[nige1]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-May-07, 05:23, said:

The guide by Ton on the Laws is NOT official, it is his own personal view. There are certainly some parts of it that members of the EBU L&E disagree with and would rule in accordance with their own views.

It is worrying that, In discussion fora like this, directors misunderstand the laws and disagree about their meaning. It is more frightening, however that the Chairman of the World Bridge Federation Laws-Committee differs from fellow committee-members in his interpretation of laws that they co-authored. Surely this must trigger an urgent rewrite in the interests of simplicity and clarity. We can't expect perfection, but surely we can hope for better than this?

[McBruce]

Is it just me or is there some axiom of this forum that says "despite appearances, the most interesting discussions will usually take place in the sub-forum called 'SIMPLE Rulings."

[jhenrikj]

nige1, on 2011-May-07, 11:34, said:

It is worrying that, In discussion fora like this, directors misunderstand the laws and disagree about their meaning. It is more frightening, however that the Chairman of the World Bridge Federation Laws-Committee differs from fellow committee-members in his interpretation of laws that they co-authored. Surely this must trigger an urgent rewrite in the interests of simplicity and clarity. We can't expect perfection, but surely we can hope for better than this?

The document is handed out on EBL director courses, it's what we are told to apply on these courses. The document is also continuously edited so things the WBF-LC agrees on in their minutes are added to the document.

[nige1]

jhenrikj, on 2011-May-08, 07:41, said:

The document is handed out on EBL director courses, it's what we are told to apply on these courses. The document is also continuously edited so things the WBF-LC agrees on in their minutes are added to the document.

Again, even in a simple basic case, the meaning of the law-book is unclear. At an EBL course, does any brave director stick his head above the parapet to state the obvious:

• It's hard for an ordinary player to abide by a law-amendment or interpretation that he doesn't know exists and wouldn't understand anyway.
• Even if information were better promulgated, the correction process would still be too slow. The last edition of the laws was four years ago. Many problems were pointed out immediately that are only now being addressed.
• In the short term, corrections should be made in place in the law-book, rather be squirrelled away in an obscure minutes read by few directors.
• In the longer term the laws should be simplified enough for most players and directors to understand, so that fewer problems of interpretation need arise.

IMO

• The main function of example cases should be to hone director's judgement over difficult rulings and borderline decisions (where, for instance, the director might change his decision if a nine were replaced by a ten). The laws themselves should be sufficiently clear for most simple basic cases.
• The laws should take the form of flow-charts or decision-tables, that specify a detailed protocol for the director to follow. Certainly, they should leave no doubt as to which path the director should take through the law-book..

[jallerton]

nige1, on 2011-May-07, 11:34, said:

It is worrying that, In discussion fora like this, directors misunderstand the laws and disagree about their meaning. It is more frightening, however that the Chairman of the World Bridge Federation Laws-Committee differs from fellow committee-members in his interpretation of laws that they co-authored. Surely this must trigger an urgent rewrite in the interests of simplicity and clarity. We can't expect perfection, but surely we can hope for better than this?

jhenrikj, on 2011-May-08, 07:41, said:

The document is handed out on EBL director courses, it's what we are told to apply on these courses. The document is also continuously edited so things the WBF-LC agrees on in their minutes are added to the document.

How often is it updated? The Laws section of the EBL website directs the reader to the WBF website. The version of Ton's commentary on the WBF website says "posted 8 January 2009" at the bottom.

[hrothgar]

nige1, on 2011-May-07, 11:34, said:

It is worrying that, In discussion fora like this, directors misunderstand the laws and disagree about their meaning. It is more frightening, however that the Chairman of the World Bridge Federation Laws-Committee differs from fellow committee-members in his interpretation of laws that they co-authored. Surely this must trigger an urgent rewrite in the interests of simplicity and clarity. We can't expect perfection, but surely we can hope for better than this?

Nigel...

I have a proposition for you.

Why don't we all assume that you think that the Laws should be simplified.
If you ever see a post that makes you think anything different, please let us know.

I'm sure that this will spare you many hours that could be devoted towards something useful.

[nige1]

hrothgar, on 2011-May-08, 18:07, said:

Nigel... I have a proposition for you. Why don't we all assume that you think that the Laws should be simplified.If you ever see a post that makes you think anything different, please let us know. I'm sure that this will spare you many hours that could be devoted towards something useful.

