[mycroft]

Remember, the ACBL thinks that they are the final arbiter of the Laws in North America (for historical and copyright reasons), and they are currently willing to go along with the WBF commission to promulgate the same set of Laws that the WBF promulgates for purposes of the rest of the world.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-24, 12:44, said:

The ACBL has to get involved to some extent if this regulation is implemented; it will have to withdraw membership from the clubs in question -- remove them from its website, and in general not support the clubs or allow them to participate in interclub activities, issue masterponts etc.

Yeah, right. Good luck with that.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-September-24, 13:38, said:

Does ACBL have a stated policy that they withdraw the sanctions of clubs that violate the Law?

Even if they do, it seems like the response the club received essentially said "We're going to look the other way" regarding this violation. So they're not enforcing that policy in this case. It's a self-made policy, they can choose to ignore it if they want. What's someone going to do, sue them over this? On what grounds?

From the ACBL Codification:

Quote

2.2 ACBL management has the right to cancel a club director’s accreditation for cause upon thirty days notice to the club director. Either of the following shall constitute “cause” for cancellation of accreditation:
a) direction of a club game out of compliance with ACBL regulation
b) unsuitable club venue.

Also:

Quote

5.1 The ACBL grants a club game sanction on the condition that the club conduct all game sessions in full compliance with ACBL regulations. To retain a sanction the club manager must observe both the letter and the spirit of ACBL regulations.

You really want to be part of an organization that says "these are the rules; we will enforce them or not as we see fit"?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-24, 13:57, said:

I don't get why the WBF allow the ACBL to regard the Laws as optional.

Maybe because they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they disenfranchised one of their largest members?

We're "too big to fail".

[Vampyr]

ahh, on 2013-September-23, 14:43, said:

how many players sort their hands into suits and then rank the cards ?

I would be very surprised if anyone did this.

[akwoo]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-24, 16:58, said:

You really want to be part of an organization that says "these are the rules; we will enforce them or not as we see fit"?

As long as their judgement of 'fit' is reasonable (and reasons are made public) rather than arbitrary, yes. Laws are made to serve people, not the other way around.

In my club there is a legally blind (but not completely blind) regular. It takes her about 2 minutes to sort her cards. When she is playing it makes sense for her to receive cards sorted, and, especially at Howell movements where almost no one knows who is playing the board next, it makes much more sense to go to all-sort rather than just sorting for her.

(As I've stated before, anything resembling strict enforcement of rules would mean no bridge within 80 miles of me.)

[barmar]

akwoo, on 2013-September-30, 10:53, said:

In my club there is a legally blind (but not completely blind) regular. It takes her about 2 minutes to sort her cards. When she is playing it makes sense for her to receive cards sorted, and, especially at Howell movements where almost no one knows who is playing the board next, it makes much more sense to go to all-sort rather than just sorting for her.

There's practically universal understanding that adjustments should be made for exceptional situations. So just as we already relax the "must shuffle" rule when you're passing your cards to the infirm player, surely we would relax the "must sort" rule when the infirm player is passing their cards (although someone else at the table could sort her cards for her after the hand is over).

[blackshoe]

akwoo, on 2013-September-30, 10:53, said:

As long as their judgement of 'fit' is reasonable (and reasons are made public) rather than arbitrary, yes.

Won't happen.

akwoo, on 2013-September-30, 10:53, said:

Laws are made to serve people, not the other way around.

In the broad general sense laws are (or should be) made to protect individual rights and otherwise to allow people to live as they wish. In a game, the rules, whatever you call them, are made to ensure every player is treated fairly, and all know what the rules are — which can't happen if the rules are malleable according to the whim of some small group.

[akwoo]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-30, 13:24, said:

In the broad general sense laws are (or should be) made to protect individual rights and otherwise to allow people to live as they wish. In a game, the rules, whatever you call them, are made to ensure every player is treated fairly, and all know what the rules are — which can't happen if the rules are malleable according to the whim of some small group.

We just have very different political philosophies.

In my view, laws are meant to be a written summary and record of a societal consensus on the appropriate collective action to take in specified situations. (And, with an appropriate notion of 'society' - this applies to both laws and rules.)

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-30, 13:24, said:

In the broad general sense laws are (or should be) made to protect individual rights and otherwise to allow people to live as they wish. In a game, the rules, whatever you call them, are made to ensure every player is treated fairly, and all know what the rules are — which can't happen if the rules are malleable according to the whim of some small group.

akwoo, on 2013-September-30, 17:10, said:

We just have very different political philosophies. In my view, laws are meant to be a written summary and record of a societal consensus on the appropriate collective action to take in specified situations. (And, with an appropriate notion of 'society' - this applies to both laws and rules.)

IMO those are Utopian views. In practice, laws seem to be written by and for lawyers.

[blackshoe]

One of the better players (expert, or very close to it) in the area has decided to ignore this new regulation on the grounds that it's illegal. Last Tuesday, in fact, he was very vocal about it. I don't know if the directors said anything to him, or how it will pan out.

[Siegmund]

Quote

One of the better players (expert, or very close to it) in the area has decided to ignore this new regulation on the grounds that it's illegal. Last Tuesday, in fact, he was very vocal about it.

Exactly what I would have done, if this were tried in my area, to be honest. (That and reminded unit board members and/or club managers of the fact, and expected the immediate retraction of the rule once they were aware it was illegal.)

[blackshoe]

Siegmund, on 2013-October-12, 11:10, said:

Exactly what I would have done, if this were tried in my area, to be honest. (That and reminded unit board members and/or club managers of the fact, and expected the immediate retraction of the rule once they were aware it was illegal.)

It is also in fact what I've been doing. OTOH, I notified the instigator of this that it was illegal before it was implemented, and he and other club owners have acknowledged that, but the regulation has not been rescinded, and I don't expect it will be.

[barmar]

I understand that it's against the Laws, so you do have the right to object, but why bother? There are so many other areas where people bend the laws or ignore regulations, and they're more likely to be detrimental to the game (like not putting out a pass card on the last round of bidding, or not pausing after skip bids), why pick on one that could actually be an improvement? Just to be anal about the letter of the law? What's the old Englsh saying (made famous in "Oliver Twist")? "The law is an ass".

Clearly the intent of the Law requiring shuffling before replacing the hand is to ensure that the next player has no UI about how the hand was played at the previous table. Sorting the cards has the same effect as shuffling the cards. We've even had people claim in these forums that after the minimal shuffling that many players do, they can often infer how the hand was played (although I was dubious), so sorting the cards would go further in achieving that goal.

[blackshoe]

Samuel Adams said "When the Law is an Ass, the best thing to do is ignore it." That's what I'm doing. Apparently the club owners have decided they're just going to ignore those of us who have decided to ignore their illegal regulation.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-12, 21:15, said:

Samuel Adams said "When the Law is an Ass, the best thing to do is ignore it." That's what I'm doing. Apparently the club owners have decided they're just going to ignore those of us who have decided to ignore their illegal regulation.

So the question is which law is more assinine, the one that requires sorting cards or the one requiring obeying club regulations.