[nige1]

bluejak, on 2010-December-25, 08:47, said:

It was pointed out in this thread that some advice was posted on the WBU website that was at variance with the written Law, Law 16B. It was also at variance with official WBU guidance which is contained in the WBU Year book and the EBU White book. However, I accept that it did look official even though it was not.

Some RAs publish legal interpretations. For example, The ACBL website published advice to tournament directors. The English Bridge Union published a White Book of interpretations. The Australian, New Zealand, and Welsh bridge sites published similar advice.
Where the law-book allows options, the RA must provide local elections. But what about interpretation of other parts of the law-book?
The ACBL advice contains some pretty weird stuff. EBU advice (eg on red psychs) is regarded as heresy by many. The Welsh advice has now been repudiated by Blackjack. Should credence be given to any such documents

• by directors in the WBF as a whole?
• by directors in the relevant RA?
• by ordinary players?

IMO it would be better if the law-book itself included official WBF interpretations, where necessary, and in place.

Furthermore, IMO, the law-book should be expanded to include, where possible, most of what is now delegated to RAs as local regulation (Orange books and so on). The WBF Coc would become largely redundant,

[bluejak]

nige1, on 2010-December-25, 09:48, said:

Some RAs publish legal interpretations. For example, The ACBL website publishes advice to tournament directors. The English Bridge Union publishes a whitebook of interpretations. The Autralian, Newzealand, and Welsh birdge sites published similar advice.
The ACBL advice contains some pretty weird stuff. Whitebook advice (eg on red psychs) is regarded as heresy by many. The Welsh advice has now been repudiated by Blackjack. Should credence be given to any such documents

• by directors in the WBF as a whole?
• by directors in the relevant RA?
• by ordinary players?

Obviously TDs in an RA should not follow conflicting advice issued by another RA. But official advice from their RA is binding on them.

What is not always entirely clear is what advice is official. For example, is anything the ACBL publishes on its website official? I understand the tech files are official, and they are repeated on the ACBL website, so no doubt they are. Furthermore they publish their alerting and system regulations there, so those are official.

Mind you, someone who treats advice as unofficial, even if correct, will probably need a pretty good reason not to follow it. The recent thread concerning WBU advice gives a good reason, where official advice disagreed, but even then it was not obvious that the advice on the website was unofficial.

[blackshoe]

I wonder what ACBL advice Nigel is referring to?

I'm not at all sure even the tech files are "official" in the sense of RA legal interpretations. Much of the stuff in them seems to be someone's personal opinion. Added to that is that the tech files are (supposedly) most up to date in ACBLScore, not on any web site.

When you consider the difficulty in getting consistent answers to questions about the laws and regulations from different people at ACBL HQ, you begin to wonder if anything is really "official".

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2010-December-25, 10:00, said:

Obviously TDs in an RA should not follow conflicting advice issued by another RA. But official advice from their RA is binding on them.

I am far from convinced that this is true.

The law book specifically only allows for regulations that are consistent with the laws.

A director is bound by both the laws and the announced regulations. When those are in conflict then the laws must take precedence over announced regulations.

I would expect the same precedence when the 'official advice' was in conflict with the laws. At least the TD is bound by the laws and not by any 'official advice' that was in conflict with those laws.

[Trinidad]

I agree with Wayne. As I see it, there are four categories of "publications"

1) The Laws
2) Interpretations of the Laws
3) Regulations
4) Interpretations of the Regulations

It is clear that the Laws are written by the WBF.
It is also clear that Regulations are written by local organisations.

Then to me, it would be clear that the Interpretations of the Laws fall under the jurisdiction (and responsibility!) of the WBFLC whereas the Interpretations of Regulations fall under the jurisdiction of the local organisations.

But that is not the situation as it is. In practice the WBFLC is responsible for the Laws only and everything else falls under the jurisdiction of the local Law Guru (LG). This leads to a variety of interpretations of the Laws across the world, where some interpretations are better than others.

What is needed is a functioning feedback loop from the local Law Guru back to the WBFLC to relate what kind of issues arise with the Laws and where interpretations are needed. Then the WBFLC should come with a WBFLC interpretation which than is made official.

