[nige1]

nige1, on 2010-November-29, 08:39, said:

IMO, it is better to treat failure to announce a transfer as misexplanation than to try to read the player's mind.
Blackshoe raises an interesting question: how does a director treat a player who deliberately fails to comply with a law or regulation, because he opines that it is "silly"?

pran, on 2010-November-29, 17:07, said:

I believe Law 90B8 says all that is needed.

Quote

failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the Director.

Thanks, Sven. Just the ticket. Do some RAs (e.g. ACBL) waive this law when dealing with habitual announcement and stop violations?

[blackshoe]

Yep.

[mycroft]

Some Laws of Bridge, like some laws IRL, are "rarely enforced to the absolute letter". I have described it several times as "what you did was incorrect, and here's the Law that says so. Yeah, 99 times out of 100, it's not going to be a problem, 99 times out of 100 that it could be a problem, it isn't, but the one time it does cause a problem, and did damage the opponents, you're going to be called on it and penalized." I even had an appeal where that was the gist of the TDs' argument.

I don't think that's different in any RA - even though what weight to give different laws/regulations differs (Nigel, frex, I haven't seen a claim where declarer put his hand back in years, and have only had once where "please show me your hand" wasn't given anything but immediate and ungrudging acceptance (and even then, it was just not ungrudging) in recent memory. If it happens often enough for you to think there's a problem (see the claim thread), then that's a Law that is enforced more strictly in the ACBL than in the EBU).

On this one, I keep trying to tell people that the side being protected by the Announcement is opener's; that this is In Their Own Best Interest. Doesn't help. Makes me almost want to take up WeaSel vs NT on the old Kate Buckman's plan - "but it's important for me to know if it's 15-17 or 16-18" just to see how long it would take for them to realise that I'm right. But I won't, of course.

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2010-November-27, 08:09, said:

(2) would seem the logic answer to this question, but I am not happy about anybody asking for an announcment at each and every of the (say) five 1NT opening bids by the same side against the same opponents.

Why not? What if the opps play 10-12 w/r; 12-14 w/w; 14-16 vul; 15-17 3rd/4th? How am I meant to know after the first instance, or even the second? And even when, in theory, I know what the range is for the 5th hand I do not see why I should need to use up valuable short-term memory space to hold this information.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2010-November-25, 19:09, said:

If a player fails to announce when he is supposed to announce, that is his problem, not yours. If you need to know the range of a 1NT opening, ask. If you don't need to know, make your call in tempo. If something you do or do not do may suggest a call to partner, that's his problem, not yours. Yes, you would like not give him a problem, but sometimes you have no choice — unless you want to quit playing bridge.

Frankly, I think there's an awful lot of concern — probably too much — in England over the possible passing of extraneous information. It happens; live with it.

There is concern on this forum, but whether there is much concern otherwise I am not sure. I have had no rulings based on missed announcements. When my opponents fail to announce in the EBU, WBU, South Africa or the ACBL I always ask. Half the time they tell me: half the time they apologise and tell me. No-one has done anything else.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2010-November-27, 08:09, said:

(2) would seem the logic answer to this question, but I am not happy about anybody asking for an announcment at each and every of the (say) five 1NT opening bids by the same side against the same opponents.

Why not? I do not expect to have to remember no-trump ranges in an Announcement jurisdiction, and I hope and trust that any competent TD would apply a PP at the third time at the latest. Or are you suggesting that if you break the rules enough times it becomes acceptable?

[mycroft]

The people who "expect us" to remember NT ranges (ACBL here) always play always 15-17, and 15 years in still think it's a stupid regulation. I do wish that a) it wasn't clear that I know better enough that I'd be allowed to play WeaSeL vs unAnnounced NT ("but it's important to my decision whether it's 15-17, 16-18, or 15-18!"), and b) that I was still playing a system with a variable NT range that includes 15-17 VUL, so that I could bid it the way they think we "should" and wait for the screams.

15 years on, mind you. And you wonder why I have such little sympathy for people who don't follow this rule, even in jurisdictions where Announcements aren't as entrenched.