[barmar]

I don't think we're ever going to rid the Laws of judgement calls. One of the things that makes this game so interesting is that it's about coming up with clever ways to encode information in the limited actions that are available, and much of that involves subjective meanings of things, inferences, etc. This means that when something goes amiss, we have to deal with its effects on those inferences. It's hard to imagine an objective solution short of something like "Cancel the board, award artificial scores", which is currently something we reserve only for irregularities from which there's truly no way to try to get an ordinary bridge result. But these types of irregularities happen too often to make that feel acceptable.

Smart people have been revising the Laws for about a century. Surely if there were some way around this, we wouldn't still have so many laws that necessitate judgement rulings. They just keep tweaking the language, in an attempt to parametrize the judgement calls.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-02, 17:32, said:

I agree with this. The example I was thinking about was that gymnasts don't step off the mat on purpose, but they still get penalised.

An idea I have had is to augment the Laws with PPs for infractions. This would achieve a "bridge result", but the OS would still suffer consequences.

We already have laws that allow PPs for various infractions. The problem is not lack of availability of PPs, it's lack of will on the part of TDs to impose them.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-02, 19:53, said:

We already have laws that allow PPs for various infractions. The problem is not lack of availability of PPs, it's lack of will on the part of TDs to impose them.

Well, yes, but this is no solution unless everyone does it, or else the club that awarded PPs for COOT, IB etc would become unpopular and unable to compete. Better if it was mandated or highly recommended in the lawbook.

[blackshoe]

TFLB already says that when a player fails to do something he "shall" do, he should incur a PP "more often than not". Of failure to do what he "must" do, the book says that is "a serious matter indeed". Seems like a strong recommendation to me. And yet TDs routinely ignore that whole paragraph.

I don't particularly like the idea of mandatory PPs. Just as I didn't like "Zero Tolerance" instead of "TDs, you have Law 74A2. Use it!"

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-02, 23:57, said:

TFLB already says that when a player fails to do something he "shall" do, he should incur a PP "more often than not". Of failure to do what he "must" do, the book says that is "a serious matter indeed". Seems like a strong recommendation to me. And yet TDs routinely ignore that whole paragraph.

I think the majority of players and directors simply don't take club games seriously, and they don't expect rigid adherence to these laws in games they're playing just for a fun afternoon/night out.

[blackshoe]

It's not just club TDs.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-03, 11:10, said:

It's not just club TDs.

True. Club TDs grow up to be tournament TDs.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-February-03, 09:44, said:

I think the majority of players and directors simply don't take club games seriously, and they don't expect rigid adherence to these laws in games they're playing just for a fun afternoon/night out.

I play in clubs where the players and directors take the bridge pretty seriously. EBU affiliated clubs usually have ladders, team competitions, trophies and the like, plus they send teams to the National Inter-Club Knockout, county and regional events like the Garden Cities, and hold heats for the National Pairs competitions.

The players you are talking about would not get value from any of those things. In England, they play at non-affiliated clubs. Probably in the USA too.

But it is probably best to limit Laws discussions to affiliated clubs, as non-affiliated clubs will not adhere to the national regulations and will probably have their own versions of how to apply the Laws.

[mycroft]

I've heard people, especially pros and pro-wannaplays, whose reaction to club games is "what do you expect? it's a club game. Don't go in expecting they'll play bridge, and you'll have a nice time."

I have issues with that. But I don't think we are going to make the game easy enough for TDs that don't care to successfully rule, unless we go with the Burn Solution - and then there won't be a game of bridge.

As people well know here, my answer is education - worked examples, case studies, discussions on whether X or Y applies in this hand, collated officially and handed out on a regular basis by the relevant NBO Laws Commission. Just like my fellow-TD-the-baseball-umpire gets (along with a test, but he does semi-pro and national level games; not sure the rec league umpires are that hardcore); just like all the lacrosse coaches and referees get (even the age 10-12 coaches); just like M:tG Judges get.

But bridge is the only game that I know of where lack of knowledge of the rules, even at the professional level, is a point of honour; so it will never happen.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-03, 14:47, said:

But it is probably best to limit Laws discussions to affiliated clubs, as non-affiliated clubs will not adhere to the national regulations and will probably have their own versions of how to apply the Laws.

Practically all US clubs are affiliated with ACBL, so they can issue masterpoints.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-February-03, 19:49, said:

Practically all US clubs are affiliated with ACBL, so they can issue masterpoints.

But do these casual players want masterpoints? In the EBU there is a fee per table for affiliated games. So a game with tthe same entry fee could use the extra money to:

• Increase the prizes
  
• Provide catering for special events
  
• Subsidise the club's away weekends, if they have them
  
• or just reduce the table fees or membership dues
  
• and of course if the club lacks a duplicating machine or electronic scorers, they can save up more quickly to buy them. I know, that is not very important since all clubs have them by now. But there may be other things like a new computer, refurbishing the premises if they own them, hiring adequate staff to man the bar if they have one. Even hiring directors if the club doesn't have enough willing and able volunteers.

There are a fair number of large non-affiliated clubs in London, and they are thriving.

And anyway, people who want to amass piles of masterpoints can't get enough in club games to achieve that. At least in England.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-03, 20:06, said:

But do these casual players want masterpoints? In the EBU there is a fee per table for affiliated games. So a game with tthe same entry fee could use the extra money to:
...
And anyway, people who want to amass piles of masterpoints can't get enough in club games to achieve that. At least in England.

People like winning things, even meaningless things like masterpoints. They're not expecting to get lots of them, but they get a little thrill when they see a number next to their name int the recap every now and then, and it's nice to see the total increase in the masterpoint report on the back page of the bulletin.

From what I've read of the history of bridge, attendance at duplicate bridge clubs really surged when masterpoints were first instituted (I think it was the American Bridge League at the time).

[jallerton]

pran, on 2017-January-11, 02:49, said:

The 2007 laws had to be delayed until 2008 due to the very unfortunate wording in the original Law 27.
They just couldn't live with this error and the year had changed before they managed to correct it.

My Law Book still contains a "very unfortunate" wording in Law 27. I've had this version for nearly ten years, but I didn't realise that it had been corrected so long ago!

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2017-February-02, 10:26, said:

Well, we are instructed not to make decisions for the players, nor to pass information about what we learned about the thought patterns of the IBer, so we can only say whether we believe there is or is not a suitable replacement, not what it would be.

Perhaps someone could correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the English guidance was not to tell them that there is a replacement, rather make them ask exhaustive questions about the opponents' methods and thereby perhaps work it out for themselves.

Quote

I believe that the steadying stream of "make it right, get a bridge result" as opposed to penalties is an issue, because I simply believe that you should pay a price for doing something wrong. It's not that it's an incentive to not do it or anything, just, like most other games or sports, "this is what you don't do. If you do it anyway, here's what happens."

Check out Laws 31 and 32. I honestly don't understand the lawmakers' motivation for making it optional to follow legal procedures.