When I started posting to Law discussion groups, there were only one or two people saying that for Bridge to survive, its rules must be made as clear, simple, deterrent, complete, objective, consistent, and universal as possible (while retaining the essence and fun of the game). There is now a significant minority.who admit to sharing some of these views. We learn a lot from criticism and it helps us to modify proposals.

Hrothgar believes this "crusade" is pointless but, IMO, discussion of rule-reform is amusng, interesting, and constructive. (More so than endless repetition of the same inconclusive arguments over interpretation of current oversophisticated laws). Anyway, as far as the future of Bridge is concerned, I reckon we're on a shot to nothing

[mycroft]

I think that if you look at the Laws on one hand and random bridge player's system notes with their favourite partner (written out, and with all IPUs codified), they would be about as complex, and with about as many edge cases and judgement points.

But, of course, RBP "can't understand the Laws, they're too complex and with too many vague words." Doesn't seem to have stopped people playing their system, though.

Could they be simpler? Yes, of course - but in some cases only by using many more words.
Could they remove some judgement cases? Yes, of course - they could go for the Burn Solution, if they wanted to.
Could they be more concrete, especially with the contentious definitions? Sure - but I remember my attempt to define convention; it was one of the simpler ones and it was half a page (I think it had 11 cases).
Would more education of some of the less "intuitive" Laws to our newer players be useful? Of course.
Can we make the Laws understandable by people who don't care to read, and want to be aggrieved? No.
Can we make the Laws cover all the cases unarguably? No - well, not without changing the game.
And finally, Do the Laws and regulations allow the game to be played, and when something does go wrong, unarguably solve them in 99.9 if not 99.99% of cases? Yes. Should we worry about getting that fourth or fifth nine? That depends. How much work are *you* willing to put into it? I know how much *I* am...

Having said that, some of the core ACBL regulations (which of course, some people here don't have to worry about), could use a *lot* of clarification work, and a *lot* of "this is our case law, write it down, make it public". But you know, how much work are [you] willing to put into it...

[campboy]

nige1, on 2011-May-07, 11:34, said:

It is more frightening, however that the Chairman of the World Bridge Federation Laws-Committee differs from fellow committee-members in his interpretation of laws that they co-authored.

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest. It is inevitable that not every conceivable scenario has been discussed by the committee. If the chairman is asked about one of the situations that hasn't been discussed then his personal view might well be different from the view of the committee should they later meet to discuss it.

[nige1]

campboy, on 2011-May-09, 17:44, said:

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest. It is inevitable that not every conceivable scenario has been discussed by the committee. If the chairman is asked about one of the situations that hasn't been discussed then his personal view might well be different from the view of the committee should they later meet to discuss it.

What about the simple basic cases (to which I was referring)?

[mjj29]

nige1, on 2011-May-09, 19:00, said:

What about the simple basic cases (to which I was referring)?

I may have missed something, but nothing in this thread refers to a specific simple, basic case where Ton and the other WBF laws committee members disagree? Perhaps it was clear from the context in the original thread and I've forgotten, but I'm not sure we always agree on what is 'simple' or 'basic'.

Matt

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2011-May-09, 10:47, said:

Could they remove some judgement cases? Yes, of course - they could go for the Burn Solution, if they wanted to.

I can't imagine why they don't want to. "An insufficient bid (not subject to 25A) that is not accepted may be replaced by any other call. Offender's partner is barred for the remainder of the auction" is fair and easy to apply.

[campboy]

Vampyr, on 2011-May-16, 01:31, said:

I can't imagine why they don't want to. "An insufficient bid (not subject to 25A) that is not accepted may be replaced by any other call. Offender's partner is barred for the remainder of the auction" is fair and easy to apply.

The prohibition on replacing with a partner-silencing (re)double is worth keeping, though, since otherwise you have to deal with the judgement-requiring law 23 more often.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2011-May-16, 06:22, said:

The prohibition on replacing with a partner-silencing (re)double is worth keeping, though, since otherwise you have to deal with the judgement-requiring law 23 more often.

Yes, that makes sense.

[jhenrikj]

jallerton, on 2011-May-08, 15:48, said:

How often is it updated? The Laws section of the EBL website directs the reader to the WBF website. The version of Ton's commentary on the WBF website says "posted 8 January 2009" at the bottom.

I don't know, but there are some things agreed to in the WBF-LC minutes that is added to the document, such as the more liberal approach to law 27.

On the WBF site it also says that the document is issued by the WBL-LC. It may be written by Ton but it's issued by the WBF-LC and it specifically stated that it is how the laws should be interpreted. My understanding of the English language is that any other interpretation of the laws is wrong.