[pran]

 VixTD, on 2014-December-09, 08:55, said:

You're presuming that the 2♠ call was unintended. In that case, I agree with you, you should allow the change of call and possibly penalise partner for illegal communication. (I'm still a little uneasy about this, because of law 9A1.)

Suppose they intended to call 2♠, but perhaps didn't realise it was a jump.

Now might you make an adjustment if the question woke responder up to the fact that partner might be taking them for rather more strength than they actually have?

It is still (and essentially) a matter of TD judgement whether or not the conditions in Law 25A is met.

[jallerton]

 gordontd, on 2014-December-09, 03:09, said:

I think this is quite wrong. We at the EBU asked the WBF about the impact of L73 on L25A and in response they issued the footnote to L25A - not just an interpretation but an actual law change, something that very rarely happens. This tells us that it doesn't matter what alerted the player to the unintended nature of the call, the call can be changed as long as the other requirements of L25A are met. And now you effectively say "yes, you can change it, but we're just going to change it back if you gain from it". It seems clear to me that if that was what the WBF intended they would just have told us that L73 applies to L25A cases, rather than saying "no matter how..."

Gordon: I don't think that this is a desirable way to have to rule. All I am trying to do is to follow the Laws, avec footnote, as written. Absurd though this concept (of being allowed to do something knowing that it may be adjusted against if it gains) may sound, there seems to be a precedent for this in another bridge Law (Law 27B & Law 27D).

The minute in question says:

WBF minute said:

The committee confirmed once again that if a player’s attention is diverted as he makes an unintended call the ‘pause for thought’ should be assessed from the moment when he first recognises his error.
It was decided to add to the Laws a footnote to Law 25A as follows:
‘A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error ’

The question is referred for further examination in the next review of the Laws.

You mention that the EBU had brought the WBFLC's specific attention to the apparent conflict between Law 25A and Law 73; presumably this was the specific reason for this item being on the agenda of that particular WBFLC meeting. Therefore it seems bizarre that neither the added footnote nor the text of the minute itself makes any reference to Law 73 or why it might not apply.

If this was intended to be a law change and if they wanted Law 25A to take precedence over Law 73A, Law 73B1 and Law 73C, why doesn't the footnote say something like:

‘Nothwithstanding Law 73, a player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error ’

Or, even better, they could have put an asterisk footnote to Law 73 instead saying something like "* unless expressly permitted by another Law"

But the failure to restrict the scope of Law 73, even when the anomaly was pointed out to the WBFLC, implies to me that this Law still exists and is potentially relevant.

I repeat: I'm not trying to be awkward here. Most TDs do not possess your detailed knowledge of the Laws and their history. I just think that a (sufficiently intelligent) club TD should be able to pick up a Law Book, read and understand what it says, and rule accordingly.

[jallerton]

 RMB1, on 2014-December-08, 17:52, said:

A similar case was considered by EBU L&E committee (2014-10-01): a player bid 6NT intending 6♠, and partner expressed surprise by a comment, and the TD allowed the bid to be corrected. The committee thought that there should have been procedural penalty for the illegal comment but that otherwise the ruling [allowing the correction and no subsequent adjustment] was correct.

Did the EBU L&EC explain the reasoning for this?

If the partner's comment was considered to be an infraction, why is it not appropriate to 'assess rectification' for this infraction?

If the partner's comment was not considered to be an infraction, why is it appropriate to give the player a PP?

[gordontd]

 jallerton, on 2014-December-09, 14:17, said:

Gordon: I don't think that this is a desirable way to have to rule. All I am trying to do is to follow the Laws, avec footnote, as written. Absurd though this concept (of being allowed to do something knowing that it may be adjusted against if it gains) may sound, there seems to be a precedent for this in another bridge Law (Law 27B & Law 27D).

That isn't quite the same in that it doesn't take away any advantage, just an advantage that couldn't have been gained without the use of an insufficient bid. Such a thing never applies to unintended calls.

 jallerton, on 2014-December-09, 14:17, said:

You mention that the EBU had brought the WBFLC's specific attention to the apparent conflict between Law 25A and Law 73; presumably this was the specific reason for this item being on the agenda of that particular WBFLC meeting. Therefore it seems bizarre that neither the added footnote nor the text of the minute itself makes any reference to Law 73 or why it might not apply.

If this was intended to be a law change and if they wanted Law 25A to take precedence over Law 73A, Law 73B1 and Law 73C, why doesn't the footnote say something like:

‘Nothwithstanding Law 73, a player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error ’

Or, even better, they could have put an asterisk footnote to Law 73 instead saying something like "* unless expressly permitted by another Law"

But the failure to restrict the scope of Law 73, even when the anomaly was pointed out to the WBFLC, implies to me that this Law still exists and is potentially relevant.

I repeat: I'm not trying to be awkward here. Most TDs do not possess your detailed knowledge of the Laws and their history. I just think that a (sufficiently intelligent) club TD should be able to pick up a Law Book, read and understand what it says, and rule accordingly.

