Is this Ruling Correct?

[gnasher]

How about the conflict between 16B and 73C? Do OB3D7-9 help clarify how 16B is supposed to be interpreted? Or are they irrelevant because local regulations cannot supercede Laws?

If there's a conflict between the Laws and how the regulations say they are to be interpreted, in England the regulations take priority, because:

 

1 C 1 Players entering events are required to submit themselves to the published regulations.

1 C 2 Players are required to comply with regulations even though they may doubt the legality of the regulations (under the Laws of bridge).

 

Given the number of poorly worded or inconsistent Laws there are, that seems pretty sensible to me.

[barmar]

If there's a conflict between the Laws and how the regulations say they are to be interpreted, in England the regulations take priority, because:

But that's the regulations giving themselves precedence. Isn't that circular?

 

I can put a sign on my door saying "If you enter my home, you agree not to press charges if I assault you", but it won't hold water.

[WellSpyder]

But that's the regulations giving themselves precedence. Isn't that circular?

No, I think it is the Conditions of Contest giving precedence to the regulations.

 

However you interpret it, though, the practical consequence is that English players can just follow the local regulations and get on with enjoying the game.....

[aguahombre]

I can put a sign on my door saying "If you enter my home, you agree not to press charges if I assault you", but it won't hold water.

It might have an influence on your date or on a burglar.

[nige1]

No, I think it is the Conditions of Contest giving precedence to the regulations. However you interpret it, though, the practical consequence is that English players can just follow the local regulations and get on with enjoying the game.....

Pity. Unless WBF laws have precedence, that game is not Bridge :(

[Cascade]

It makes no sense to have regulations that say they take precedence over the laws when there the laws allow for the regulations and state that regulations must conform to the laws.

[blackshoe]

Conditions of Contest are regulations too.

[gnasher]

Pity. Unless WBF laws have precedence, that game is not Bridge :(

Nobody plays Bridge as defined by the exact wording of the Laws, because it's unplayable.

[campboy]

It's not an issue of the regulations taking precedence over the laws. Players are bound by the regulations because the regulations do conform to the laws as the RA interprets them. All the OB passage quoted means is that the RA's interpretation of law takes precedence over the player's interpretation, where different.

[lamford]

How about the conflict between 16B and 73C? Do OB3D7-9 help clarify how 16B is supposed to be interpreted? Or are they irrelevant because local regulations cannot supercede Laws?

As it is more specific, 16B overrides 73C. The WBFLC minute effectively says that all Laws mean "except where specifically indicated elsewhere". "Whether or not North's explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement" is pretty specific in 75A, and this effectively corrects the wrong wording in 16B.

 

Postscript. From BLML:

"Hypothetical 2017 Law 16B1(b):

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership (or what the player initially but incorrectly believed were the methods of the partnership – see Law 75A) <snip>"

 

Ton [Kooiman]:

I have to admit, this reads nicely

[nige1]

Law 16 seems pretty specific on how logical alternatives are determined. Perhaps a procedural penalty or adjustment can be awarded under L75A but one cannot make a Law 16 adjustment based on logical alternatives when what is ruled is not a logical alternative in the partnerships methods.

Cascade brings us back to earth :)

It makes no sense to have regulations that say they take precedence over the laws when the laws allow for the regulations and state that regulations must conform to the laws.

Again.

Nobody plays Bridge as defined by the exact wording of the Laws, because it's unplayable.

The Laws say that directors and players must try to conform to them :) You need regulations and so on but laws take precedence.

As it is more specific, 16B overrides 73C. The WBFLC minute effectively says that all Laws mean "except where specifically indicated elsewhere". "Whether or not North's explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement" is pretty specific in 75A, and this effectively corrects the wrong wording in 16B.

Postscript. From BLML:

"Hypothetical 2017 Law 16B1(b):

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership (or what the player initially but incorrectly believed were the methods of the partnership – see Law 75A) <snip>"

Ton [Kooiman]:

I have to admit, this reads nicely

Great and that may satisfy Cascade. Unfortunately, although Ton Kooijman is a distinguished law-maker his BLML opinion isn't official.

[gnasher]

Cascade brings us back to earth

So far as I can see, Cascade has taken two conflicting laws and arbitrarily chosen one of them to take precedence over the other. Why is that more sensible than Lamford's view that the other law takes precedence?

 

The Laws say that directors and players must try to conform to them

What does that have to do with my assertion that "Nobody plays Bridge as defined by the exact wording of the Laws, because it's unplayable"?

[nige1]

So far as I can see, Cascade has taken two conflicting laws and arbitrarily chosen one of them to take precedence over the other. Why is that more sensible than Lamford's view that the other law takes precedence?

Cascade wrote about permitted logical alternatives. L16 specifically defines logical alternatives. Neither L73 nor L75 explicitly mention them.

What does that have to do with my assertion that "Nobody plays Bridge as defined by the exact wording of the Laws, because it's unplayable"?

Lots. And that was your reply to my earlier statement on precedence! :)

[nige1]

All the OB passage quoted means is that the RA's interpretation of law takes precedence over the player's interpretation, where different.

I agree with how Campboy understands that Orange Book sentence.