Rik

[blackshoe]

You left out "opinions".

Quote

It is clear that the Laws are written by the WBF.

Not in the ACBL, according to the ACBL BoD and at least one lawyer on the ACBL LC.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2010-December-25, 13:06, said:

You left out "opinions".

I agree that my "model" was an oversimplification. I also left out "facts", which is pretty much equivalent to "Rik's opinions".

blackshoe, on 2010-December-25, 13:06, said:

Quote

It is clear that the Laws are written by the WBF.

Not in the ACBL, according to the ACBL BoD and at least one lawyer on the ACBL LC.

Please allow me to rephrase:
It should be clear that the Laws are written by the WBF.

Rik

[bluejak]

One problem it always seems to me is where a TD feels an interpretation is at variance with the Law. Suppose he is wrong?

We get some pretty didactic statements here on this forum, some of them clearly wrong, others where two people disagree strongly so one or the other is known to be wrong. No doubt people believe their own view is right in many cases.

I am dubious about a TD who acts contrary to an official interpretation from his RA because he knows better than his RA. Maybe he is right, but suppose he is not?

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2010-December-25, 15:19, said:

One problem it always seems to me is where a TD feels an interpretation is at variance with the Law. Suppose he is wrong? We get some pretty didactic statements here on this forum, some of them clearly wrong, others where two people disagree strongly so one or the other is known to be wrong. No doubt people believe their own view is right in many cases. I am dubious about a TD who acts contrary to an official interpretation from his RA because he knows better than his RA. Maybe he is right, but suppose he is not?

I agree with Bluejak that a director should abide by the local regulator's official interpretation; but should it be the local regulator's job to interpret the laws (except where the laws allow local elections). Currently, RAs may be forced into this, in order to plug gaping holes in the law-book. But should the WBF delegate their responsibilities by means of such omissions? IMO the WBF created an unnecessary tower of Babel

[barmar]

it seems like this is simple logistics. Does the WBF really have the resources to respond to questions from all around the globe? Delegation is probably the only way to handle this.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2010-December-25, 22:14, said:

it seems like this is simple logistics. Does the WBF really have the resources to respond to questions from all around the globe? Delegation is probably the only way to handle this.

It may be a question of logistics. But I strongly disagree with the suggestion that the current state is any form of delegation. This is letting all local organisations invent their own wheel.

Delegation would mean that you have someone else (ONE local organisation or ONE committee) invent this wheel and then publish it as "THE wheel". That would be a model that would be perfectly OK with me. In practice this model already is in place, since we have that "ONE committee": the WBFLC.

The problem seems to be twofold:
1) Lack of communication between local organisations and the WBFLC
2) Lack of willingness by local Gurus to give up their Guru status (this is part of the cause for 1)).

Since the WBFLC meets regularly these resources are already present. What is necessary is the infrastructure to get the opinions of the local organisations to the WBFLC as well as the notion that the WBFLC is responsible for interpretation of the Laws.

Furthermore, it wouldn't be bad if the local organisations would keep a clear separation between the Laws and the Regulations.

Rik

[blackshoe]

A lot depends on what you mean by "local". If you look at the WBF Constitution and Bylaws, they set up a three tier hierarchy: the WBF at the top, then Zonal Authorities, then NBOs. And that's the reality in most of the world — except for North America. Here we have the ACBL, which is a Zonal Authority, and also is/is not an NBO (for the US). Then there's the NBOs in Canada and Mexico, although it's not clear to me how much authority they actually have in regard to the laws. The ACBL itself sets up a three tier organization — ACBL HQ, Districts and Units, but the latter two have absolutely nothing to do with interpretations of the laws, and very little to do with regulations. Here in Rochester, we have the Rochester Area Bridge Association, which — it turns out — is a subdivision of Unit 112. Yet RABA does not answer to the Unit, and has no authority to issue legal opinions, and does not make regulations. As far as communication upwards goes, I suppose it's possible for clubs to communicate with RABA, RABA to communicate with the Unit, and so on, but it doesn't happen. Even if it did, I doubt ACBL HQ would pay much attention.