nige1 Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 There is nothing in the law that depends "on the whim of the director". And I think your implication that directors rule by whim is rather insulting. :( I disagree with your contention and find the dismissive tone of your comment "rather insulting" :) But I am still waiting for someone to answer the question of how to differentiate between a holding in a suit that will be played from the top and one which may be played in any order. :huh: Vampyr might wait a long time. A plausible guess is: to some extent, this depends on how well the director knows the claimer (i.e. his "class"). For the rest, the director must use "judgement" whatever that means in this context. Perhaps he tosses a fair coin. Heaven forfend that he should rule on a whim! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 whim n. a sudden desire or change of mind, esp. one that is unusual or unexplained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 But I am still waiting for someone to answer the question of how to differentiate between a holding in a suit that will be played from the top and one which may be played in any order. :huh:I can't answer this question. Nor, I think, can your RA. It's a fine line, as you can see by looking at the examples, and may well depend on other things that just the cards involved. Bottom line: it's a judgement call; do the best you can. Discuss specific examples with other TDs. Initially you may find others disagreeing with your judgement. Eventually, particularly in a small world like English bridge, I expect you'll all come to a consensus. I disagree with your contention and find the dismissive tone of your comment "rather insulting" :)Okay, Nigel, I'll play. Show me how to word the comment so it has no "dismissive tone". That's one thing. The other is that you're certainly entitled to disagree, but you're still wrong. ;) whim n. a sudden desire or change of mind, esp. one that is unusual or unexplained.Precisely! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 You have had whimsical director rulings? Many of us have. That is unrelated to the laws. When a law has no agreed meaning or when a regulation fails to discriminate among cases that would result in opposite rulings, then I feel it that directors must rely on "guesswork" or "intuition" rather than "judgement". That is what I meant by "ruling on a whim". Not a criticism of directors, who do a good job in trying circumstances. The fault is in the rules. We can't expect perfection. But surely we can hope for simpler clearer rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Nigel, you should see if you can get on your NBO's Laws committee, or whichever committee is responsible for Scottish regulations. Get some of your ideas implemented. If that works out, maybe you can convince the WBFLC as well. B-) (Note: I'm serious here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Okay, Nigel, I'll play. Show me how to word the comment so it has no "dismissive tone". That's one thing. The other is that you're certainly entitled to disagree, but you're still wrong. ;) When Blackshoe is contradicting me and labelling my opinion "insulting", I can't advise him on how to avoid a "dismissive tone". :( I think we should try to avoid attacks on individuals. But organisations (like the WBF, ACBL, and EBU, or large groups (like professionals, directors or law-makers) are legitimate targets for reasoned criticism in discussions of Bridge Law. What Blackshoe took as a slur on directors was intended as a criticism of the laws. I accept that I may be wrong. I agree with Blackshoe that we're free to differ. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 I think we should try to avoid attacks on individuals. But organisations (like the WBF, ACBL, and EBU, or large groups (like professionals, directors or law-makers) are legitimate targets for reasoned criticism in discussions of Bridge Law. What Blackshoe took as a slur on directors was intended as a criticism of the laws. Is "People who criticise the rules without having read them first" a large enough group to be a target for reasoned criticism? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 In Bridge? Isn't that 55%? with another 35% only not fitting into the category because they don't know enough about the game to criticize the rules? What, cynical? Me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 I think we should try to avoid attacks on individuals.Nobody attacked an individual here. If we can't disagree with each other, there's no point to these discussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Nobody attacked an individual here. If we can't disagree with each other, there's no point to these discussions.And sometimes even if we can disagree with each other, there's no point to the discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.