Next version of the laws

[nige1]

IMO: Clearer wording is necessary but addresses only part of the problem:

 

Law-makers have the same difficulties as IBLF contributors: They disagree about what the laws should say. Woolly language allows law-makers to fudge those decisions.

 

Another way out is for law-makers to devolve their responsibilities to local legislatures and directors (as stated in the introduction to the laws). They are well on the way to achieving that goal. Local regulators must plug the gaps in the law-book. Rulings over-depend on the subjective judgement of the director after he has interpreted the ambiguous rules.

 

These problems arise because directors and law-makers foster increasing sophistication, having lost touch with the basic reality that Bridge is a game. The rules should be restructured and radically simplified so that

• Bridge retains its enjoyable nature :) but
• Directors can understand and enforce the rules :)
• Players can learn the rules, comply with them, and appreciate the consistency of rulings :)

[Vampyr]

The rules should be restructured and radically simplified so that

• Bridge retains its enjoyable nature :) but
• Directors can understand and enforce the rules :)
• Players can learn the rules, comply with them, and appreciate the consistency of rulings :)

 

The rules cannot be simplified too much, because they have to take into account all the silly things players can do and how the director can get things back on track. The language, at least, should be clearer, and the Laws should say what they mean.

 

Rulings over-depend on the subjective judgement of the director after he has interpreted the ambiguous rules.

 

You are right here. Even the clear rules depend on subjective judgment, and are applied inconsistently even when correctly. The permitted penalty-free corrections for an insufficient bid depend on what was going through the offender's mind at the time? Even if the director is expert enough and familiar enough with the offender's system to identify the PFCs, it would be correct for him to rule differently on the same insufficient bid in the same auction at two different tables. This is complete rubbish. This is an example of a simplification that should be made, ie "after a player has made an insufficient bid, partner is barred. Law 23 may apply." But of course this will never happen, since the Lawmakers inexplicably keep reducing the penalties for actions that fail to obey the most basic rules of the game.

[Zelandakh]

This is an example of a simplification that should be made, ie "after a player has made an insufficient bid, partner is barred. Law 23 may apply." But of course this will never happen, since the Lawmakers inexplicably keep reducing the penalties for actions that fail to obey the most basic rules of the game.

I have been thinking about this and I think this is the wrong approach. Why is it not possible to combine the UI-style approach with the fixed penalty idea here?

 

After an IB, the next player may accept the bid and the auction continues normally thereafter. If they do not accept it then the IB is withdrawn and the player must replace it with a legal call. The withdrawn call is AI to the NOS and UI to the OS. At the end of the hand, one trick is transferred from the OS to the NOS unless the NOS took all 13 tricks.

 

The most important thing though is surely to define unintended call more strictly. Having 2 bidding cards stick together or some such qualifies; taking out the 2♠ card instead of the 3♠ card and realising this before placing it on the table also qualifies. Taking out the 2♠ card and placing it on the table and then realising 20 seconds later should not.

[blackshoe]

Why not?

[Zelandakh]

Because it is avoidable (train yourself to look at the card as you bring it out of the box) and incontrovertible, not requiring the TD to exercise mind-reading powers and not allowing dishonest players to claim something untrue that cannot be proved and thereby gain an advantage.

[blackshoe]

What percentage of players are dishonest in this way?

 

I find the number of people in these forums who seem to think the answer is "100% - except for me, of course" rather disturbing.

[aguahombre]

What percentage of players are dishonest in this way?

 

I find the number of people in these forums who seem to think the answer is "100% - except for me, of course" rather disturbing.

I agree with what I think you meant.

[gnasher]

What percentage of players are dishonest in this way?

I'm pretty sure I've never encountered dishonesty of this sort. Either that or there are some remarkably good actors in the bridge world.

[Zelandakh]

What percentage of players are dishonest in this way?

Very few I would hope! What proportion of bridge players has used mobile phones to cheat with? Rules only have to catch a small number of cheats to be worthwhile. Since we are taling about asking players, how do you think that would work in football? Ref: "Mr Defender, did you handle the ball?". Defender: "Of course not, it only touched my shoulder/stomach/knee." Different game, sure - same principle. The simple truth is that we have no idea how many players provide the "right" answers sometimes rather than always giving the pure truth in an objective sense. It only took a single pair communicating with foot signals for screens to be extended below the table. I believe there is at least one player who has given a false answer at least once. And that should be enough that the issue is looked at and dealt with when it can be done in such a way as not to affect the game as a whole negatively.

[blackshoe]

If your goal is to construct the laws in such a way that dishonesty cannot gain, well, that's an admirable goal, though I do not think an achievable one. Not completely, anyway. B-)

[barmar]

Rules don't have to solve the problem completely, that's an unachievable goal. Laws against murder haven't stamped out murder entirely, but they almost certainly reduce it enough to make the laws worthwhile.

 

But these things must be reviewed on a case by case basis. No one thinks we don't need laws against murder, but the "war on drugs" is more debatable.

[Zelandakh]

And when you can achieve the goal in a specific area without causing any further problems (other than having players pay attention occasionally) then it is more than worthwhile.