Is this Ruling Correct?

[lamford]

Making a call (3♥ that is the only possibly bid out of a grand total of zero alternatives can hardly be considered "taking any advantage from that unauthorized information."

Without UI, LAs are 3H, 3NT and Pass. They were chosen or given serious consideration by those polled, including opinions on here. I don't think 3H is an LA using the methods of the partnership, but let us say that some eccentric chooses it. It is clearly likely to lead to a better result than both 3NT and Pass, and therefore is demonstrably suggested. Therefore selecting it is a breach of 16B.

 

And I would rule 6♦ makes, as the play in that would be similar to 6NT, but I think that is much too generous to NS.

[billw55]

Right. So we poll people with the actual methods and the auction to date. As Law 16B suggests. We remove all UI when we poll.

I am totally failing to understand you. In this case, the actual method is UI, and therefore should be removed from the poll, per your own argument.

[RMB1]

I think it has not been unnoticed, as I have raised it ad nauseam at every opportunity!

 

Did you point it out to WBFLC in response to Grattan's "open invitation"?

 

(FWIW, I did.)

[lamford]

Did you point it out to WBFLC in response to Grattan's "open invitation"

 

(FWIW, I did.)

Yes, I suggested an amendment to change "methods of the partnership" to "perceived methods of the partnership".

[lamford]

I am totally failing to understand you. In this case, the actual method is UI, and therefore should be removed from the poll, per your own argument.

No, the poll must always be conducted using the actual methods of the partnership, whether they are UI or not, because 16B says that LAs are decided using the methods of the partnership, and 16B only applies when there is UI.

[billw55]

No, the poll must always be conducted using the actual methods of the partnership, whether they are UI or not, because 16B says that LAs are decided using the methods of the partnership.

OK, I think I see what you are saying now. There is a wording in the laws which, if followed literally, would lead to conclusions that are very intuitively wrong in cases such as this.

[lamford]

OK, I think I see what you are saying now. There is a wording in the laws which, if followed literally, would lead to conclusions that are very intuitively wrong in cases such as this.

Yes, I think that LAs should be selected using the "perceived" methods. In that case, 3H would be the only choice. The problem with that is that one has to rely on the player in many cases to say what he thought the methods were. Using the actual methods is often easier to establish from CCs or system notes. So, while I prefer to change the Law, the current one does work, if it is applied correctly.

[barmar]

Lamford, this case is a prime example of why you'll never convince anyone that Law 16 should be applied as you want. Yes, it would be better if the law were reworded as you suggest. But custom and practice is that it's already applied this way, because the literal interpretation is obviously unreasonable because it allows (maybe even requires) players to take blatant advantage of the UI.

 

I suggest you stop tilting at this windmill, it's a waste of everyone's time. If you want to post in Changing Laws, that would be appropriate -- the Laws should obviously say what we mean, and be consistent with what we actually do.

[gnasher]

Or are all rulings now based on what people think 16B should say?

Yes, all UI rulings are based on what 16B should say, and they always have been. The actual wording is no more than an amusing example of poor drafting. There is absolutely no possibility that the WBFLC meant it to be interpreted as written.

 

I expect that the reason that they haven't issued a correction is that they saw no immediate need to do so. It's already being applied as they intended, everywhere in the world, except possibly at one bridge club in North London. Even there I expect that it depends on who is directing.

[lamford]

I suggest you stop tilting at this windmill, it's a waste of everyone's time. If you want to post in Changing Laws, that would be appropriate -- the Laws should obviously say what we mean, and be consistent with what we actually do.

I think both RMB1 and I have suggested a change to Grattan, so I don't think it is worth posting the issue again.

[billw55]

Yes, I think that LAs should be selected using the "perceived" methods.

OK, we agree then. Phew, you had me going there for a while :)

[PhilKing]

For what it's worth, North should bid 3NT over 3♥.

 

There is a 0.00% chance that partner has a weak hand with a void heart, UI or not.

[mycroft]

Add me to the 6♦ LA'ers.

 

Add me to the "we know what the Law means, to the point where what the Law says makes no sense to me, because that's what it means".

[nige1]

If law-makers intended something different from what they wrote then, when they learnt of Lamford's misgivings, they should have published an immediate correction. Since they did not, directors should implement the law as written. Otherwise, how can a director deal with:

• players, in receipt of UI, who slavishly follow the law as written.
  
• players who deliberately flout other laws and regulations explaining "no sane person could have intended what the laws seems to say".

[campboy]

Yes, all UI rulings are based on what 16B should say, and they always have been. The actual wording is no more than an amusing example of poor drafting. There is absolutely no possibility that the WBFLC meant it to be interpreted as written.

I find it very easy to interpret the current law 16B as already saying what it should mean. It talks about "the class of player involved", so I interpret that to be a subset of the class of players who have forgotten their methods. For players in that class, of course, nothing other than 3♥ is an LA.

