A retarded rabbit

[barmar]

I think "accidentally" is deliberate. If it happens accidentally, the TD tries to rectify it and no aspersions are cast on the player's ethics. If a player does it deliberately, they're a cheater and we need to deal with it as a disciplinary matter at a higher level. The Laws don't generally address this type of misconduct.

[pescetom]

four???

Is it maybe ten?

Even two would be an absurd lapse of time, considering how bad the laws are and how rapidly the context is evolving (internet, electronic play, need to make the game comprehensible and attractive to young players, growing awareness of ethical problems, etc).

[sanst]

Is it maybe ten?

Even two would be an absurd lapse of time, considering how bad the laws are and how rapidly the context is evolving (internet, electronic play, need to make the game comprehensible and attractive to young players, growing awareness of ethical problems, etc).

Why don’t you write a good set of laws. Stating “how bad the laws are” is nonsensical. It has taken many decades to come to the result we have now, there have been many extremely serious discussions about the text, a lot of not completely stupid people have spent days and years thinking about the best solution to the problems that can arise and the members of the WBFLC are the first to admit that there are faults, unclear passages and what more have you in the laws. But your statement is a gross misrepresentation of the reality and an insult to those who have put some very serious effort in the law book. If you don’t like it, find another game which will suit you better.

[pran]

Is it maybe ten?

Even two would be an absurd lapse of time, considering how bad the laws are and how rapidly the context is evolving (internet, electronic play, need to make the game comprehensible and attractive to young players, growing awareness of ethical problems, etc).

Yes, the intention of WBFLC is to have revision of the laws every ten years.

 

And about the word "accidentally" in Law 16D: I suddenly realized that during my 38 years (now) as certified Director I have had incidents when an announcement to all players about a board yet to be played at several of the tables was necessary. (Remember that we usually play the same board at all tables more or less simultaneously during the same round. I have been involved in events with more than 100 tables. Agreed - it takes a lot of duplicated copies.)

 

Remove the word "accidentally" from Law 16D then each and and every player who hears such an announcement about a board should notify the Director forthwith that he has received such information?

 

I think we better leave the word "accidental" where it is, without it the risk is imminent that some SB starts quarreling.

[lamford]

If a player does it deliberately, they're a cheater and we need to deal with it as a disciplinary matter at a higher level.

The problem is that if the player "does it" deliberately, then they are not committing any infraction, so there is nothing to deal with. You can tell them that the law is wrong, and they are not supposed to be doing it deliberately either; they will respond "how was I supposed to know that?" but you cannot penalise them for wrongly thinking that the event is a double dummy competition. And on pran's point that there might be an announcement about a board due to be played. That announcement will not give any information about the bidding, play, or composition of the hands, otherwise it cannot be played. Any other announcement will not be "as by" the examples in 16D, so will not apply. Nothing either of you have written remotely explains why "accidentally" is needed, and it is just a blunder. I do agree with sanst that much effort has gone into trying to make the laws correct, and I hope this forum has helped and will help.

[blackshoe]

Paul, why aren't you running the WBFLC?

[pran]

The problem is that if the player "does it" deliberately, then they are not committing any infraction, so there is nothing to deal with. You can tell them that the law is wrong, and they are not supposed to be doing it deliberately either; they will respond "how was I supposed to know that?" but you cannot penalise them for wrongly thinking that the event is a double dummy competition. And on pran's point that there might be an announcement about a board due to be played. That announcement will not give any information about the bidding, play, or composition of the hands, otherwise it cannot be played. Any other announcement will not be "as by" the examples in 16D, so will not apply. Nothing either of you have written remotely explains why "accidentally" is needed, and it is just a blunder. I do agree with sanst that much effort has gone into trying to make the laws correct, and I hope this forum has helped and will help.

"as by" implies "not limited to"

[smerriman]

They will read the Laws. I don't accept that "as by" means "not restricted to". Government "as by a father over his children" is interpreted as "government such as that exercised by a father over his children" or ... "government similar to that exercised by a father over his children" (a case in the family court). So "as by" in this sense requires "similar to".

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/as

 

Definition #2:

 

for example; for instance:

Some flowers, as the rose, require special care.

So only flowers similar to the rose require special care?

[broze]

I am missing something that I don't think has been discussed. Lamford said " it could never gain West to split on the first round of clubs, even without the UI that his partner had the nine."

