[mycroft]

Given that players will take the attitude/actions of their local expert over the repeated explanation of the actual requirements by the director[1], I'm not sure that's either correct or helpful. Note that this particular rabbit hole is well travelled, and you know I agree with you, blackshoe, right?

I would like to have (yet again!) more examples/case studies about Law 11A (and the commentary thereto). Because confusing writing becomes clearer with examples and guideposts. I also want to follow the Law as it was intended to be applied, because SB.

Ignoring the previous paragraph, though, my solution to this problem - which I still think is the right one, for the reasons already cited - is an effective solution to my first paragraph - because "your opponent bullied you into doing something that was very likely to get you a bad score. It didn't, so we're going to give you a different bad score anyway" doesn't help teach the lesson of "do it right the first time" the same way "You were happy with the ruling when you made it. I don't see why I should change it just because it's wrong and you now feel damaged." does (the non-bullies hear "don't do what they did, call the TD" and the opponents get "don't do that again, call the TD"; and after all, the non-bullies would not have had their bad score from the bullied ruling adjusted if it was worse than the correct one, would they? I mean, how would the TD find out about it to apply 11A the other way?).

Of course, things would be better if we just called the bloody director (politely) when the BD should be called. And anything we as BDs can legally do to encourage that (including clamping down on the "call-the-cops" bullying DIE-REC-TOR calls) is a good thing.

[1] This especially applies when said local "expert" says "15-17 NTs don't have to be Announced". But that, as they say elsewhere, is a different tragedy.

[blackshoe]

I think we’re in agreement, mycroft.

[pescetom]

As previously promised, I raised this issue with our international directors in Salsomaggiore.

Turned out I was breaking down an open door; there was near unamimous agreement that the 2017 addition to 11A is nonsense as written, but that it is well established to follow the guidance of the WBF Commentary (one Director retained that only the 'ignorance' reference was nonsense and that the lawmakers had intended to address only the situation where opponents tried to take advantage of the original infraction by the other side, but acknowledged that the interpretation of the Commentary had prevailed nevertheless).

The conclusion was that our national regulations should be updated with an interpretative note about 11A and an example, similar to the guidance of ACBL.

[axman]

pescetom, on 2022-March-20, 15:48, said:

As previously promised, I raised this issue with our international directors in Salsomaggiore.

Turned out I was breaking down an open door; there was near unamimous agreement that the 2017 addition to 11A is nonsense as written, but that it is well established to follow the guidance of the WBF Commentary (one Director retained that only the 'ignorance' reference was nonsense and that the lawmakers had intended to address only the situation where opponents tried to take advantage of the original infraction by the other side, but acknowledged that the interpretation of the Commentary had prevailed nevertheless).

The conclusion was that our national regulations should be updated with an interpretative note about 11A and an example, similar to the guidance of ACBL.

"the lawmakers had intended to address only the situation where opponents tried to take advantage of the original infraction by the other side,"

I take it that the instructions are for the TDs to break the law so that the bad law won't need to be repealed?

[pescetom]

axman, on 2022-March-21, 09:29, said:

"the lawmakers had intended to address only the situation where opponents tried to take advantage of the original infraction by the other side,"

I take it that the instructions are for the TDs to break the law so that the bad law won't need to be repealed?

The interpretation I quoted was a minority opinion and (as you read) even that Director conceded that this interpretation had not prevailed, as was already clear in the 2018 official WBF commentary written by the head of the Laws Committee.
The instructions will be to interpret the law as indicated by the Commentary, in line with ACBL and other NBOs.
There will I hope also be an initiative to obtain a rewrite of the law, but that will probably take time now and depends upon WBF plus other NBOs.
There are more urgent and important rewrites necessary, starting with Law 23