[BudH]

I sent a polite inquiry to ACBL last week asking when we would be told when the new laws would be used in ACBL play. Presumably that date was going to be by the WBF mandated 30 September 2017 date.

Surprisingly, I was told "it's possible" the "implementation date" will occur by the end of September and that the "effective date" will likely be pushed back, possibly as far back as 01 January 2018.

It also said we should hear something by late September.

[barmar]

ACBL seems to be targeting the beginning of 2018 for other regulation changes: dropping the STOP card, the new convention charts. So it seems like ot wouldn't be unreasonable to switch the to the new Laws at the same time.

[blackshoe]

Except that puts the ACBL in the position of saying "Screw you WBF, we'll implement it when we feel like it." I dunno, maybe they're willing to do that.

I note that other regulating authorities have petitioned the WBF for permission to delay implementation (for good reason, IMO, in the cases of which I'm aware). I doubt the ACBL wants to do that.

[nige1]

Should we have qualms about the WBF encouraging NBO's to modify Bridge-rules to suit their members?
For example, the ACBL

• Recommended that a player, in receipt of UI, make the bid he would make without UI..
• Insisted on allowing players to ask "having none", when partner showed-out in a suit.
• Decided to get rid of stop-cards.

[BudH]

I just checked the ACBL website and when I clicked on the link (http://cdn.acbl.org/...cate-Bridge.pdf) for the laws of the game, it was the new 2017 ACBL published version (and the file was created and last modified last Thursday August 24). And it also says on the third page that the effective date is September 25, 2017 (the date I thought would be the most likely choice, being the last Monday in September).

File name: Laws-of-Duplicate-Bridge.pdf
File size: 802 KB
Title: laws of duplicate bridge 02_2017rev.indd
Creation Date: 8/24/2017, 3:08:09 PM
Modification Date: 8/24/2017, 4:08:06 PM
Creator: Adobe InDesign CC 2017 (Macintosh)

Additionally, the Ruling the Game column in the September 2017 ACBL Bulletin (to be mailed in the next few weeks but accessible online) starts with the sentence: "The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2017 are scheduled to take effect in the ACBL on Sept 25."


Clearly in conflict with the email I received from ACBL last week which said the effective date would be later than September and possibly January 1. Additionally, checking Baron Barclay Bridge Supplies for possible purchase of a new ACBL 2017 law book, their website says "a new version 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge will be coming out approximately October 20, 2017".

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2017-August-27, 01:31, said:

Should we have qualms about the WBF encouraging NBO's to modify Bridge-rules to suit their members?
For example, the ACBL

• Recommended that a player, in receipt of UI, make the bid he would make without UI..
• Insisted on allowing players to ask "having none", when partner showed-out in a suit.
• Decided to get rid of stop-cards.

That first item is outwith the law, and I think most ACBL TDs understand that. Where did you see it?
The second item...

Quote

Law 61B. Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke
1. Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led.
2.(a) Dummy may ask declarer [but see Law 43B2(b)].
(b) Dummy may not ask a defender and Law 16B may apply.
3. Defenders may ask declarer and one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized information).

Are you suggesting that this law, or some part of it, only exists because the ACBL insisted on it? If so, how many others objected? What is your evidence?

The third item is a matter of regulation which the laws leave up to regulating authorities. I understand your desire for a single comprehensive set of rules, with no authority by anyone below the WBFLC to change any of it, but that's not the way it is now, and I doubt very much it will ever be that way.

[BudH]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-27, 18:33, said:

Are you suggesting that this law, or some part of it, only exists because the ACBL insisted on it? If so, how many others objected? What is your evidence?

My first ACBL duplicate game (just before my 25th birthday) was March 31, 1987. I remember distinctly how many players were complaining that the laws changed that day and no longer could you say "no spades, partner" when on defense.

I also remember there was moaning, groaning, and complaining for months, so much so that I think it likely the ACBL (and perhaps a few other NBOs) asked for a zonal option to restore allowance for defenders to ask partner if out of a suit. The zonal option when into effect fairly quickly - it took less than two years, perhaps close to one year.

[gordontd]

BudH, on 2017-August-27, 19:22, said:

My first ACBL duplicate game (just before my 25th birthday) was March 31, 1987. I remember distinctly how many players were complaining that the laws changed that day and no longer could you say "no spades, partner" when on defense.

I also remember there was moaning, groaning, and complaining for months, so much so that I think it likely the ACBL (and perhaps a few other NBOs) asked for a zonal option to restore allowance for defenders to ask partner if out of a suit. The zonal option when into effect fairly quickly - it took less than two years, perhaps close to one year.

That certainly matches my understanding of what happened, though I did not play bridge then. I don't think there were any other NBOs than the ACBL involved.

[blackshoe]

BudH, on 2017-August-27, 19:22, said:

My first ACBL duplicate game (just before my 25th birthday) was March 31, 1987. I remember distinctly how many players were complaining that the laws changed that day and no longer could you say "no spades, partner" when on defense.

I also remember there was moaning, groaning, and complaining for months, so much so that I think it likely the ACBL (and perhaps a few other NBOs) asked for a zonal option to restore allowance for defenders to ask partner if out of a suit. The zonal option when into effect fairly quickly - it took less than two years, perhaps close to one year.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.