[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Apr 25 2008, 11:43 AM, said:

Ok, as I suspected (though I didn't want to say so until reading) that is nothing more than your own interpretation. It's not unreasonable but I completely disagree, as for one thing it makes no sense to disallow in the first place, and for another it would conflict with the fact you can look at your opponents' convention card at any time.

Keep in mind that:

Quote

(questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made)

is relatively new, as a clarification (ie., you could always do it but the rules didn't say you could do it). So while the rules appear to say that, for declarer at least, he can ask only about an opposing call or card play conventions, I would interpret it otherwise. The clarification is that when the rules say opposing calls they actual and available opposing calls, it was not designed to add a power to a single point in the rules.

However, that is my interpretation of Gary Blaiss' comments on the 1997 edition.

http://www.blakjak.d...uk/law_acbl.htm

Quote

Questions

While the Laws do not extend to players the right to subject opponents to inquisitions, the Laws provide some latitude in asking about calls. Law 20 now makes clear with the addition of a parenthetical phrase that questions may be asked about relevant calls available but not made as well as calls that were actually made. Please remember that bridge is a game of "full disclosure." To continually question and cross-examine opponents hoping that they will say something that can justify a request for an adjustment later is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Laws.

Whether you feel that the opponents are not answering your questions or that the opponents are asking too many questions, rather than fuss with one another it is best to summon an objective person (tournament director) to resolve the matter and get on with the bidding or play.

[ArtK78]

Pardon me for treating this as a lawyer, since that is what I am. But most of the members of the Laws Commission are lawyers, and laws are usually drafted by lawyers.

One of the basic principals of interpretation of laws is that the laws say what they mean. If there is a way of saying something different and the law doesn't do so, the failure to do so is intentional.

So, for example, in Paragraph 1 of Law 20, Section F, the law relating to asking questions about bids during the auction, the law specifically states that questions about relevant bids not made are permissible. Furthermore, there is a reference to Law 75C which talks about questions that are permissible and the requirement that the answers must include all relevant information about the partnership methods. In Paragraph 2 of Law 20, Section F, the law relating to asking questions about bids after the auction is closed, there is no such statement about questions concerining relevant bids not made and there is no cross reference to Law 75C. One should not assume that this is an oversight.

One might argue that the parenthetical language in Paragraph 1 is meant to define what is meant by "a full explanation of the opponents' auction." If that were the case, then the law would include a statement that "For purposes of Law 20, the term 'a full explanation of the opponents' auction' and similar language includes an explanation of all bids made and all relevant bids not made." But Law 20 does not include such a statement. So, Law 20 does not mean that.

While Gary Blaiss' comments about Law 20 is certainly in the spirit of full disclosure, it is not what the law says. So his interpretation of the importance of the parenthetical language in Paragraph 1 as it applies to other situations may not be correct.

[jtfanclub]

ArtK78, on Apr 25 2008, 12:53 PM, said:

Pardon me for treating this as a lawyer, since that is what I am. But most of the members of the Laws Commission are lawyers, and laws are usually drafted by lawyers.

We may have had overlap here.

Gary Blaiss was, at the time, the Chief Director of the ACBL. The paragraph I quoted was from the ACBL Bridge Bulletin, in a series of articles designed in part to tell directors how to handle the new rules. In my mind, it's closer to a Supreme Court decision than a simple opinion.

How you choose to interpret it is up to you.

[ArtK78]

jtfanclub, on Apr 25 2008, 01:01 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Apr 25 2008, 12:53 PM, said:

Pardon me for treating this as a lawyer, since that is what I am.  But most of the members of the Laws Commission are lawyers, and laws are usually drafted by lawyers.

We may have had overlap here.

Gary Blaiss was, at the time, the Chief Director of the ACBL. The paragraph I quoted was from the ACBL Bridge Bulletin, in a series of articles designed in part to tell directors how to handle the new rules. In my mind, it's closer to a Supreme Court decision than a simple opinion.

How you choose to interpret it is up to you.

Actually, it is not.

