[cherdanno]

mjj29, on Jul 18 2009, 06:05 PM, said:

fred, on Jul 18 2009, 09:00 AM, said:

Maybe the IBLF should consider adding a Forum where people can state opinions as to where and how the laws have room for improvement.

If you actually want to get it considered as a law change then you probably want to contact the appropriate people at the WBF, which is one of the reasons there isn't such a forum here, people miight expect that posting a desired change here constitutes an official request to the WBF laws and ethics committee

I understand this is probably correct as things are, but I don't think this is a terribly productive state of affairs.
I do think it is very important what bridge players, especially top bridge players, think about the laws, what they think is fair, and what they think is ethical or unethical. Enforcing the spirit of bridge laws is a pretty much impossible task for even the best TD - unless the players actively participate ("active ethics"). This can only possibly work when the law and the consensus opinion of what is ethical are in tune.
Wouldn't this be helped tremendously if there was a better way of communication between opinions of experts at bridge and opinions of experts at bridge law? I know there is an overlap between these two, but more communication and public discussion can only help.
A public discussion forum on the merits or problems of laws that gets noticed by the members of the relevant WBF committees could be a good start for that. (Then again, maybe it wouldn't be, given some of the discussions in the other thread.)

[Cascade]

fred, on Jul 18 2009, 10:57 AM, said:

If you ask your brain, it will tell you that the impact on the event of a pair constantly forgetting system would be exactly the same as that which would result from a pair who constantly makes frivolous psychs.

Why should this be any different than someone who screws up with random card play? Thus giving gifts to some players but occasionally winning when the cards lie favourably for their misplay.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Jul 17 2009, 11:03 AM, said:

I'm not at all sure that "people forgetting system destroys the game" is a valid premise. I am pretty sure that severe penalties will sooner or later destroy the game, particularly at club at lower tournament level, where players are likely to decide they didn't take up the game to be penalized for having a poor memory or being inexperienced.

Exactly.

A penalty for forgetting your system is essentially a penalty for being a bad bridge player.

I prefer to let the scoring system deal with what is good or bad. Occasionally in the bidding or play something will be rewarded that should not be but then there is the next board.

My partner has a good philosophy for these things - "we will get two back".

[bluejak]

fred, on Jul 18 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jul 18 2009, 01:15 PM, said:

Matt has pegged it, I think, particularly regarding the purpose of this forum.

The ACBL General Conditions of Contest say, among other things, that

Quote

A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed.

Note that this does not say that a pair will be entitled to redress - whether they are or not depends on whether a law has been breached. Matt's given a pretty good summary of when that might be the case.
There is no legal basis, AFAICS, for Fred's "responsibility to the field" concept.

What makes a tournament "serious"? Is it the general expertise of the players? The rewards for winning? The historical "cachet" of the event? Do Open events qualify, or only Invitational ones, or those with a pre-qualification requirement? As Fred notes, the answers to these questions are somewhat arbitrary. In particular, no authority has defined them, and different people are likely to have different opinions as to the correct answers. The TD has to rule cases on the basis of the laws, not on the basis of his (or someone else's) opinion.

As I stated from the beginning, I have no expertise in this area - I basically have no idea about what the laws have to say about how a TD should handle most situations. Thanks to mjj29 for enlightening me about what the laws relevant to this discussion actually do say.

Of course I agree that the TD has to follow the laws even if he happens to disagree with what some of the laws should be.

Not knowing what the actual laws are (until now at least) I have been arguing for what I think the laws should be. Sorry that I have apparently misused this Forum by placing such thoughts here. I will stop now.

Well now. We have seen the WBF's view: we have seen the ACBL's view. Both of these are effectively Regulations which give them the force of Law. There have been other events, notably international ones, which have had Regulations covering this subject, and of course they have the force of Law.

As to whether the Laws protect the field in any way they do not tend to, and rules for protecting the field are not accepted. As others have said, it makes little difference whether someone forgets the system for a top or does something else stupid for a top. It annoys the current opponents, and makes a tiny effect on the field.

Repeated and continuous forgetting system, like frivolous and repeated psyching, probably is a breach of Law, maybe Laws 74A2 and 74B1. I do not mind controlling utter and repeated stupidity, so long as the players are not too inexperienced. I think control of agreements by Regulation is legal. The WBF do not like it: Bobby Wolff's ideas have gained no long-term agreement: but that does not mean such rules are illegal.

Whatever the purpose of this forum, we have seen a fair amount of opinon here as to what is legal and perhaps what the Regulations should say. It does not seem wrong for this forum.

fred, on Jul 18 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

Maybe the IBLF should consider adding a Forum where people can state opinions as to where and how the laws have room for improvement.

In our previous home there were forums which seemed to suit this - and they have gone now, so perhaps this is now right. But my first instinct is that we do not really need one. Certainly our first three forums, Laws & Rulings, Simple Rulings, and Appeals & Appeals Committees, are designed to answer questions on the Laws as they are, plus some help on other aspects of tournament direction and appeals.

But The New Laws is different. It seems to me that it will tend to get fewer and fewer threads as the "new" Law book gets older, and then perhaps the "new" Law book, will be the next one, due in 2017. It feels like a much more suitable forum to discuss what the Laws should be, and several of the threads on our old site did discuss this type of thing. Perhaps we need to rebrand it, change the name slightly to make it clear that sensible discussions on what Laws should be are suitable there.

Why do I say "sensible"? Well, there have always been a few people who have mixed our forums up with BLML, where they love pedantry, where every word is analysed, and if a Law can be misinterpreted they do it deliberately for fun. That is not suitable here nor will be accepted. But I do think that The New Laws forum, whether renamed or not, should be the place for sensible suggestions as to changing the Laws.

Ed, what do you think?

[blackshoe]

I think that I stopped reading blml because I got tired of arguments about, in effect, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and of being told I was full of it when I suggested that the director should do such-and-such because that's what the laws actually said.

Still, I agree that sensible discussion of perceived problems in the laws and possible solutions to those problems is not unreasonable. I do think we will need to keep a tight rein on it.