 

Why not? Why can't opener have 97xx?

[pescetom]

It has taken many decades to come to the result we have now, there have been many extremely serious discussions about the text, a lot of not completely stupid people have spent days and years thinking about the best solution to the problems that can arise and the members of the WBFLC are the first to admit that there are faults, unclear passages and what more have you in the laws. But your statement is a gross misrepresentation of the reality and an insult to those who have put some very serious effort in the law book. If you don’t like it, find another game which will suit you better.

 

I appreciate that some wise people have put very serious effort into the law book and that at times it may have served the bridge community very well indeed. I also understand the difficulty of converging on effective changes and have no desire to demean their effort. Nevertheless I think the frequent divergences that emerge here between experts on how to interpret and implement the laws indicate that the laws do have some severe problems. More importantly, you fail to address my point about the rapid evolution of the bridge playing context. If the WBFLC waits another nine years to get moving I suspect that by then a good part of the world will be playing by somebody else's rules.

[pescetom]

 

>for example; for instance:

>Some flowers, as the rose, require special care.

 

So only flowers similar to the rose require special care?

 

"as the rose", if it is indeed valid English, must be equivalent to "such as the rose".

So there are flowers similar to the rose in that they require special care.

[pescetom]

I do agree with sanst that much effort has gone into trying to make the laws correct, and I hope this forum has helped and will help.

Me too.

 

Stating “how bad the laws are” is nonsensical.

It was a poor choice of words and I apologise if it offended your sensibilities.

[smerriman]

"as the rose", if it is indeed valid English, must be equivalent to "such as the rose".

Exactly - ie not how Lamford interprets the phrase.

[lamford]

I am missing something that I don't think has been discussed. Lamford said " it could never gain West to split on the first round of clubs, even without the UI that his partner had the nine."

 

Why not? Why can't opener have 97xx?

He can, but then the defence still has the same one club trick if he plays low, and declarer still has three club tricks to go with the six in the other suits. When something isn't discussed, the first thing to consider is that there might be a reason.

[lamford]

So only flowers similar to the rose require special care?

Indeed; dandelions manage quite well on their own.

 

And I do interpret, "as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins", quite a long list, as being information that a player cannot glean in the normal course of play.

[smerriman]

Indeed; dandelions manage quite well on their own.

That doesn't seem relevant to what I asked.

 

I'm asking if you believe "as" in that statement means the same as you did in the other statement; namely that *only* flowers like roses require special care, and there isn't a single other flower that is unlike a rose yet still requires special care.

[sanst]

I appreciate that some wise people have put very serious effort into the law book and that at times it may have served the bridge community very well indeed. I also understand the difficulty of converging on effective changes and have no desire to demean their effort. Nevertheless I think the frequent divergences that emerge here between experts on how to interpret and implement the laws indicate that the laws do have some severe problems. More importantly, you fail to address my point about the rapid evolution of the bridge playing context. If the WBFLC waits another nine years to get moving I suspect that by then a good part of the world will be playing by somebody else's rules.

Most discussions arise about ethical matters - use of UI - on one hand and the attempts by the lawmakers to let the play continue as good as possible after some infractions - IB, BOOT etc. - on the other. I think that the laws give the director enough possiblities to deal with the first, but their application is and will always be a matter of interpretation. The RA can give guidelines, but that would and could never cover all cases.

It’s clear that the second group of infractions is a problem for the WBFLC, given the changes in the laws at every revision of these. They are looking for workable compromises, but every time these give rise to discussions and problems for the directors. I, for one, would like to see a change were the director is at liberty to let the play continue without restrictions, but an obligation to award an AS afterwards if the infraction was advantageous for the OS.

The adaptation of the laws to internet bridge give rise to another question, viz. should the software make infractions like BOOT, IB and the like impossible? If so, to what extent? But another question arises, too, viz. what is the role of the RA’s and which RA should be responsible for cross-border bridge? AFAIK these questions are being discussed but whether that will lead to a clear set of laws, remains to be seen.

To have more frequent revisions would probably be hard to handle for the WBFLC, the RA’s, the directors and the players. Don’t forget that the committee has members from all over the world who meet once every two years. Of course a lot of the discussions between the members take the form of mailing lists like BLML, but they certainly also have to talk face to face in a language which is not the mother tongue of the majority. Then there is the need for the national unions to give their input and feedback - which in the case of the ACBL is pretty strong - which also takes a lot of time. Don’t forget that most of this work is done by volunteers and it takes a while to evaluate a new set of laws. I’m afraid that a ten year period is more or less the most practical.

