[matmat]

mike777, on Apr 26 2008, 02:43 AM, said:

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........

there are more than 10, or are you referring to the commandments? in which case the point is still probably valid...

[Trinidad]

ArtK78, on Apr 25 2008, 02:58 PM, said:

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. 

It's good that you have professional credentials (see the last line of this post). But... in your first post in this thread you gave clear evidence that you didn't have a clue what the bridge laws say on the matter of asking questions. You hadn't even read the law yet when you came with your 'ruling'. The only effect that your post had was to misinform the bridge community.

When it was pointed out to you that you were wrong, you objected to the wording used and proceeded to pick an unusual interpretation of another issue of this law that wasn't asked for and was not relevant for this thread. (Or did you really not notice that the original poster asked whether an opponent could ask about a bid that he had actually made?)

Now, I admit that someone with experience in reading laws could certainly take your position and that, from that perspective, you have a valid point. But someone with experience in reading bridge laws would never take your position and that is the perspective that counts.

Tournament directors are working very hard to spread the real rules in to the bridge community. And 'professionals' without experience on bridge laws can do more damage than genuine directors can fix.

Rather than getting upset about the wording used by people disagreeing with you, and answering questions that weren't asked, you could:

- Realize why your misinformation gives rise to the wording used
- Apologize for the misinformation
- Start spreading the interpretation of the bridge laws as mentioned by Josh and others.

Since you seem to be a person with authority doing just that could actually help the bridge community forward.

Rik

[peachy]

Trinidad, on Apr 26 2008, 05:41 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Apr 25 2008, 02:58 PM, said:

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. 

It's good that you have professional credentials (see the last line of this post). But... in your first post in this thread you gave clear evidence that you didn't have a clue what the bridge laws say on the matter of asking questions. You hadn't even read the law yet when you came with your 'ruling'. The only effect that your post had was to misinform the bridge community.

When it was pointed out to you that you were wrong, you objected to the wording used and proceeded to pick an unusual interpretation of another issue of this law that wasn't asked for and was not relevant for this thread. (Or did you really not notice that the original poster asked whether an opponent could ask about a bid that he had actually made?)

Now, I admit that someone with experience in reading laws could certainly take your position and that, from that perspective, you have a valid point. But someone with experience in reading bridge laws would never take your position and that is the perspective that counts.

Tournament directors are working very hard to spread the real rules in to the bridge community. And 'professionals' without experience on bridge laws can do more damage than genuine directors can fix.

Rather than getting upset about the wording used by people disagreeing with you, and answering questions that weren't asked, you could:

- Realize why your misinformation gives rise to the wording used
- Apologize for the misinformation
- Start spreading the interpretation of the bridge laws as mentioned by Josh and others.

Since you seem to be a person with authority doing just that could actually help the bridge community forward.

Rik

Well said. I, too was surprised to see a completely wrong assertion by someone who does not have a clue about the laws of bridge. Then coming back to flout credentials that have nothing to do with the laws of bridge. Oh well, this is an open forum...