I agree with you that this hasn't been made as clear as it might have and I share your desire for simpler, clearer Laws, but I am not surprised that this has not yet happened. I hope there may be improvements in the next Law Book, but hope is as much as I do.

[blackshoe]

There was a comment in the minutes of one of the fairly recent meetings of the ACBLLC (in 2013, I think) to the effect that they do not expect any major changes in the next revision of the laws. So small improvements like clarifying this situation may happen, but a reorganization of the law book probably won't.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-10, 10:00, said:

There was a comment in the minutes of one of the fairly recent meetings of the ACBLLC (in 2013, I think) to the effect that they do not expect any major changes in the next revision of the laws. So small improvements like clarifying this situation may happen, but a reorganization of the law book probably won't.

It's not obvious what might be meant by "major changes". It could refer to changes that substantively alter the game, like changes to the scores for doubled undertricks or the number of tricks tranferred after a revoke.

But you're probably right that they also meant structural changes to the way the Laws are written. So all we can expect are incremental tweaks. This is probably likely for much of the foreseeable future, not just the next revision. Major rewrites are a lot of work, there needs to be plenty of benefit to be gained for it to be worth it.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2014-December-10, 11:19, said:

It's not obvious what might be meant by "major changes". It could refer to changes that substantively alter the game, like changes to the scores for doubled undertricks or the number of tricks tranferred after a revoke.

But you're probably right that they also meant structural changes to the way the Laws are written. So all we can expect are incremental tweaks. This is probably likely for much of the foreseeable future, not just the next revision. Major rewrites are a lot of work, there needs to be plenty of benefit to be gained for it to be worth it.

Oh, I agree - but I also think that "the law book would be easier to use and to understand" is worth the effort.

[mycroft]

Ah, but remember that the Law Writers understand it, as do all the people who *they* interact with. Therefore, it's easy to understand. Please note, I am including myself in this one (and, given there are three or four new TDs, some much better and more experienced *players* than I, in this area, I am being reminded of how "easy" "easy" truly isn't :-)

And legitimately, if major structural changes happen to the Law Book, that is a *lot* of retraining for *everybody*, including everybody who understand. I realize that shouldn't be a consideration if it will make everything easier in the long run, but from my real job, I know that it is.

[blackshoe]

You remind me of the physics prof, who when he said a particular transition from one equation to the next was "obvious" was asked by student "is it really?" The prof excused himself, left the room, and came back 20 minutes later. He said "yes, it's obvious" and continued with his lecture.

Yes, people can be stupid, especially where change is involved.

I would put a small diagram in the front of a revised lawbook. Five boxes, one for each of the five most common problems, defining the problem ("Lead out of Turn" or whatever) and showing which law now governs, and what page it's on. In a pdf version, that last would be a hyperlink. Could be more boxes if deemed necessary or desirable, but you don't want to clutter it up too much.

On another note: I got a reply this morning to an inquiry I made to the "rulings" folks at ACBL. I was, in essence, asked to limit my questions to them, apparently to one per year. The complaint was "we get over 1800 emails a year, and we have over 160,000 members." They didn't comment on the question "how many of those 160,000 would ever bother to write to 'rulings?'" Hell of a way to run a railroad, ain't it?

[mycroft]

Similar to: there are only 2 classes of mathematical problems: "unsolved/unsolvable" and "trivial"

[pran]

 mycroft, on 2014-December-10, 16:20, said:

Similar to: there are only 2 classes of mathematical problems: "unsolved/unsolvable" and "trivial"

Pardon me for pointing out that "Fermat's last theorem" remained unsolved (and was seriously considered unsolvable) for 350 years until eventually solved by Andrew Wiles in 1994.

I think it will take many years before it can be considered "trivial".

[mycroft]

That's a joke, son!"</Leghorn, F.>

As for the author of the original quote, "I only steal from the best."

[barmar]

Writing something like the complete rules for any game is a difficult task. If a major rewrite of the Laws were done, I think the likely result would be that many of the places that we currently recognize as confusing will be fixed up, but there would undoubtedly be many new ambiguities added. Just like when they thought they were improving the IB law, but inadvertently wrote it wrong the first time, and the 11th-hour fixup is still hard to understand.

So if we're quoting aphorisms, my contribution is "be careful what you wish for...".

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2014-December-11, 07:59, said:

Writing something like the complete rules for any game is a difficult task. If a major rewrite of the Laws were done, I think the likely result would be that many of the places that we currently recognize as confusing will be fixed up, but there would undoubtedly be many new ambiguities added. Just like when they thought they were improving the IB law, but inadvertently wrote it wrong the first time, and the 11th-hour fixup is still hard to understand.

So if we're quoting aphorisms, my contribution is "be careful what you wish for...".