[broze]

He can, but then the defence still has the same one club trick if he plays low, and declarer still has three club tricks to go with the six in the other suits. When something isn't discussed, the first thing to consider is that there might be a reason.

 

Thank you for your response. I did say I was missing something so I don't know why you found it necessary to make your condescending little jibe.

[lamford]

Thank you for your response. I did say I was missing something so I don't know why you found it necessary to make your condescending little jibe.

Apologies. It was the SB in me ...

[lamford]

I'm asking if you believe "as" in that statement means the same as you did in the other statement; namely that *only* flowers like roses require special care, and there isn't a single other flower that is unlike a rose yet still requires special care.

I don't think you can easily compare potential UI and flowers. The meaning of "as by" (which I am told by a Professor of Law is not in any of the legal dictionaries) has to be taken in context. Here I believe that "as" is used for comparison, e.g, "I don't play as well as you". So, my interpretation of the meaning of 16D is as follows (deleting the erroneous "accidentally"):

 

When a player receives extraneous information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, by actions similar to looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks or similar; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins <snip>.

 

It is up to the TD to interpret the true meaning, and also up to the TD to decide whether seeing who the declarer was last round is similar enough, and whether the time taken for the board to arrive is similar enough and whether the TD should be called every time you are aware who the declarer was or if you receive a board early or late. At the North London club last week, SB tells me that he was able to tell who the declarer was on every board on the adjacent table in the previous round, but he did not think that he should call the TD, and indeed did not use the information, as he regards it as a grey area.

[pran]

I don't think you can easily compare potential UI and flowers. The meaning of "as by" (which I am told by a Professor of Law is not in any of the legal dictionaries) has to be taken in context. Here I believe that "as" is used for comparison, e.g, "I don't play as well as you". So, my interpretation of the meaning of 16D is as follows (deleting the erroneous "accidentally"):

 

When a player receives extraneous information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, by actions similar to looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks or similar; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins <snip>.

 

It is up to the TD to interpret the true meaning, and also up to the TD to decide whether seeing who the declarer was last round is similar enough, and whether the time taken for the board to arrive is similar enough and whether the TD should be called every time you are aware who the declarer was or if you receive a board early or late. At the North London club last week, SB tells me that he was able to tell who the declarer was on every board on the adjacent table in the previous round, but he did not think that he should call the TD, and indeed did not use the information, as he regards it as a grey area.

For what it is worth: I was trained 38 years ago for my TD qualification and have always understood "as by" in Law 16D to mean: "for example".

The Norwegian translation of this law uses precisely these words.

[barmar]

The problem is that if the player "does it" deliberately, then they are not committing any infraction, so there is nothing to deal with.

Yet players who have intentionally gotten a line on a board have indeed been prosecuted by bridge authorities.

 

It's clear to everyone that secrecy of the hands is central to the game (indeed, practically all card games). The whole point is that you start with no information other than your own hand, then iinferential information about other hands slowly emerges through the limited languages of bidding conventions and play signals.

[lamford]

Yet players who have intentionally gotten a line on a board have indeed been prosecuted by bridge authorities.

I suspect that they did not even notice the error in Law 16D or did not appeal to the courts as some have done successfully in recent years. A court would overthrow a conviction here. And I often find when someone starts a sentence with "it's clear to everyone" it is not at all clear. It is surely far better to close the loophole.

[lamford]

For what it is worth: I was trained 38 years ago for my TD qualification and have always understood "as by" in Law 16D to mean: "for example".

The Norwegian translation of this law uses precisely these words.

It is somewhat different to "for example" or they would have used the latter. There is a definitive implication that the UI would need to be of the same type, else why give (a long list of) examples?

[smerriman]

It is somewhat different to "for example" or they would have used the latter. There is a definitive implication that the UI would need to be of the same type, else why give (a long list of) examples?

If they wanted to restrict to the examples only, then they wouldn't have used the word 'as'. Removing the word 'as' would give exactly the definition you are wanting. Perhaps it doesn't to you, but as by in this context clearly means for example to me.