[barmar]

Don't get me started on "class of player". As any student of cladistics knows, that could mean just about anything -- class boundaries are fluid and depend on context.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2013-April-19, 17:05, said:

If law-makers intend something different from what they wrote then, when they learnt of Lamford's misgivings, they should have published an immediate correction.

Has anyone actually brought it to their attention? It gets discussed frequently here, but there's no automatic path from passing references here to the lawmakers.

And I actually doubt that discussions here would really prompt them to take action. Their priority is presumably given to responding to actual actions taken in the field, not hypotheticals in a forum. The poor wording isn't causing any real problems -- it seems like only one person in the world interprets it literally.

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2013-April-19, 17:05, said:

If law-makers intended something different from what they wrote then, when they learnt of Lamford's misgivings, they should have published an immediate correction. Since they did not, directors should implement the law as written.

And if the WBFLC intended this rule to be interpreted literally, as soon as they realised that everyone in the world was interpreting it differently, they should have published an immediate confirmation that "using the methods of the partnership" meant what it said.

There are many things that the WBFLC should do but don't, or at least don't do as quickly as one would wish. All we can infer from their inaction in this instance is that they haven't unexpectedly become faster at dealing with things.

Quote

Otherwise, how can a director deal with:

• players, in receipt of UI, who slavishly follow the law as
  written.

By adjusting the score and awarding a procedural penalty. It is inconceivable that anyone could be aware of this sentence in the Laws but not be aware of how it is interpreted. Hence we can assume that the player knew he was breaking the rules as interpreted by the regulatory authority.

When you enter a bridge event, you submit yourself to the rules and practices of the RA, and you accept the RA's interpretation of the laws. If you believe that this interpretation is incorrect, you may try to persuade the RA to change it, or you may prefer not to play in the event, but you can't participate and then disregard the RA's interpretation.

Quote

• players who deliberately flout other laws and regulations explaining "no
  sane person could have intended what the laws seems to say".

By adjusting the score and awarding a procedural penalty.

[Cascade]

There is the not insignificant matter of applying Law 81 B2 "2. The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary
regulations announced under authority given in these Laws."

Given this strong wording it is essential that errors are corrected otherwise this law cannot be satisfied and even more it is meaningless.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-20, 01:25, said:

By adjusting the score and awarding a procedural penalty. It is inconceivable that anyone could be aware of this sentence in the Laws but not be aware of how it is interpreted. Hence we can assume that the player knew he was breaking the rules as interpreted by the regulatory authority.

The problem with that is the person can sue. He is entitled to follow the Law as written, and, if the RA does not follow it, it is acting "ultra vires". There is not even a supplementary regulation on the matter. And if you think that will not happen, Tottenham Hotspur sued and won when they had 12 points deducted, and the courts ruled that the FA had acted outside their own rules and gave them their points back. It was reduced to 6 points on appeal, but they still sued and reduced the penalty to nil.

The Law is not even ambiguous. It says "using the methods of the partnership". That must be followed. There is no need for any different interpretation.

And in case you think people will not sue in bridge, when I was Secretary of the newly formed Greater Manchester Chess Association in 1975, we and the British Chess Federation were sued by a Loony Lancastrian who did not think Greater Manchester should exist beause he disagreed with the new county boundaries. He lost, of course, but many thousands of pounds were wasted. And people in bridge are generally wealthier and possibly more litigious.

[lamford]

Cascade, on 2013-April-20, 02:46, said:

There is the not insignificant matter of applying Law 81 B2 "2. The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary
regulations announced under authority given in these Laws."

Given this strong wording it is essential that errors are corrected otherwise this law cannot be satisfied and even more it is meaningless.

+1

[lamford]

barmar, on 2013-April-19, 18:20, said:

Has anyone actually brought it to their attention? It gets discussed frequently here, but there's no automatic path from passing references here to the lawmakers.

Yes, as indicated earlier, RMB1 and I both have.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-April-19, 17:36, said:

I find it very easy to interpret the current law 16B as already saying what it should mean. It talks about "the class of player involved", so I interpret that to be a subset of the class of players who have forgotten their methods.

The fault with that argument is that even the class of players who have forgotten their methods still have to decide on LAs using the methods of the partnership. If they cannot do so, they can still breach 16B. Somebody forgetting the methods of a partnership can still give MI, so why should they not breach 16B?

[campboy]

lamford, on 2013-April-20, 06:10, said:

The fault with that argument is that even the class of players who have forgotten their methods still have to decide on LAs using the methods of the partnership. If they cannot do so, they can still breach 16B. Somebody forgetting the methods of a partnership can still give MI, so why should they not breach 16B?

The class of players does not have to decide on anything. The TD has to decide what the LAs are based on his assessment of what the class of players might do or consider. I do not find it hard to judge what players who use these methods but have forgotten them would do.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-April-20, 07:38, said:

The TD has to decide what the LAs are based on his assessment of what the class of players might do or consider.

The TD has to decide what the LAs are based on his assessment of what the class of players might do or consider, using the methods of the partnership

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2013-April-19, 09:33, said:

t is clearly likely to lead to a better result than both 3NT and Pass, and therefore is demonstrably suggested.

What? No. First you identify the UI, then you identify the LAs, and then you identify, based on what the UI says, which of them it may suggest. Whether a particular LA leads to a better result is not a criterion for that last determination. It is a criterion for whether there is damage, but that's a different question.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-20, 11:45, said:

Whether a particular LA leads to a better result is not a criterion for that last determination. It is a criterion for whether there is damage, but that's a different question.

