree. A rule explicitly not enforced is worse than no rule at all, as it brings every ruling and action of the ruling body into question.

And, I strongly disagree with misrepresenting a post to the point of hyperbole so that you can strongly disagree with it.

[nige1]

TylerE, on 2013-June-24, 12:00, said:

The problem, from what I have observed, is when the "announcement" is made in a non-announcement situation and it wakes dear pard up. 1NT (2♦) 2♥ ("Transfer!" and cue deer in headlights look)

TylerE, on 2013-June-24, 14:21, said:

Yes, because when it's an alert, it gives us the opportunity to NOT ask (and thus minimize the waking up) when we don't care.

IMO, asking can encumber opponents with more damaging UI constraints (In theory anyway).

TylerE, on 2013-June-24, 13:49, said:

Frankly, YES, I do think announcements are bad. I'd also generally like to see the alert procedure harmonized such that common actions are not alertable to the greatest extend possible, to minimize UI transmitted. For instance, I would support a change such that 1N-p-2♥ is unalertable (or annouced) if it shows spades, but alerted (and not announced) if anything else, including natural.

IMO that would be worse than the current mess because what you judge to be common depends on your individual experience.

aguahombre, on 2013-June-24, 15:07, said:

The contention that a rule should not exist, or should not be initiated, because some people might not obey it or might abuse it -- is so feeble, I can't believe it is even discussed.
Rules set an expectation of behavior, whether they are sometimes broken and not adjudicated...or whether they just let us know how the game should be played....or whether they are always enforced.

TylerE, on 2013-June-24, 15:32, said:

Here I strongly disagree. A rule explicitly not enforced is worse than no rule at all, as it brings every ruling and action of the ruling body into question.

Agree with TylerE. IMO: rules with inadequate deterrents (for example most "Equity" rules) can also leave law-breakers with a long-term profit. Hence, effectively, they, too, encourage law-breaking. Nevertheless, aquahombre is right that the rules should include advice on behaviour and etiquette, (even when virtually unenforceable) -- perhaps in a separate section -- like the old proprieties.

blackshoe, on 2013-June-24, 15:02, said:

Spain isn't the only place with this problem, but wherever it occurs it's a certified Bad Thing™. You shouldn't get to choose which rules you will follow and which not.

blackshoe, on 2013-June-24, 18:56, said:

<Foghorn Leghorn>It's a joke, son, a joke.</Foghorn Leghorn>

Great stuff.