[lamford]

One problem with using the methods that the player believed prior to receipt of UI is that one has to accept his view of what would have been the continuations, as the actual methods are different. So, someone could pass 3D, stating that they don't play transfers, as many casual players don't, or bid 3NT stating that they only complete with three cards, as I do with some partners.

 

I believe Jeff Rubens advocated using the actual methods of the partnership many years ago.

[nige1]

One problem with using the methods that the player believed prior to receipt of UI is that one has to accept his view of what would have been the continuations, as the actual methods are different. So, someone could pass 3D, stating that they don't play transfers, as many casual players don't, or bid 3NT stating that they only complete with three cards, as I do with some partners. I believe Jeff Rubens advocated using the actual methods of the partnership many years ago.

I agree Jeff Rubens had a valid point. Cascade also advanced the same argument.

As K9 said on Doctor Who - "Optimism: belief that everything will work out well. Irrational, bordering on insane."

A fair summary of attitudes to the current state of Bridge rules. Why won't rule-makers try to fix them -- even just the blatant anomalies?

[Vampyr]

One problem with using the methods that the player believed prior to receipt of UI is that one has to accept his view of what would have been the continuations, as the actual methods are different.

 

This is a situation in which a committee is invaluable, as the members can make educated guesses as to what the continuations would be,

 

To use actual methods would, in many cases, result in the auction getting back on track with the aid of the UI.

[jeffford76]

I believe Jeff Rubens advocated using the actual methods of the partnership many years ago.

 

I believe what Rubens actually advocates is that your actual system should always be authorized information even if you'd forgotten it earlier in the auction and misbid. This isn't what we're used to, but might be a cleaner solution than judging LA's based on imaginary continuations.

[blackshoe]

Which makes you kind of wonder what you're supposed to do if the actual methods of the partnership would never have put them in the position they're in.

[billw55]

Why won't rule-makers try to fix them -- even just the blatant anomalies?

Because (1) the process is slow and tedious, and (2) the problem is not occurring in actual play, only in constructions debated on forums.

[mycroft]

Also, change is easy. Getting all the stakeholders that have a say to agree to the change, and then do something about it, is hard.

 

The Laws Committee of the ACBL passed a suggestion that potentially very weak 2s and 3s be no longer pre-Alertable, but an Alert on call (after deferring it at least once). That got to the BoD, who passed it (after deferring it at least once).

 

It's effective as soon as the Alert Chart is updated to reflect that. Which is done by a subsection of the Laws Committee. Which will happen RSN.

 

Oh, did I mention that all this was in 2010?

 

And that's just the ACBL. Now imagine all the rest of the Zonal Committees and other stakeholders who are in that process.

[Cascade]

Because (1) the process is slow and tedious, and (2) the problem is not occurring in actual play, only in constructions debated on forums.

 

The problem highlighted in this thread is occurring in actual play. The wording in Law 16B1b is just being ignored. This is a problem in practice for the application of Law 16B1b and in consequence the application of Law 81B2.

[billw55]

The problem highlighted in this thread is occurring in actual play. The wording in Law 16B1b is just being ignored.

What I mean is, (almost) nobody seems to be bothered by this - so it isn't causing a problem.

[blackshoe]

Also, change is easy. Getting all the stakeholders that have a say to agree to the change, and then do something about it, is hard.

 

The Laws Committee of the ACBL passed a suggestion that potentially very weak 2s and 3s be no longer pre-Alertable, but an Alert on call (after deferring it at least once). That got to the BoD, who passed it (after deferring it at least once).

 

It's effective as soon as the Alert Chart is updated to reflect that. Which is done by a subsection of the Laws Committee. Which will happen RSN.

I thought that first, such changes are effective when the minutes of the BoD meeting that approved them are published, unless those minutes say otherwise (which I don't think they do in this case). I also thought that the alert regulation (chart and procedure) is the purview of the Competition and Conventions (C&C) Committee, not the Laws Commission.

 

Ah. Looking at the minutes of the Summer 2010 BoD meeting, I see that they did specify "effective when the Alert chart is updated", and also that the update is indeed up to the C&C Committee. Which probably extends "real soon now" into the next century sometime. :ph34r:

 

The alert chart says "natural opening preempts of 2♦, 2♥, and 2♠" do not require an alert. There is no mention of strength requirements, nor of alerting weak preempts. It does say (down at the bottom) that we should pre-alert "systems based on very light openings or other highly aggressive methods" so I suppose nothing has really changed. The alert procedure, as far as I can tell, still requires the pre-alert. The chart has on it "effective January 1, 2012". The procedure doesn't seem to have an effective date.

 

I think if I were on the BoD, I'd be making a motion to require the C&C to produce a revised and comprehensible (by the average player) alert regulation before the next NABC (so if the motion passes in July, they have until November to comply). Maybe I'll suggest that to my BoD rep.

 

As for "stakeholders" pfui. Is the C&C dragging their feet because they don't want this regulation? If that's what they're doing, well, harking back to a discussion on another site, I'd feel dirty if I did that.

[barmar]

The problem highlighted in this thread is occurring in actual play. The wording in Law 16B1b is just being ignored. This is a problem in practice for the application of Law 16B1b and in consequence the application of Law 81B2.

But that's not a real problem. By ignoring the literal wording of 16B1b, they're doing what was almost certainly intended. So changing the Law would simply bring the words into conformance with actual practice, not actually change any rulings.