The player has to choose from among LAs one that is not demonstrably suggested by the UI. If the UI suggests that bidding 3H is likely to lead to a better result, then it is demonstrably suggested over 3NT or Pass. So, you identify LAs without the UI, and then choose between them considering the UI.

[blackshoe]

"If the UI suggests it may lead to a better result" is not the same thing as "it does lead to a better result".

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-20, 11:54, said:

"If the UI suggests it may lead to a better result" is not the same thing as "it does lead to a better result".

I wrote: "is likely to lead to a better result". That is my interpretation of "demonstrably suggested". And one establishes the LAs and then considers the UI, not the other way around.

Your "First you identify the UI, then you identify the LAs" suggests that you use the UI to identify the LAs. I disagree with that.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2013-April-20, 07:43, said:

The TD has to decide what the LAs are based on his assessment of what the class of players might do or consider, using the methods of the partnership

It doesn't say "agreed methods of the partnership", does it? Here it could be argued that South's method was to open 2NT on a strong balanced hand. South is a member of the partnership, so this is a "method of the partnership", albeit a particularly poor method when his partner is expecting a completely different hand type.

The methods of the partnership presumably also include a general agreement to play 3♦ as a transfer to hearts over a natural 2NT bid. for example after the uncontested auction 2♣-2♦-2NT, or a 2NT overcall of a 2♦ opening.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2013-April-20, 12:00, said:

I wrote: "is likely to lead to a better result". That is my interpretation of "demonstrably suggested". And one establishes the LAs and then considers the UI, not the other way around.

Your "First you identify the UI, then you identify the LAs" suggests that you use the UI to identify the LAs. I disagree with that.

Okay, do those first two in your order. Or do them independently, which is what I meant. That still doesn't lead me to agree with your interpretation of "demonstrably suggested".

[campboy]

lamford, on 2013-April-20, 07:43, said:

The TD has to decide what the LAs are based on his assessment of what the class of players might do or consider, using the methods of the partnership

Sure. So what might you do if you use the methods of the partnership and have forgotten them?

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-April-20, 05:42, said:

The problem with that is the person can sue. He is entitled to follow the Law as written, and, if the RA does not follow it, it is acting "ultra vires". There is not even a supplementary regulation on the matter. And if you think that will not happen, Tottenham Hotspur sued and won when they had 12 points deducted, and the courts ruled that the FA had acted outside their own rules and gave them their points back. It was reduced to 6 points on appeal, but they still sued and reduced the penalty to nil.

The Law is not even ambiguous. It says "using the methods of the partnership". That must be followed. There is no need for any different interpretation.

And in case you think people will not sue in bridge, when I was Secretary of the newly formed Greater Manchester Chess Association in 1975, we and the British Chess Federation were sued by a Loony Lancastrian who did not think Greater Manchester should exist beause he disagreed with the new county boundaries. He lost, of course, but many thousands of pounds were wasted. And people in bridge are generally wealthier and possibly more litigious.

Sorry, but I don't see any logical connection between "the person can sue" and "The Law ... must be followed", with or without bolding.

It might be sensible to the RA to avoid the risk of being sued by adding a line to their regulations stating how this sentence is interpreted, or if necessary saying that it doesn't apply at all. In England this would be quite straightforward, because the regulations already (very sensibly) say that "Players entering events are required to submit themselves to the published regulations" and "Players are required to comply with regulations even though they may doubt the legality of the regulations (under the Laws of bridge)."

But the fact that the RA hasn't done this doesn't oblige it to apply a literal interpretation of the Laws. It's logically coherent to say "We're going to pretend that the Law says what we think it should say, but we're not going to state this except though training materials and case law. We'll accept a small risk of being sued because that's a lesser evil than obeying the unintended letter of the law. We don't think this risk is sufficient to justify the complications of explicitly stating that we're overriding the laws."

It's perhaps worth pointing out that there are several other Laws which are not interpreted as written by any bridge authority anywhere. The best example is 74A2, "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." If we applied this literally that would sometimes make it illegal to make a penalty double, bid a thin slam, endplay an opponent, or call the director in the face of a potential infraction.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-20, 13:22, said:

It might be sensible to the RA to avoid the risk of being sued by adding a line to their regulations stating how this sentence is interpreted, or if necessary saying that it doesn't apply at all.

Law 16B is not ambiguous; it is just wrong, assuming the WBFLC do not intend it to mean what it says. No interpretation should lead to the current rulings in UI cases. You were advocating an adjusted score and a procedural penalty for someone following it literally. That action could inflame someone enough to take action. Dburn once wrote, as best I recall, that no disapprobation should apply to someone following the law precisely. The simple solution is to amend it to what, you, I and most TDs think it should say. Your suggestion of ruling that someone should know what the WBFLC meant seems quite wrong.

While 16B is wrong, we should rule as the wrong law says. Just as we ruled that someone could not change a bid if he learnt about his error from an alert, until the WBFLC ruled otherwise. If 16B is wrong, then people entering tournaments should indeeed be warned that it does not mean what it says.

I agree also that 74A2 could be improved by adding something like "other than in the normal course of the game". I would guess that many laws could be interpreted in an odd way. One is:
39A All calls after the final pass of the auction are canceled. That should read:
39A All calls on that board after the final pass of the auction are canceled.
But we are not talking about semantics here. Law 16B can only be interpreted in one way as it stands. "LAs are decided using the actual methods of the partnership."

[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-April-20, 13:18, said:

Sure. So what might you do if you use the methods of the partnership and have forgotten them?

Accidentally commit a breach of 16B. But then most, I hope almost all, breaches of Law are accidental.