[lamford]

 jallerton, on 2013-April-23, 00:25, said:

Does this mean that you now agree with Mike Swanson's suggested ruling in the scenario you mentioned in the opening post to this topic?

Certainly as far as the 3H bid is concerned. Some question the 6NT bid, and 5NT, pick a slam, would seem to be an LA, and then 6D, making, would be the contract. I don't think that would get EW any matchpoints either. And whether 6NT is demonstrably suggested over 5NT is unclear.

And if you only got to Law 73C, you should have agreed with me, because the more specific 16B would override the general 73C!

[PhilKing]

 Cascade, on 2013-April-23, 05:41, said:

You are deliberately giving misinformation to the opponents. I haven't looked but I am sure you are not entitled to deliberately give the opponents false information. You are also deliberately giving partner unauthorised information that you have forgotten your agreement.

I wasn't asking for an opinion as to what I was or was not deliberately doing (which I knew), and I explained which law made me think I should do so. I wanted to know which law invalidated my standpoint (which a few people have now addressed).

[gnasher]

 Cascade, on 2013-April-23, 05:52, said:

Law 16 seems pretty specific on how logical alternatives are determined. Perhaps a procedural penalty or adjustment can be awarded under L75A but one cannot make a Law 16 adjustment based on logical alternatives when what is ruled is not a logical alternative in the partnerships methods.

The example in Law 75A is also pretty specific about how logical alternatives are determined. It is impossible to reconcile the strict wording of 16B1(b) with the example in 75A.

If you insist on a literal interpretation of the Laws, I think the only good option is to give up the game until 2017.

[paulg]

 gnasher, on 2013-April-23, 07:50, said:

If you insist on a literal interpretation of the Laws, I think the only good option is to give up the game until 2017.

As K9 said on Doctor Who - "Optimism: belief that everything will work out well. Irrational, bordering on insane."

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2013-April-22, 16:50, said:

I have now changed my view entirely, and now agree with campboy and gnasher.

How about the conflict between 16B and 73C? Do OB3D7-9 help clarify how 16B is supposed to be interpreted? Or are they irrelevant because local regulations cannot supercede Laws?

[gnasher]

 barmar, on 2013-April-23, 10:01, said:

How about the conflict between 16B and 73C? Do OB3D7-9 help clarify how 16B is supposed to be interpreted? Or are they irrelevant because local regulations cannot supercede Laws?

If there's a conflict between the Laws and how the regulations say they are to be interpreted, in England the regulations take priority, because:

Orange Book said:

1 C 1 Players entering events are required to submit themselves to the published regulations.
1 C 2 Players are required to comply with regulations even though they may doubt the legality of the regulations (under the Laws of bridge).

Given the number of poorly worded or inconsistent Laws there are, that seems pretty sensible to me.

[barmar]

 gnasher, on 2013-April-23, 11:00, said:

If there's a conflict between the Laws and how the regulations say they are to be interpreted, in England the regulations take priority, because:

But that's the regulations giving themselves precedence. Isn't that circular?

I can put a sign on my door saying "If you enter my home, you agree not to press charges if I assault you", but it won't hold water.

[WellSpyder]

 barmar, on 2013-April-23, 11:09, said:

But that's the regulations giving themselves precedence. Isn't that circular?

No, I think it is the Conditions of Contest giving precedence to the regulations.

However you interpret it, though, the practical consequence is that English players can just follow the local regulations and get on with enjoying the game.....

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2013-April-23, 11:09, said:

I can put a sign on my door saying "If you enter my home, you agree not to press charges if I assault you", but it won't hold water.

It might have an influence on your date or on a burglar.

[nige1]

 WellSpyder, on 2013-April-23, 11:16, said:

No, I think it is the Conditions of Contest giving precedence to the regulations. However you interpret it, though, the practical consequence is that English players can just follow the local regulations and get on with enjoying the game.....

Pity. Unless WBF laws have precedence, that game is not Bridge

[Cascade]

It makes no sense to have regulations that say they take precedence over the laws when there the laws allow for the regulations and state that regulations must conform to the laws.

[blackshoe]

Conditions of Contest are regulations too.