Gary Blaiss, in his position as Chief Tournament Director of the ACBL, is entitled to interpret the Laws as he sees fit. He can even write articles in the ACBL Bulletin announcing how he interprets the Laws. And his opinion may carry great weight and influence over the ACBL Tournament Directors. That doesn't make his interpretation correct.

The Laws state that a Tournament Director is bound by the Laws. The Laws also state that it is one of the Tournament Director's duties to administer and interpret the Laws. The Laws do not say that any interpretation of the Laws by a Tournament Director, even a Chief Tournament Director, is the last word.

Tournament Directors do have a special legal status when it comes to interpreting the Laws of Bridge, in that their interpretation of the laws to an appeals committee may not be overruled. However, a TD's interpretation of the Laws can be appealed to the National Laws Commission.

So, in a sense, the National Laws Commission is the "Supreme Court" when it comes to interpretation of the Laws of Bridge.

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Apr 25 2008, 12:53 PM, said:

Pardon me for treating this as a lawyer, since that is what I am. But most of the members of the Laws Commission are lawyers, and laws are usually drafted by lawyers.

Luckily a director's call is not a legal proceeding, so common sense is allowed to be applied.

[blackshoe]

Actually, although I believe the ACBL disagrees, the WBF's position is that the WBFLC is the "supreme court". Or perhaps the WBF BoD, since they will validate any WBFLC decision.

Art is correct that the laws say what they mean. That does not, unfortunately, equate to that they say what Art says they mean.

I would suggest asking the ACBLLC or WBFLC for an interpretation on this question, but I'd have to add "don't hold your breath waiting for it."

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on Apr 25 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

Actually, although I believe the ACBL disagrees, the WBF's position is that the WBFLC is the "supreme court". Or perhaps the WBF BoD, since they will validate any WBFLC decision.

Art is correct that the laws say what they mean. That does not, unfortunately, equate to that they say what Art says they mean.

I would suggest asking the ACBLLC or WBFLC for an interpretation on this question, but I'd have to add "don't hold your breath waiting for it." 

At least I have professional credentials which state that I have some experience in determining what a law says and what it does not say. But I would not presume to say that I am the final word on what the Law says (no one died and made me Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - that only happened to Chief Justice Roberts). I just know what I think it says.

[blackshoe]

The rules of a game, call them what you will, are not "laws" in the sense of your professional credentials, Art. I'm not so sure those credentials lend anything to your credibility on this topic. Or, for that matter, to the credibility of the drafters of the laws of bridge.

Re: "I just know what I think it says", yeah. Me too. My "professional credentials" aren't nearly so impressive as yours, but I do have this TD card the ACBL gave me.

[jtfanclub]

blackshoe, on Apr 25 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

Actually, although I believe the ACBL disagrees, the WBF's position is that the WBFLC is the "supreme court". Or perhaps the WBF BoD, since they will validate any WBFLC decision.

No, the WBFLC is the Legislators. They actually wrote it.
The BOD are the Executives, they validate or repudiate it.

It is the Tournament Directors who are the judges. And in the United States, the head judge at the time of the change was Gary Blaiss.

When you ask the ACBL about how to rule on something, the answer will not come from the Laws Commission or the Board of Directors. It comes from the National Tournament Directors, usually Beye or Flader. It is their job (and they are employees of the ACBL, unlike the Laws Commission members) to interpret the laws. While in theory for a point of law you could go straight to the legislature for their opinion, I don't know of a single case where the Commission has overruled the National Directors on their opinions.

Gary Blaiss' articles are about as official as they come. If you feel your opinion is equal to his, well, so be it.

[babalu1997]

helene_t, on Apr 25 2008, 07:39 AM, said:

Did u really have a 5-card hearts or was it a typo?

If your agreement is to play 5-card majors but you haven't discussed whether you play 5533 or 5542, just say so.

Btw (off-topic) a 1NT rebid shows more than 15 points here. It would be 18-19 playing a 15-17 1NT opening, don't know what is standard among weak-notrumpers but my guess is that 1NT should show 16-18 or 17-19, hence 2NT being (19)20. Or maybe the 1NT range should be broader, 16-19 or 17-20.

