[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2026-May-14, 17:01, said:

All of which is true. But not, in fact relevant. And, of course, missing some information - which coincidentally is convenient for North: North *received* UI from South's reaction (at least the way you tell it in the OP. Go ahead and try to convince the TD of that), and took a call that has an LA not suggested by that UI.
Well, if it's that kind of game, you can choose to play in it or not.

Of course it's not relevant which I think helps demonstrates how problematic it is. And yes, this why I'm choosing not to play in sanctioned games.

mycroft, on 2026-May-14, 17:01, said:

zero Law stress? You mean the unsanctioned bridge is *better* at UI issues than the sanctioned game? Or it's only important to you that they're gaming the system if Masterpoints™ are on the line, or you're being charged more to be gamed?

Zero law stress because I'm not paying to play in a game which charges a premium as a sanctioned club which tells me "Games must be conducted in accordance with both the letter and the spirit of ACBL regulations as well as the Laws of Duplicate Bridge." , I have no such expectations at a non sanctioned club.

mycroft, on 2026-May-14, 17:01, said:

It might be the same players. Is it the same directors?

No, but if I play BCD, BM is NOT happy sitting at my table for the session, and the players less so.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2026-May-14, 15:09, said:

"Clubs" are not formally clubs and are certainly not "owned".
They are no-profit sporting associations which are affiliated to one or more Olympic sports (as defined by IOC and including bridge and chess).

Putting your other points aside, is this the root cause of the problems here? Clubs in North America are run as business, many I expect, not returning a great profit and we are very thankful to those who do provide a place to play.
FIGB, EBU, SBU, NZB, ABF (the rest of the world?) are predominately run by volunteers, players who perhaps care more about the integrity of the game than simply wanting to fill seats?


"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil"

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2026-May-14, 17:17, said:

Put me in the camp that is not in favour of cash deposits for appeals. "A license to offend for the rich, and a barrier to justice for the poor." And, especially in the ACBL, there are some rich players - and some not so much.

An appeal rejected as frivolous is an offence that backfired on the player himself. Nobody loses their deposit just because Director had the right to decide as he did, it has to be obvious that the appeal has no basis. Our deposit is/was about the same as an entry fee for a pair in a regional tournament, so even if lost it will not reduce anyone to poverty.

But while I remain mildly in favour of a deposit I agree it is not essential or even important. My quibble was that if still required then it should be made clear and enforced.

[blackshoe]

Jilly points out that clubs in North America often do not have a mechanism for appeals. This is part of a wider problem: clubs often have no written regulations at all. So it's impossible to know whether a club has a mechanism for appeals, or allows the Open+ Chart, or whatever, unless you ask. And even then you might not get a straight answer.

The laws say that the Tournament Organizer (presumably the club) "has a duty to make suitable arrangements for appeals under Law 93" (Law 80B2k). Law 93A says "The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon all appeals if there is no Appeals Committee {or if no alternative arrangement has been made under Law 80B2(k)}, or if such cannot operate without disturbing the orderly progress of the tournament." Here in Rochester at least the Director in charge is effectively the club owner, but in fact I haven't seen an appeal in any form in the last twenty years. I have no idea what a club owner or other director would say to a play who wants to appeal a ruling.