 

Of course I would still welcome a change to make it clearer.

[barmar]

Don't get me started on "class of player". As any student of cladistics knows, that could mean just about anything -- class boundaries are fluid and depend on context.

[barmar]

If law-makers intend something different from what they wrote then, when they learnt of Lamford's misgivings, they should have published an immediate correction.

Has anyone actually brought it to their attention? It gets discussed frequently here, but there's no automatic path from passing references here to the lawmakers.

 

And I actually doubt that discussions here would really prompt them to take action. Their priority is presumably given to responding to actual actions taken in the field, not hypotheticals in a forum. The poor wording isn't causing any real problems -- it seems like only one person in the world interprets it literally.

[gnasher]

If law-makers intended something different from what they wrote then, when they learnt of Lamford's misgivings, they should have published an immediate correction. Since they did not, directors should implement the law as written.

And if the WBFLC intended this rule to be interpreted literally, as soon as they realised that everyone in the world was interpreting it differently, they should have published an immediate confirmation that "using the methods of the partnership" meant what it said.

 

There are many things that the WBFLC should do but don't, or at least don't do as quickly as one would wish. All we can infer from their inaction in this instance is that they haven't unexpectedly become faster at dealing with things.

 

Otherwise, how can a director deal with:

• players, in receipt of UI, who slavishly follow the law as
  written.

By adjusting the score and awarding a procedural penalty. It is inconceivable that anyone could be aware of this sentence in the Laws but not be aware of how it is interpreted. Hence we can assume that the player knew he was breaking the rules as interpreted by the regulatory authority.

 

When you enter a bridge event, you submit yourself to the rules and practices of the RA, and you accept the RA's interpretation of the laws. If you believe that this interpretation is incorrect, you may try to persuade the RA to change it, or you may prefer not to play in the event, but you can't participate and then disregard the RA's interpretation.

 

• players who deliberately flout other laws and regulations explaining "no
  sane person could have intended what the laws seems to say".

By adjusting the score and awarding a procedural penalty.

[Cascade]

There is the not insignificant matter of applying Law 81 B2 "2. The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary

regulations announced under authority given in these Laws."

 

Given this strong wording it is essential that errors are corrected otherwise this law cannot be satisfied and even more it is meaningless.

[lamford]

By adjusting the score and awarding a procedural penalty. It is inconceivable that anyone could be aware of this sentence in the Laws but not be aware of how it is interpreted. Hence we can assume that the player knew he was breaking the rules as interpreted by the regulatory authority.

The problem with that is the person can sue. He is entitled to follow the Law as written, and, if the RA does not follow it, it is acting "ultra vires". There is not even a supplementary regulation on the matter. And if you think that will not happen, Tottenham Hotspur sued and won when they had 12 points deducted, and the courts ruled that the FA had acted outside their own rules and gave them their points back. It was reduced to 6 points on appeal, but they still sued and reduced the penalty to nil.

 

The Law is not even ambiguous. It says "using the methods of the partnership". That must be followed. There is no need for any different interpretation.

 

And in case you think people will not sue in bridge, when I was Secretary of the newly formed Greater Manchester Chess Association in 1975, we and the British Chess Federation were sued by a Loony Lancastrian who did not think Greater Manchester should exist beause he disagreed with the new county boundaries. He lost, of course, but many thousands of pounds were wasted. And people in bridge are generally wealthier and possibly more litigious.

[lamford]

There is the not insignificant matter of applying Law 81 B2 "2. The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary

regulations announced under authority given in these Laws."

 

Given this strong wording it is essential that errors are corrected otherwise this law cannot be satisfied and even more it is meaningless.

+1

[lamford]

Has anyone actually brought it to their attention? It gets discussed frequently here, but there's no automatic path from passing references here to the lawmakers.

Yes, as indicated earlier, RMB1 and I both have.

[lamford]

I find it very easy to interpret the current law 16B as already saying what it should mean. It talks about "the class of player involved", so I interpret that to be a subset of the class of players who have forgotten their methods.

The fault with that argument is that even the class of players who have forgotten their methods still have to decide on LAs using the methods of the partnership. If they cannot do so, they can still breach 16B. Somebody forgetting the methods of a partnership can still give MI, so why should they not breach 16B?

[campboy]

The fault with that argument is that even the class of players who have forgotten their methods still have to decide on LAs using the methods of the partnership. If they cannot do so, they can still breach 16B. Somebody forgetting the methods of a partnership can still give MI, so why should they not breach 16B?

The class of players does not have to decide on anything. The TD has to decide what the LAs are based on his assessment of what the class of players might do or consider. I do not find it hard to judge what players who use these methods but have forgotten them would do.

[lamford]

The TD has to decide what the LAs are based on his assessment of what the class of players might do or consider.

The TD has to decide what the LAs are based on his assessment of what the class of players might do or consider, using the methods of the partnership