Thanks Helene, y it was a typo, i dd have 4 hearts instead.

And with the partner in question, 1nt is 12-14, 1nt rebid 15-17, 2nt rebid 18-20.

The 2 no trump rebid is alerted because of the 20, and that is different from sayc which is 18-19.

The opponent asked the question trying to decide whether or not to hold his ace of clubs and prevent my access to dummy.

That very question made me place the ace of clubs in his hand, but wherever the ace of clubs was I had already prepared an alternative entry to dummy anyway unbeknownst to him.

In the end, his action gave me an overtrick, but I still think that questions such as these may end up helping partner and/or declarer count the hand.

The answers concerning the law make it even more confusing, and honestly-- sometimes I dont know what to answer but I have never had occasion to oprn a 2 card club suit-- ie-- i do not belive that is part of the system i play.

[jtfanclub]

babalu1997, on Apr 25 2008, 03:25 PM, said:

The answers concerning the law make it even more confusing,

The short answer for this is, if they ask you a question about your bidding, you need to answer it. If you think the question gave information to their partner, you need to call the director.

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on Apr 25 2008, 03:09 PM, said:

The rules of a game, call them what you will, are not "laws" in the sense of your professional credentials, Art. I'm not so sure those credentials lend anything to your credibility on this topic. Or, for that matter, to the credibility of the drafters of the laws of bridge.

Re: "I just know what I think it says", yeah. Me too.  My "professional credentials" aren't nearly so impressive as yours, but I do have this TD card the ACBL gave me.

I beg to differ with you.

They are Laws. The rules of bridge are not called the Rules of Bridge - they are called the Laws of Bridge.

Many of those involved in drafting the Laws of Bridge are lawyers. I note one in particular - Amalya Kearse, who is a Senior Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - one step below the Supreme Court.

By the way, I have a TD card somewhere, but I have not directed a game in about 20 years.

Here is the Preface to the North American Edition of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge (1997):

PREFACE TO THE NORTH AMERICAN EDITION
LAWS OF DUPLICATE CONTRACT BRIDGE 1997

The first Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge were published in 1928. There have been successive revisions in 1933, 1935, 1943, 1949, 1963, 1975 and 1987.
Through the Thirties, the Laws were promulgated by the Portland Club of London and the Whist Club of New York. From the Forties onwards, the American Contract Bridge League Laws Commission has replaced the Whist Club, while the British Bridge League and European Bridge League have supplemented the Portland Club's efforts. The 1975 Laws were also promulgated by the World Bridge Federation Laws Commission as they have been in 1987 and the current version.

This latest revision supersedes the 1987 Code on September 1, 1997. Zonal authorities may implement the new Code any time after March 1, 1997. In the American Contract Bridge League the revised laws are effective on May 27, 1997.

In the 1975 Laws and prior, words such as may, should, shall and must were used without much discrimination; in 1987 they were rationalized, and the practice is continued in the current Laws. When these Laws say that a player "may" do something ("any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction"), the failure to do it is in no way wrong. A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("... dummy spreads his hand in front of him ...") establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalized. When a player "should" do something ("A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement ..."), his failure to do it is an infraction of law, which will jeopardize his rights, but which will incur a procedural penalty only seldom. In contrast, when these Laws say that a player "shall" do something ("No player shall take any action until the Director has explained ..."), a violation will be penalized more often than not. The strongest word, "must" ("before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards"), indicates that violation is regarded as serious indeed. Note that "may" becomes very strong in the negative: "may not" is a stronger injunction than "shall not", just short of "must not".

A great deal of effort has been expended to make these Laws easy to use. References from one law to another have been made more explicit. The hundreds of headings and sub-headings can help a Director find the section of a law that is applicable to the facts of a case (these headings are for convenience of reference only; headings are not considered to be part of the Laws). The Table of Contents at the front of the book and the alphabetical index at the back should make a Director's task lighter.

