2017 Laws?

[barmar]

Anyway, if bidding box regulations ever make it into the Laws, whose regulations will be used? Whose Stop card regulations?

A regulation created by the international committee revising the laws, just like the rest of the Laws.

 

Of course, one of the problem with something like this is that long-standing habits are hard to break, so players in each jurisdiction will cling to their traditional styles regardless of the changes in the Laws.

[Vampyr]

A regulation created by the international committee revising the laws, just like the rest of the Laws.

 

Of course, one of the problem with something like this is that long-standing habits are hard to break, so players in each jurisdiction will cling to their traditional styles regardless of the changes in the Laws.

 

The regulation would most likely be in line with ACBL regulations. I a man happy with our regulation that a bid is made once it clears the box. I would hate for my opponents to snatch away the Stop card before I had had time to think. You are probably content with the ACBL regulations. i really think that it is foolish to expect that the Laws should micro-manage things like this.

[barmar]

The regulation would most likely be in line with ACBL regulations. I a man happy with our regulation that a bid is made once it clears the box. I would hate for my opponents to snatch away the Stop card before I had had time to think. You are probably content with the ACBL regulations. i really think that it is foolish to expect that the Laws should micro-manage things like this.

Why not, they micromanage other things, like the way dummy is supposed to be laid out.

[johnu]

Why not, they micromanage other things, like the way dummy is supposed to be laid out.

 

You can have a law but who says you have to follow it. The dummy on BBO's web version confirms my point.

[gordontd]

I have it on good authority that it will be ready early in 2017 for intended implementation later in that year.

Well they have stuck to this - NBOs have been sent a draft of the "penultimate" version. The final version will be submitted for approval in March and will be expected to come into force later in the year, I think September.

[blackshoe]

Hm. I wonder how ACBL likes the timing, given they seem to want to do things at NABCs, and the next NABC is in March. :ph34r:

[gordontd]

Hm. I wonder how ACBL likes the timing, given they seem to want to do things at NABCs, and the next NABC is in March. :ph34r:

Maybe that's why they named the 2007 Laws as 2008. Perhaps you'll be playing to the 2018 Laws?

[pran]

Maybe that's why they named the 2007 Laws as 2008. Perhaps you'll be playing to the 2018 Laws?

The 2007 laws had to be delayed until 2008 due to the very unfortunate wording in the original Law 27.

They just couldn't live with this error and the year had changed before they managed to correct it.

[helene_t]

So the 2017 draft is out, with as most important change that it is now allowed to continue playing after a claim has been rejected.

[gordontd]

So the 2017 draft is out, with as most important change that it is now allowed to continue playing after a claim has been rejected.

Other important things are the introduction of the phrase "slip of the tongue" and the concept of "comparable call".

[Vampyr]

So the 2017 draft is out, with as most important change that it is now allowed to continue playing after a claim has been rejected.

 

Yes, and it is a real pity. I see no advantage to it, and I have no idea why it was added. Now when you claim and the opponents want to play on you can no longer say, " I'm terribly sorry, but it is illegal ". Now you have to say, "no, I don't feel like it ". Making you sound somewhat unfriendly. Hopeless. Absolutely hopeless.

[WellSpyder]

Yes, and it is a real pity. I see no advantage to it, and I have no idea why it was added. Now when you claim and the opponents want to play on you can no longer say, " I'm terribly sorry, but it is illegal ". Now you have to say, "no, I don't feel like it ". Making you sound somewhat unfriendly. Hopeless. Absolutely hopeless.

I haven't really formed a view on whether I think this change is good or bad, but why wouldn't you feel like playing on after making a claim, if the opponents asked you to? Assuming you have made a valid claim, isn't playing on just a way of helping your opponents to understand the claim you have made?

[helene_t]

I haven't really formed a view on whether I think this change is good or bad, but why wouldn't you feel like playing on after making a claim, if the opponents asked you to? Assuming you have made a valid claim, isn't playing on just a way of helping your opponents to understand the claim you have made?

As a declarer, yes, but as a defender who ha contested a claim you may still chose to call the TD because there is a risk that the rejection of the claim alerted declarer to some problem with his plan that he otherwise might have noticed too late.

 

Of course, the new law doesn't prevent you from calling the TD in such a case but it creates a bit of a bad atmosphere since the TD call sorta insinuates that declarer might otherwise take advantage of the rejection of the claim.

[weejonnie]

Unless things have changed, from what I have seen I would argue that the procedure after a call out of turn is a very significant alteration. Also the potential delay in advising opponents that you have given a misexplanation.

 

With regards to claims - although the principle is that the non-claiming side can suggest that play resume (and all four players have to agree), I would worry in case some inexperienced players might be led into volunteeering to play on and not realise they may lose the protection the TD would give.