[gnasher]

 nige1, on 2013-April-23, 18:14, said:

Pity. Unless WBF laws have precedence, that game is not Bridge

Nobody plays Bridge as defined by the exact wording of the Laws, because it's unplayable.

[campboy]

It's not an issue of the regulations taking precedence over the laws. Players are bound by the regulations because the regulations do conform to the laws as the RA interprets them. All the OB passage quoted means is that the RA's interpretation of law takes precedence over the player's interpretation, where different.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2013-April-23, 10:01, said:

How about the conflict between 16B and 73C? Do OB3D7-9 help clarify how 16B is supposed to be interpreted? Or are they irrelevant because local regulations cannot supercede Laws?

As it is more specific, 16B overrides 73C. The WBFLC minute effectively says that all Laws mean "except where specifically indicated elsewhere". "Whether or not North's explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement" is pretty specific in 75A, and this effectively corrects the wrong wording in 16B.

Postscript. From BLML:
"Hypothetical 2017 Law 16B1(b):
A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership (or what the player initially but incorrectly believed were the methods of the partnership – see Law 75A) <snip>"

Ton [Kooiman]:
I have to admit, this reads nicely

[nige1]

 Cascade, on 2013-April-23, 05:52, said:

Law 16 seems pretty specific on how logical alternatives are determined. Perhaps a procedural penalty or adjustment can be awarded under L75A but one cannot make a Law 16 adjustment based on logical alternatives when what is ruled is not a logical alternative in the partnerships methods.

Cascade brings us back to earth

 Cascade, on 2013-April-23, 18:36, said:

It makes no sense to have regulations that say they take precedence over the laws when the laws allow for the regulations and state that regulations must conform to the laws.

Again.

 gnasher, on 2013-April-24, 01:40, said:

Nobody plays Bridge as defined by the exact wording of the Laws, because it's unplayable.

The Laws say that directors and players must try to conform to them You need regulations and so on but laws take precedence.

 lamford, on 2013-April-24, 04:36, said:

As it is more specific, 16B overrides 73C. The WBFLC minute effectively says that all Laws mean "except where specifically indicated elsewhere". "Whether or not North's explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement" is pretty specific in 75A, and this effectively corrects the wrong wording in 16B.
Postscript. From BLML:
"Hypothetical 2017 Law 16B1(b):
A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership (or what the player initially but incorrectly believed were the methods of the partnership – see Law 75A) <snip>"
Ton [Kooiman]:
I have to admit, this reads nicely

Great and that may satisfy Cascade. Unfortunately, although Ton Kooijman is a distinguished law-maker his BLML opinion isn't official.

[gnasher]

 nige1, on 2013-April-24, 12:55, said:

Cascade brings us back to earth

So far as I can see, Cascade has taken two conflicting laws and arbitrarily chosen one of them to take precedence over the other. Why is that more sensible than Lamford's view that the other law takes precedence?

Quote

The Laws say that directors and players must try to conform to them

What does that have to do with my assertion that "Nobody plays Bridge as defined by the exact wording of the Laws, because it's unplayable"?

[nige1]

 gnasher, on 2013-April-24, 13:40, said:

So far as I can see, Cascade has taken two conflicting laws and arbitrarily chosen one of them to take precedence over the other. Why is that more sensible than Lamford's view that the other law takes precedence?

Cascade wrote about permitted logical alternatives. L16 specifically defines logical alternatives. Neither L73 nor L75 explicitly mention them.

 gnasher, on 2013-April-24, 13:40, said:

What does that have to do with my assertion that "Nobody plays Bridge as defined by the exact wording of the Laws, because it's unplayable"?

Lots. And that was your reply to my earlier statement on precedence!

[nige1]

 campboy, on 2013-April-24, 01:40, said:

All the OB passage quoted means is that the RA's interpretation of law takes precedence over the player's interpretation, where different.

I agree with how Campboy understands that Orange Book sentence.

[lamford]

One problem with using the methods that the player believed prior to receipt of UI is that one has to accept his view of what would have been the continuations, as the actual methods are different. So, someone could pass 3D, stating that they don't play transfers, as many casual players don't, or bid 3NT stating that they only complete with three cards, as I do with some partners.

I believe Jeff Rubens advocated using the actual methods of the partnership many years ago.