[barmar]

ACBL doesn't have anything analogous the the EBU colored books -- there's no detailed set of regulations that directors can refer to. All we have are a variety of informal ways of communicating TD guidelines, such as Duplicate Decisions, sending email to rulings@acbl.org, and a couple of letters a month that are published in the Bulletin.

So this is as official as it gets for us. Since it comes from ACBL HQ, we generally consider it to be like a regulation.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-February-29, 11:25, said:

The introduction to Duplicate Decisions (DD) suggests that it is the law book rewritten in plain English and can be used by club directors "in place of the law book". I'm not so sure I agree with "rewritten in plain English", nor with "in place of the law book", but that's what it says. Nowhere in DD do I find that anything in it is regarded as regulatory. It is not binding.

Thanks, that clarifies the matter. Of course this means that in any case of an (alleged) discrepancy between a law and the corresponding text in DD the ruling must be made according to the law text and not the DD text.

We have a somewhat analogue decision in Norway: In any case of an (alleged) discrepancy between the Norwegian (official) translation of a law and the corresponding original English (WBF) law text the ruling must be made according to the WBF law txt.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2016-February-29, 15:40, said:

Since it comes from ACBL HQ, we generally consider it to be like a regulation.

"Like a regulation" ≠ "is a regulation."

What do you mean "we"? I hope you're not including me in that.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-February-29, 20:01, said:

"Like a regulation" ≠ "is a regulation."

What do you mean "we"? I hope you're not including me in that.

What else are you going to do, just make things up yourself to fill in the gaps in the regulations?

[blackshoe]

What gaps?

If a situation not covered by law or regulation comes up, I will make a ruling that will allow play to continue, and probably notify the TO and RA of the problem.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-01, 17:41, said:

If a situation not covered by law or regulation comes up, I will make a ruling that will allow play to continue, and probably notify the TO and RA of the problem.

And if they deem that it requires an answer, they will probably communicate it through a medium such as DD, thus bringing us full circle.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-01, 17:41, said:

If a situation not covered by law or regulation comes up, I will make a ruling that will allow play to continue, and probably notify the TO and RA of the problem.

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-02, 04:30, said:

And if they deem that it requires an answer, they will probably communicate it through a medium such as DD, thus bringing us full circle.

This is an assumption for a hypothetical situation. But allow me to point out that the indicated reaction from a body like ACBL would be highly improper.

If ACBL finds that the discrepancy is due to an incomplete ACBL regulation then a revised regulation should of course be issued.

If the problem is found to be within the WBF laws then WBFLC should be notified with a request for a (needed) revision in the laws.

I understand that DD is an internal document within ACBL, and keeping such WBF matters within ACBL would reveal a severe irresponsibility which I am reluctant to even suspect.