The Drafting Committee notes with sorrow the passing of many previous contributors to the Laws whose imprint remains in the new Code - Jean Besse and Colin Harding of the WBF Laws Committee, and B. Jay Becker, Easley Blackwood and Alfred Sheinwold of the ACBL Laws Commission. We also acknowledge the efforts of Stewart Wheeler of the Portland Club for his help and advice.

The Drafting Committee acknowledges with gratitude the work of Rena Hetzer, who acted as secretary and liaison in the preparation of this revision.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Promulgating Bodies
THE LAWS COMMISSION
of the American Contract Bridge League
EDGAR KAPLAN, Co-Chairman
RALPH COHEN, Co-Chairman
Karen Allison Jeffrey Polisner
Richard Goldberg Eric Rodwell
Amalya Kearse George Rosenkranz
Sami Kehela Roger Stern
Chip Martel Peggy Sutherlin
David McGee Katie Thorpe
Robert Wolff


DRAFTING COMMITTEE
EDGAR KAPLAN, Chairman
Karen Allison Grattan Endicott
Ralph Cohen Chip Martel
Roger Stern


THE LAWS COMMISSION OF
THE WORLD BRIDGE FEDERATION
EDGAR KAPLAN, Chairman (USA)
Ralph Cohen, Vice Chairman (USA)
Ton Kooijman, Vice Chairman (NETHERLANDS)
Jens Auken (DENMARK) Robert A. Howes (USA)
Max Bavin (GREAT BRITAIN) Jaime Ortiz-Patiño (SWITZERLAND)
Carlos Cabanne (ARGENTINA) Jeffrey Polisner (USA)
Claude Dadoun (FRANCE) Rebecca Rogers (USA)
José Damiani (FRANCE) Willian Schoder (USA)
David Davenport (PORTLAND CLUB) John Wignall (NEW ZEALAND)
Grattan Endicott (GREAT BRITAIN) James Zimmerman (USA)
Santanu Ghose (INDIA)

[mike777]

babalu1997, on Apr 25 2008, 07:25 AM, said:

Yesterday I was playing wean nt 12-14, which was pre-alerted.

I opened 1 club, which I planned to rebid 2NT, that 2nt bid was alerted as 18-20.

The bidding went:

1c- 1h overcall by opp- pass- pass- 2nt(18-20)-p-3nt- all pass

The lead was 4th best heart taken by a singleton queen in dummy while I held KJt9x in hand.

After several tricks, rho paused, and then decided to ask whether our 1 club open can be made with 2 clubs.

If it could, I would have alerted in the first place, and before issuing the third pass, the opponent could have asked.

I do not have an obligation to alert the hand at the start, much less in the middle of a game where the count on one or more suits was already known, and in fact may give me in formation on card placement in other suits when he chooses his return.

I id not know so I just said I had no such 2 club agreement, but was i at an obligation to say so?

The neat thing about this specific issue is both of you are required to have a full cc filled out that answers this question in exactly the same way.
IF not I would call the director and let her sort it out. If this is a friendly game with no cc's and no directors I would just be friendly and answer the question in full.

[blackshoe]

jtfanclub, on Apr 25 2008, 03:18 PM, said:

No, the WBFLC is the Legislators. They actually wrote it.
The BOD are the Executives, they validate or repudiate it.

I formed my opinion on the basis of some years of correspondence on laws matters with people like Grattan Endicott and Ton Koijman (Secretary and Chairman, respectively, of the WBFLC), but since you disagree, obviously I must be wrong.

Hell with it. I have a game to run.

[glen]

+ happy to see this forum integrated with blml +

[kenberg]

I do not have a degree in Law, I have not even read, let alone studied and analyzed, the Laws, and still I have very little trouble at the table. An opponent asks about our bidding structure, I tell them. If I want to know about their's I ask them. They usually tell me. I recommend this approach.

