[gnasher]

VixTD, on 2014-December-19, 07:59, said:

Blue Book regulation 2E1:

Well, maybe.

The first three sentences do no more than summarise the effects of several of the laws. Explaining the possible consequences of an action isn't the same as discouraging the action, and showing unusual interest is different from showing ordinary interest.

I'm not sure what the intent of the final sentence is - does it refer to all questions, or just to those that exhibit "unusual interest"? But I agree that the actual effect is probably to discourage the asking of all questions.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that if the approach should be to not ask questions, it follows that one should examine the opponents' system card at the beginning of a round. It follows from that (again, it seems to me) that the director, in controlling the movement, must allow adequate time for that examination in every round. This raises the question how much time is "adequate". Certainly the complexity of the card may affect that. How complex a card do we wish to take into account? Or do we wish to limit the complexity of the card in some way? For example, a full "two-card" system, where you might for example play 2/1 in certain vulnerabilities and/or positions and Precision in others, is a lot more complex than a bog-standard 2/1 or Acol (or whatever) card. Even some "one-card" systems may be seen as complex, if they're unfamiliar (Meckwell, Fantunes, Meckwell Lite?) So how much time do we add? Do we adjust downwards the time given for actual play of the boards? We could do that. So maybe 15 minutes a round becomes 3 minutes to examine the card + 13 minutes for the two boards, plus 1 minute "move/admin" time. That might work. Adds about half an hour to the session, though.

I'm just sort of thinking out loud here. Comments?

[pran]

The Blue Book regulation 2E1 as quoted is no regulation, it is a warning about the dangers when asking questions and advices on how to minimize the risk of finding oneself in UI difficulties. As such the quoted text is very sensible, perfectly understandable (except possibly by SB's?) and need no change.

A typical event for pairs in Norway has 3 or 4 Boards/round and the allotted time is then 23 or 30 minutes/round all inclusive. The players then checks the front page of the convention card to get a general idea of opponents' systems and then rely on checking further or asking when they feel the need for clarification. They most certainly do not want to have or spend say 3 minutes extra for examining Convention Cards in each round.

And this works beatifully here so I just say "If it ain't broke then don't fix it" and "don't create problems where none exists".

[blackshoe]

"It" may or may not be broken in Norway. That says nothing about whether "it" is broken somewhere else.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-20, 14:52, said:

"It" may or may not be broken in Norway. That says nothing about whether "it" is broken somewhere else.

Well, if it is broken elsewhere then maybe someone should investigate why it is broken there and not in Norway (or other places) where it is not broken?

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-20, 11:08, said:

How complex a card do we wish to take into account? Or do we wish to limit the complexity of the card in some way? For example, a full "two-card" system, where you might for example play 2/1 in certain vulnerabilities and/or positions and Precision in others, is a lot more complex than a bog-standard 2/1 or Acol (or whatever) card.

This is presumably why you're not permitted to play a two-card system in EBU events with short (<7 board) rounds.

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2014-December-31, 09:40, said:

This is presumably why you're not permitted to play a two-card system in EBU events with short (<7 board) rounds.

Probably. In the ACBL, the only restriction on two-card systems, afaik, is that you have to pre-alert them.