 

"I claim the rest" (no claim statement)

"Are you sure?" (contested claim)

"Would you both like me to play on then?" (oops! I forgot to make a statement - honeyed voice)

"Yes please." (suckered)

[WellSpyder]

As a declarer, yes, but as a defender who ha contested a claim you may still chose to call the TD because there is a risk that the rejection of the claim alerted declarer to some problem with his plan that he otherwise might have noticed too late.

I agree. I suspect defenders would be well-advised generally not to take advantage of this additional option. But Vampyr's objection to the new law was specifically to the position she would be put in as a claimant (and, I assume - perhaps wrongly? - a declarer) being asked to play on.

[blackshoe]

As a declarer, yes, but as a defender who ha contested a claim you may still chose to call the TD because there is a risk that the rejection of the claim alerted declarer to some problem with his plan that he otherwise might have noticed too late.

 

Of course, the new law doesn't prevent you from calling the TD in such a case but it creates a bit of a bad atmosphere since the TD call sorta insinuates that declarer might otherwise take advantage of the rejection of the claim.

I think we should, as players, avoid thinking this way. "Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep".

[mycroft]

I make about one bum claim a year - maybe two.

 

If I had to play them out, I expect I would screw up the play on four, maybe five - and I'd be worried about being one trick ahead and blowing the communication on every single claim. I claim so I don't do something stupid.

 

So, guess what, I am not in fact going to accede to "please play it out". The TD, ruling "doubtful points against" me, will be much better than what I would do with the cards in my hand after my brain has moved on to the next one.

 

I read this as "people are going to ask, and last time we said 'you can't do this, but if you do anyway, here's what happens'; that didn't stop the 'play it out' people. So now, if everyone is good with it, you can just play it out. We don't like it, but it's going to happen anyway, so let's make it legal."

 

I absolutely agree that it's in no-one's best interest to play it out. But it will happen. So, let's regulate it.

[mycroft]

I also think the "move from forced passes to 'make a comparable call, and things are good' " is going to be the biggest change, and the one that is going to be most jarring to the players (by that, I mean, people will still be 'enforcing' the old law in 2022, just like they were trying to do with the 'won a trick after with a card...' law in 2012). I think it's also going to make the TD's job harder, but is probably good for the game (except for the people who think it's another "heads I win, tails I break even, why should I care about following the Law?" move. Which I don't disagree with, but I don't think many people do anyway).

[helene_t]

I absolutely agree that it's in no-one's best interest to play it out. But it will happen. So, let's regulate it.

Maybe the proviso to play it out should apply only when we have playing directors or with directors that can only be contacted by phone. With non-playing, present directors, there is not much reason not to call the TD. But in a lower league match, a club evening or a pub crawl, it is a PITA to have to wait for the TD to arrive, it is a PITA for the TD also, and besides, those events often have directors who are not very good at dealing with complicated things like this so you might as well play it out.

[WellSpyder]

I claim so I don't do something stupid.

I find this pretty stunning, TBH. I claim to avoid wasting time, so that we can spend the allotted time thinking about interesting bridge issues rather than going through the motions. I have never suspected anybody of claiming to improve their success rate in making tricks.

[barmar]

Most of the time when people want to play on, it's LOLs who simply don't understand the claim statement (have you ever claimed on a cross-ruff, and had an opponent ask "but what about the club"?). Perhaps the law should clarify the reasons why you would play on rather than calling the TD. The general purpose of claiming is to speed up the game, and waiting for the TD to come, review the whole situation, and confirm the claim is likely to be slower than playing out these simple claims. Often when you get a couple of tricks further, the opponents will realize the veracity of the claim and concede.

 

A variant of this method has been good enough for rubber bridge forever.

[weejonnie]

I also think the "move from forced passes to 'make a comparable call, and things are good' " is going to be the biggest change, and the one that is going to be most jarring to the players (by that, I mean, people will still be 'enforcing' the old law in 2022, just like they were trying to do with the 'won a trick after with a card...' law in 2012). I think it's also going to make the TD's job harder, but is probably good for the game (except for the people who think it's another "heads I win, tails I break even, why should I care about following the Law?" move. Which I don't disagree with, but I don't think many people do anyway).

It will be up to the poor TD, as usual, to explain the situation. At least he can advise the NOS (amongst other things) that they have the right to an adjusted score either if the offender's partner has used the UI (following a COOT) OR the OS has reached a contract they wouldn't have done absent the Comparable Call

 

One good thing -

 

"3. has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn call."

 

presumably now officially allows Stayman 2♣ to be replaced by a Puppet Stayman 3♣ after an IB. I note that the laws do not say that you have to be asking after the same thing.

 

No doubt somewhere near a North London bridge club someone is reading the new laws with eager anticipation

[blackshoe]

I make about one bum claim a year - maybe two.

 

If I had to play them out, I expect I would screw up the play on four, maybe five - and I'd be worried about being one trick ahead and blowing the communication on every single claim. I claim so I don't do something stupid.