[matmat]

kenberg, on Apr 25 2008, 06:06 PM, said:

I do not have a degree in Law, I have not even read, let alone studied and analyzed, the Laws, and still I have very little trouble at the table. An opponent asks about our bidding structure, I tell them. If I want to know about their's I ask them. They usually tell me. I recommend this approach.

this approach is too civil. making accusative noises, threatening to call the director and glaring at opps when they try to say something are much more admirable and acceptable actions.

[barmar]

I do not know how many of the people who have had a hand, over the decades, in drafting the Laws are lawyers. Regardless, it's patently clear to anyone who has read the Laws that they have NOT been written as carefully as Art seems to be presuming. There is ambiguity and vagueness, and a number of cases where one must infer the intent by using common sense. I don't think you can assume that the two paragraphs in Law 20F are intended to be different simply because they didn't repeat the same wording.

My interpretation is that the parenthesized clause in 20F1 is intended to clarify what "request an explanation" includes, not to extend what is allowed in this particular instance. Thus, when 20F2 says you're allowed to "request an explanation", it's talking about the same thing, and therefore the clarification still applies.

My pedantic reason for this interpretation is that they wouldn't have put the clause in parentheses if it were meant to be an extension rather than a clarification. I.e. they would have written "request a full explanation of opponents' auction, or ask questions about calls made or relevant calls not made". Then, when 20F2 later says "request an explanation", it would be clear that this is distinct from asking questions about calls made or not made.

[matmat]

barmar, on Apr 25 2008, 11:17 PM, said:

I do not know how many of the people who have had a hand, over the decades, in drafting the Laws are lawyers. Regardless, it's patently clear to anyone who has read the Laws that they have NOT been written as carefully as Art seems to be presuming. There is ambiguity and vagueness, and a number of cases where one must infer the intent by using common sense. I don't think you can assume that the two paragraphs in Law 20F are intended to be different simply because they didn't repeat the same wording.

My interpretation is that the parenthesized clause in 20F1 is intended to clarify what "request an explanation" includes, not to extend what is allowed in this particular instance. Thus, when 20F2 says you're allowed to "request an explanation", it's talking about the same thing, and therefore the clarification still applies.

My pedantic reason for this interpretation is that they wouldn't have put the clause in parentheses if it were meant to be an extension rather than a clarification. I.e. they would have written "request a full explanation of opponents' auction, or ask questions about calls made or relevant calls not made". Then, when 20F2 later says "request an explanation", it would be clear that this is distinct from asking questions about calls made or not made.

I think the laws lack clarity. Often when I try to refer to them I find the wording obtuse and confusing. Then again, I lack basic reading comprehension, so what do I know?

[mike777]

matmat, on Apr 25 2008, 11:52 PM, said:

barmar, on Apr 25 2008, 11:17 PM, said:

I do not know how many of the people who have had a hand, over the decades, in drafting the Laws are lawyers.  Regardless, it's patently clear to anyone who has read the Laws that they have NOT been written as carefully as Art seems to be presuming.  There is ambiguity and vagueness, and a number of cases where one must infer the intent by using common sense.  I don't think you can assume that the two paragraphs in Law 20F are intended to be different simply because they didn't repeat the same wording.

My interpretation is that the parenthesized clause in 20F1 is intended to clarify what "request an explanation" includes, not to extend what is allowed in this particular instance.  Thus, when 20F2 says you're allowed to "request an explanation", it's talking about the same thing, and therefore the clarification still applies.

My pedantic reason for this interpretation is that they wouldn't have put the clause in parentheses if it were meant to be an extension rather than a clarification.  I.e. they would have written "request a full explanation of opponents' auction, or ask questions about calls made or relevant calls not made".  Then, when 20F2 later says "request an explanation", it would be clear that this is distinct from asking questions about calls made or not made.

I think the laws lack clarity. Often when I try to refer to them I find the wording obtuse and confusing. Then again, I lack basic reading comprehension, so what do I know?

I think 99% of us who play bridge could not quote the laws. ok we have no idea.


stop

How many americans can tell you what the ten admenments(sp) are...ok how can tell you what 9 are ....not word for word...I accept just close........