[Zelandakh]

A private club perhaps but if they are going to take table money from visitors then the visitors have a right to expect a game that conforms with the rules.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2013-November-28, 04:10, said:

A private club perhaps but if they are going to take table money from visitors then the visitors have a right to expect a game that conforms with the rules.

Sure, but that game doesn't have to be bridge.

[mycroft]

Ah, they just Endicott Fudged it - "Okay, you can open a 5-card weak 2, but you can't play any conventions after any weak two, nor conventional defences to conventional defences." That way it was in line with the Law.

Or, now, they just call these bids Special Partnership Understandings and ban them with fewer than the "agreed" number of cards. Without regulation from the ZO saying that this power isn't devolved to the clubs (as it explicitly is in the ACBL), the only recourse one has is if they don't make it clear in advance, then try to drop insane punishments on you (as if you were "expected to know").

[Fluffy]

RSClyde, on 2013-November-22, 23:14, said:

That's probably because you snipped out most of the quote that I was responding to voiding it of context. So let me walk you through it slowly:
Art claimed that the only possible legal outcome following a 7ntXX bid was 3 consecutive passes. I pointed out that this is not the case because an insufficient bid could be made and accepted, and yes, it would still need to be agreed by 3 passes, what happened after the insufficient bid was not the point.

Let me explain it to you, even if the rules wanted to take care of this nuance, they would quickly find out that there is a lot more trouble incoming from players not noticing that the last bid is a redouble instead of a normal pass than from insuficent bids.

[the hog]

Vampyr, on 2013-November-28, 03:32, said:

I don't see anything wrong with a club choosing to have whatever rules they want -- provided, of course, that they are not affiliated to an NBO or other organisation.

And provided they do not call the game that they purport to play "Bridge". Tiddleywinks perhaps?

[Vampyr]

the hog, on 2013-November-28, 20:00, said:

And provided they do not call the game that they purport to play "Bridge". Tiddleywinks perhaps?

"Bridge" is not necessarily defined by the Laws. The Laws were not followed (or even particularly well-known) when I played at the kitchen table as a child with my grandparents. We had a house rule that you the right to demand a redeal if you were dealt a Yarborough. A passed-out hand resulted in a goulash. I don't even remember how we dealt with insufficient bids or calls out of turn. Actually I don't think we ever had any of those, but we did have the odd revoke (which we called "renege"). I don't remember how we dealt with those either. My sister and I instituted a schedule of fines you had to pay if you asked who dealt or what the contract was.

But we followed the mechanics of the game, and the game was bridge, albeit an idiosyncratic version. I realise that it is a bit different if you are offering an organised game for paying punters, but obviously the house rules were what the players wanted, since otherwise they would not have been in place, nor would players have attended.

So I still maintain that as long as the club was not affiliated to an organisation that promoted Duplicate Bridge as defined by the Lawbook, no harm no foul.

[campboy]

As you say, it is different if you are offering an organised game for playing customers. If a club does, and advertises "duplicate bridge" without qualification, then customers are entitled to expect a game played according to the lawbook. Similarly, if they advertise it as tiddlywinks, the punters might expect that the official rules of tiddlywinks are being followed Perhaps "I can't believe it's not bridge" would be safer.

[PhilKing]

I have given this thread one star.