Yes. These thoughts are all important ones. "Major rewrite" naturally scares people ---both users who are afraid they won't be able to find anything and have to memorize new numbers, and the powers that be who are cowed by the perceived amount of work involved.

What I was hoping for was a reorganization. Certainly out there we have technical writers with the skills to put the Laws into an outline format where the subsections belong within a subject title; who can differentiate between policy and procedure; and who can correlate/cross reference laws which impact one another.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2014-December-11, 11:57, said:

What I was hoping for was a reorganization. Certainly out there we have technical writers with the skills to put the Laws into an outline format where the subsections belong within a subject title; who can differentiate between policy and procedure; and who can correlate/cross reference laws which impact one another.

That would be a good start, but I don't see it happening.

[barmar]

 aguahombre, on 2014-December-11, 11:57, said:

What I was hoping for was a reorganization. Certainly out there we have technical writers with the skills to put the Laws into an outline format where the subsections belong within a subject title; who can differentiate between policy and procedure; and who can correlate/cross reference laws which impact one another.

ACBL seems to be deathly afraid of significant change. IIUC, a technical writer offered to work on reorganizing and rewriting ACBL's regulations pro bono, and they turned him down.

[jallerton]

 VixTD, on 2014-December-05, 12:55, said:

There's one law prohibiting communication between partners by means of "extraneous remarks" (73A), but another that allows any player to draw attention to an irregularity (9A1). What if an action ("You didn't use the stop card, partner!") does both?

An interesting question. My first thought was to ask whether it matters whether the irregularity was not the one the player perceived. My second thought was to look up the exact wording of Law 9A1:

Law 9A1 said:

A. Drawing Attention to an Irregularity

1. Unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

Well, communicating with partner in this way is prohibited by Law (see Laws 73A1, 73A2 & 73B1), so I don't think that Law 9A1 can be used to justify the "Did you mean to bid 2♠, partner?" question.

[VixTD]

 jallerton, on 2014-December-13, 15:35, said:

An interesting question. My first thought was to ask whether it matters whether the irregularity was not the one the player perceived. My second thought was to look up the exact wording of Law 9A1:

Quote

Unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

Well, communicating with partner in this way is prohibited by Law (see Laws 73A1, 73A2 & 73B1), so I don't think that Law 9A1 can be used to justify the "Did you mean to bid 2♠, partner?" question.

Yes, this solution had occurred to me, and could provide a basis for giving redress for any damage caused, but I still don't feel very happy giving penalties to players who are following a law which specifically addresses the situation but falling foul of another that applies only indirectly.

I tried to find examples of laws which explicitly prevent players from doing things they are normally allowed to do, and I thought the most obvious place to look was under players required by law to pass. Oddly, they are forbidden to ask for a review of the auction (law 20B), but not to ask for an explanation (law 20F). (One could of course argue that a player required to pass can only be asking for partner's benefit and rule under law 20G1).

[blackshoe]

 VixTD, on 2014-December-15, 08:32, said:

Yes, this solution had occurred to me, and could provide a basis for giving redress for any damage caused, but I still don't feel very happy giving penalties to players who are following a law which specifically addresses the situation but falling foul of another that applies only indirectly.

I tried to find examples of laws which explicitly prevent players from doing things they are normally allowed to do, and I thought the most obvious place to look was under players required by law to pass. Oddly, they are forbidden to ask for a review of the auction (law 20B), but not to ask for an explanation (law 20F). (One could of course argue that a player required to pass can only be asking for partner's benefit and rule under law 20G1).

I don't think 20G1 applies here — all four players at the table are entitled to understand the meaning of the auction, whether or not they're required to pass. "Can only be asking for partner's benefit" does not follow from the facts.

When a player violates Law 73B1 ("…shall not…") or Law 73C ("…must…"), the law says that the former "should incur a procedural penalty more often than not" and the latter is "a serious matter indeed". So I don't see why issuing a procedural penalty should be a problem, except that we have created for ourselves a culture where that's "just not done" — wrongly, in my opinion. We do have the option, in "first offense" cases, to issue a warning rather than a score-affecting penalty, but it should be clear to both the player and the director that a second offense — and not just in this event — will result in a material penalty.

We have an interpretation of Law 25A that says that it doesn't matter how a player who made an unintended call becomes aware that he has done so, provided the other criteria of Law 25A are met. But the only player who would know that a call is unintended is the player who made the call. Law 9A1 ("…may do…") does not require a player to draw attention to an irregularity, nor does it specify the manner in which the drawing should be done. So it's a very general law, and Laws 73B and 73C are more specific. So even if 2♠, being unintended is an irregularity, care needs to be taken in how attention is drawn to it.

[aguahombre]

Just out of curiosity....with screens, a player who did a finger-fumble is still allowed to apply 25A before his partner has bid. But what is the procedure? Does he say "Stop"? Does he toss the "Stop" or the "Director" card under the screen? How does he know whether partner has bid?