[axman]

pran, on 2017-January-28, 04:03, said:

I have now consulted my archive (mainly with Norwegian translations of the laws after 1947) and found that what are now Laws 18 and 27 have never been essentially changed since 1936.

However the organization of the laws has undergone several revisions and in 2007 the use of chapters grouping several of the laws under a common main heading disappeared.

At that time the explicit requirement that a bid must superseed the last previous bid (by either naming a higher number of odd tricks or a higher ranking denomination with the same number of odd tricks) had already gone, and now Laws 18 and 27 were no longer part of groups of laws under the respective titles "Correct procedures" and "Irregularities".

I believe that WBFLC found the word "insufficient" in the laws sufficient(!) to designate an insufficient bid as an irregularity and that no further precision of this fact was necessary.

It worries me that what has been obvious for 80 years now becomes "meat for the lawyers". Where are we going?

The dither is about the distinction between a definition which is a description and the definition as to what comprises an infraction. For instance L18 goes to some length to describe how to recognize an IB. And L27 goes to some length to describe what happens after an IB.

By reading closely one can figure out that he generally is better off to not IB, but is not in a position to know that an IB is a crime.

Kojak and Endicott have suggested that the dither is of no consequence.

[barmar]

axman, on 2017-January-28, 12:09, said:

By reading closely one can figure out that he generally is better off to not IB, but is not in a position to know that an IB is a crime.

Kojak and Endicott have suggested that the dither is of no consequence.

One reason why it could be of consequence is because of the law saying that you can't vary your agreements after an irregularity. If an IB isn't an irregularity, that restriction doesn't apply.

Or the law that says you mustn't commit an infraction intentionally. If an IB isn't an infraction, you're allowed to do it intentionally, as long as you're willing to accept the rectification.

And the law that says the the TD should adjust if you could have known that an irregularity would work to your advantage doesn't apply if it's not an irregularity.

Lamford, can you resurrect the thread where SB tried to take advantage of something like this?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-January-28, 14:13, said:

One reason why it could be of consequence is because of the law saying that you can't vary your agreements after an irregularity.

The law is actually that you can. But it is interesting that most NBOs have, I am pretty sure, interpreted this to mean you can't have agreements after your own side's irregularities. But of course there are exceptions when, say, your partner is silenced so you don't make takeout doubles or asking bids. What law is it? I am curious to see whether this has been clarified.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2017-January-28, 04:03, said:

It worries me that what has been obvious for 80 years now becomes "meat for the lawyers". Where are we going?

To Hell in a handbasket, no doubt.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-28, 14:53, said:

The law is actually that you can.

You're right, I was confusing it with 40B2, which says you can't vary your agreements by which member of the partnership is making the call, but an RA can relax this (the only time I've ever seen this done was when midnight zips allowed the "Caddy System", where most of the caddy's bids are transfers while the pro bids naturally).

Quote

But it is interesting that most NBOs have, I am pretty sure, interpreted this to mean you can't have agreements after your own side's irregularities. But of course there are exceptions when, say, your partner is silenced so you don't make takeout doubles or asking bids. What law is it? I am curious to see whether this has been clarified.

It's Law 40B3, and it's been revised significantly. The old law says that an RA can prohibit varying agreements following a question, answer, or irregularity. The new version only applies after an irregularity by opponents.

I believe ACBL has exercised its right to prohibit such variation, is that what you mean by "interpreted this to mean"?

[jeffford76]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-27, 20:42, said:

Ah, now I see where the text Gordon quoted is. I wonder why it is not closer to, or in, L27.

I assume it's there because they wanted to avoid renumbering laws, and thought the old Law 23 was a suitable one to replace.

[weejonnie]

The old law 23 is somewhere in part of law 72.

The key thing about the new law 23 is its application in the most significant proposed changes to the laws. Personally I think it is a good thing as it enables those who commit the irregularity a better chance for a reasonable result without disadvantaging the NOS - although of course Law 16 raises its ugly head.

(Obiter - I don't really like the main change around 68 - 71. You can imagine the scenario.

"Play on please"
"I'm willing, but are you sure we can? We'd better call the director"
...)

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2017-January-28, 04:27, said:

Because it applies to other laws too, as well as being referred to in L27.

Which ones?

[RMB1]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-02, 05:35, said:

Which ones?

26, 27, 30, 31, 32

[Vampyr]

Thanks.

I find the changes in L31 and 32 shocking.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-04, 22:27, said:

I find the changes in L31 and 32 shocking.

We all know what a sheltered life you have led!

[weejonnie]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-04, 22:27, said:

Thanks.

I find the changes in L31 and 32 shocking.

It is a major change - instead of giving the NOS no chance to take advantage of the UI through a draconian penalty, it gives them the chance to (almost) take part in the auction as if the irregularity had not occurred.

Of course this will mean that the Director will have to be at the table for a longer period since they have no means of knowing whether the person who calls out of turn has a comparable call until several calls are made. This will impact on a playing director.

[Vampyr]

Draconian? I thought the old law was too lenient. Why not is almost everyone's sympathy with the offending side? Why is calling when it is your turn considered an onerous requirement?

I am curious whether the WBFLC are planning to subsidise clubs when their pool of playing directors dries up.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-06, 09:52, said:

I am curious whether the WBFLC are planning to subsidise clubs when their pool of playing directors dries up.

Don't be. Clubs are not of much concern to the WBF.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-06, 10:12, said:

Don't be. Clubs are not of much concern to the WBF.

You are right. Overlooking the vast majority of bridge played around the world seems to be almost a point of pride with them.

[weejonnie]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-06, 09:52, said:

Draconian? I thought the old law was too lenient. Why not is almost everyone's sympathy with the offending side? Why is calling when it is your turn considered an onerous requirement?

I am curious whether the WBFLC are planning to subsidise clubs when their pool of playing directors dries up.

I would have thought that having to guess the final contract with no input from your partner was a pretty strong punishment. You can expect to score much worse than AV- for an infraction that doesn't even rate a PP. (OK law 23 can still be applied.)

WRT the current proposal - Directors are now going to have to potentially rule on two aspects: was the offender's partner making use of UI in their own call and was the offender's response a comparable call? (And does loaw 72C apply?)

[Vampyr]

weejonnie, on 2017-February-06, 13:02, said:

I would have thought that having to guess the final contract with no input from your partner was a pretty strong punishment. You can expect to score much worse than AV- for an infraction that doesn't even rate a PP. (OK law 23 can still be applied.)

You don't always have to guess the final contract. And a PP would certainly be appropriate for a repeat offence.

But why should a person not be punished anyway? You bid clockwise starting from the dealer. If that is too much to ask, maybe the person should stick to go fish.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-06, 13:18, said:

But why should a person not be punished anyway?

I don't think the question is whether or not they should be punished, but does the punishment fit the crime? It seems unfair that a small, unintentional slip in procedure can result in a very serious penalty, when it's possible to restore equity. Like if you absent-mindedly walk out of a store without paying for something, and when the alarm sounds you offer to return the item, but they refuse to take it and get you punished for shoplifting.

Or to compare with other games, it's as if a double fault in tennis resulted in losing the whole game, not just that point.

[weejonnie]

IIRC the purpose of the laws is to restore equity, not punish infractions. I may be wrong . . .

[mycroft]

*primarily*. Key word.

We seem to be going more and more to "let's try to get a real result if possible". I agree with Vampyr that that may not be the best in a particular case, but I don't write the Laws. I don't think it's *wrong*, however, to try to get a real result; maybe just not right.

I hope that I will never see the creep in of "don't care" due to the ameliorating of the penalties. However, I haven't seen it so far.