 

So, guess what, I am not in fact going to accede to "please play it out". The TD, ruling "doubtful points against" me, will be much better than what I would do with the cards in my hand after my brain has moved on to the next one.

 

I read this as "people are going to ask, and last time we said 'you can't do this, but if you do anyway, here's what happens'; that didn't stop the 'play it out' people. So now, if everyone is good with it, you can just play it out. We don't like it, but it's going to happen anyway, so let's make it legal."

 

I absolutely agree that it's in no-one's best interest to play it out. But it will happen. So, let's regulate it.

I don't think giving in to the "I'm too ignorant/stupid/stubborn to just call the director and let him adjudicate the claim, so I want to play it out" folks is not, IMO, the right way to deal with those folks. Under the current laws, if someone asks me to play it out, I say no and call the director. Under the new laws, if someone asks me to play it out, I will say no and call the director. So this change, at least if I'm the claimer, is effectively no change at all.

[Vampyr]

I haven't really formed a view on whether I think this change is good or bad, but why wouldn't you feel like playing on after making a claim, if the opponents asked you to? Assuming you have made a valid claim, isn't playing on just a way of helping your opponents to understand the claim you have made?

 

I don't normally claim unless I have all winners or ruffable cards. And I never make conditional claim is based on a card dropping, a finesse working, a squeeze operating etc. This sometimes leads to stronger players putting their cards back into the board, but anyway I never make potentially confusing statements. So, I will count out the winners from the two exposed hands, but I will not play trick by trick.

 

I read this as "people are going to ask, and last time we said 'you can't do this, but if you do anyway, here's what happens'; that didn't stop the 'play it out' people. So now, if everyone is good with it, you can just play it out. We don't like it, but it's going to happen anyway, so let's make it legal."

 

I absolutely agree that it's in no-one's best interest to play it out. But it will happen. So, let's regulate it.

 

Yeah. I really hate this kind of tail-wagging-the-dog regulation. But in any case, isn't a request to play on a rejection of the claim?

 

I also think the "move from forced passes to 'make a comparable call, and things are good' " is going to be the biggest change, and the one that is going to be most jarring to the players (by that, I mean, people will still be 'enforcing' the old law in 2022, just like they were trying to do with the 'won a trick after with a card...' law in 2012).

 

The latter is sorely missed.

 

I think it's also going to make the TD's job harder, but is probably good for the game

 

I don't think that anything that makes the TD's job harder is good for the game.

 

There was a letter in the most recent English Bridge magazine. A volunteer playing director was called about a call out of turn. Now, I certainly don't agree with directors making book without the book, but it happens. With this director sis was silence the player who made the COOT. Do we really want to make this guy's job harder?

 

(except for the people who think it's another "heads I win, tails I break even, why should I care about following the Law?" move. Which I don't disagree with, but I don't think many people do anyway).

 

LOL I couldn't follow all the negatives, but I have thought of a new Christmas party rule. No one is allowed to make a bid that is not an infraction. A side benefit is that this will help players get accustomed to the 2027 laws!

[mycroft]

I find this pretty stunning, TBH. I claim to avoid wasting time, so that we can spend the allotted time thinking about interesting bridge issues rather than going through the motions. I have never suspected anybody of claiming to improve their success rate in making tricks.

Well, clearly you never forget an ace is out, or play a trick ahead of yourself. I "never" do that, either, but only for bridge values of never. Why would I trade a 100% line for a 99.5% line? Why would you?

 

I do dumb things that cost tricks all the time, and ones that are "mindless" for mycroft levels of mindless monthly at least. The chance of me doing it while "going through the motions" is, if anything, higher than normal, because I'm just going through the motions - which means that I will have to spend at least as much concentration on "not being mindless" as I would with a real problem. Isn't it good bridge to not do that? Isn't that, in fact, following Law 72A in it's clearest form?

 

If you think it's embarrassing for me to admit that I claim to avoid mucking up "going through the motions", or that I expect that I *would* muck up going through the motions, fine, be embarrassed for me. It's legal, profoundly ethical, it works for me, and is just as embarrassing as "don't put a long suit on the left in 3NT, please". Bridge is a game of mistakes, and doing what is legally and ethically allowed to minimize the opportunity to make mistakes is clearly good bridge.

 

Obviously I claim to protect my time, because we want to get to more interesting stuff, because the hand is over, all the normal reasons. I just know that even if the hand is over, I will, with non-zero probability, make a mistake if I play it out. So, claiming also protects my earned value. I'm not ashamed to admit it.

 

I am reminded of the conversations about the ethics of conceding to a finicky combo deck going off in M:tG (like Eggs or High Tide). You are *allowed to* not concede, even though you know it will work if the opponent doesn't make a mistake, but if you believe the chance is high that they *will* make a mistake, and if they do, they lose instead, should you concede?