[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2017-January-16, 13:45, said:

I am concerned that the people involved with the Lawbook are not listening to SB (or lamford, for that matter), and that we nitpickers won't get access to the new Laws until it's too late to change them. But I'm paranoid, I'm sure everything's for the best.

Well, apparently some folks already have access to the "penultimate" version of the new law book, but I agree that most of us will see nothing until the final version is published. Also, a little paranoia is not necessarily a bad thing.

[tony stack]

Interesting topic; yes, "In which" would make it seem that the suit that was led the trick before should be continued is given the higher priority than the other 3 suits was my interpretation as well... "with which" would be more interpreted to mean that second way people were talking about

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-16, 16:27, said:

Well, apparently some folks already have access to the "penultimate" version of the new law book, but I agree that most of us will see nothing until the final version is published. Also, a little paranoia is not necessarily a bad thing.

I expect that it will be as poorly written as the last version.

Grattanese, the modern form of Kaplanese, is really inappropriate for a book that needs to be used by people of all abilities, and translated into many languages. Short clear sentences that can be taken in order would work much better.

"If there are logical alternatives to the call made, the player may not choose a call which was suggested by the UI." OK, not super short, but clear and easy to translate. And if "demonstrably suggested" is used, the term should be defined in a footnote or glossary. I have been on the Club and County Director courses, and no one has ever explained to me what it means. I would wager that the vast majority of club directors are similarly in the dark.

I really like Andy Bowles' suggestion that there should be an alternate version of the Laws that clubs may choose to use. For example, unless there is a radical change in L27, a volunteer playing director who may not be an expert player or expert director, and has no opportunity to consult with anyone simply cannot apply 27B. At all.

Have just seen some flow charts that are appendices, presumably to the white book. I think that the Laws would be better even if written exactly like that. Also that the EBU should supply these flow charts to clubs and directors, e.g. by including them in purchases of the lawbook.

[pran]

tony stack, on 2017-January-16, 22:29, said:

Interesting topic; yes, "In which" would make it seem that the suit that was led the trick before should be continued is given the higher priority than the other 3 suits was my interpretation as well... "with which" would be more interpreted to mean that second way people were talking about

If we use the interpretation In which - then Dummy obviously has no card in the assumed suit (unless he revoked when ruffing the previous trick), Law 46B3b applies.

If we use the interpretation with which - then Dummy is assumed to lead a trump if he has any, Law 46B3a applies.

SB has no case

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-17, 00:08, said:

I expect that it will be as poorly written as the last version.

Good to see you approaching the matter with an open mind.

[lamford]

pran, on 2017-January-17, 02:43, said:

If we use the interpretation In which - then Dummy obviously has no card in the assumed suit (unless he revoked when ruffing the previous trick), Law 46B3b applies.

If we use the interpretation with which - then Dummy is assumed to lead a trump if he has any, Law 46B3a applies.

SB has no case

I tend to agree with you, but it worries me that such authorities as sanst, blackshoe and gordontd seem to think that dummy has to play a card of the suit with which dummy ruffed.

"Law 46B3a is crystal clear "In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit". The queen of hearts is in the dummy, the previous trick was won by the dummy with the three of hearts, so the queen of hearts is played."

One thing that is certain is that it is not "crystal clear". I fully understand Vampyr's concern that the new Laws will be no better than the previous ones. It really is hopeless that the Laws cannot make "crystal clear" what happens when dummy ruffs and then makes an incomplete designation. It must happen "weak in weak out". The last set of Laws were, in my opinion, worse than the previous set, with Law 27B1(b) being a prime example, but also 50E and its interpretation is unworkable. Meanwhile, I have SB's appeal to deal with ... help please ....

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2017-January-17, 05:08, said:

I tend to agree with you, but it worries me that such authorities as sanst, blackshoe and gordontd seem to think that dummy has to play a card of the suit with which dummy ruffed.

"Law 46B3a is crystal clear "In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit". The queen of hearts is in the dummy, the previous trick was won by the dummy with the three of hearts, so the queen of hearts is played."

One thing that is certain is that it is not "crystal clear". I fully understand Vampyr's concern that the new Laws will be no better than the previous ones. It really is hopeless that the Laws cannot make "crystal clear" what happens when dummy ruffs and then makes an incomplete designation. It must happen "weak in weak out". The last set of Laws were, in my opinion, worse than the previous set, with Law 27B1(b) being a prime example, but also 50E and its interpretation is unworkable. Meanwhile, I have SB's appeal to deal with ... help please ....

Well 27B1b has been changed in the new laws, though it is to be seen if you approve of it. 50E has also been clarified. I've asked the current secretary of the WBFLC to look at this 46B3 matter, which hadn't previously seemed ambiguous to me, but I think it's quite possible that they will say it is too late to start looking at new things. It is also the case that he has a lot on at the moment, so I don't know if or when I'll hear back.

[pran]

lamford, on 2017-January-17, 05:08, said:

I tend to agree with you, but it worries me that such authorities as sanst, blackshoe and gordontd seem to think that dummy has to play a card of the suit with which dummy ruffed.

"Law 46B3a is crystal clear "In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit". The queen of hearts is in the dummy, the previous trick was won by the dummy with the three of hearts, so the queen of hearts is played."

One thing that is certain is that it is not "crystal clear". I fully understand Vampyr's concern that the new Laws will be no better than the previous ones. It really is hopeless that the Laws cannot make "crystal clear" what happens when dummy ruffs and then makes an incomplete designation. It must happen "weak in weak out". The last set of Laws were, in my opinion, worse than the previous set, with Law 27B1(b) being a prime example, but also 50E and its interpretation is unworkable. Meanwhile, I have SB's appeal to deal with ... help please ....

Those who read my earlier comments will be aware that I too considered a trump suit to represent the "same" suit after a trick won by ruffing.

I reached my current opinion "on second thoughts" in post #17

[blackshoe]

The solution to this is of course ( ) to change Law 46 as shown below.

Quote

Law 46A: When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should shall clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.
Law 46B: Rescinded.

Of course (there's that phrase again) it'll never happen.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-17, 08:57, said:

The solution to this is of course ( ) to change Law 46 as shown below.

Quote

Law 46A: When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should shall clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.
Law 46B: Rescinded.

Of course (there's that phrase again) it'll never happen.

And are you prepared to have an assistant at each table standing ready to hand out PPs on each violation of this new Law 46A at that table?

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2017-January-17, 09:23, said:

And are you prepared to have an assistant at each table standing ready to hand out PPs on each violation of this new Law 46A at that table?

Whether I'm prepared to do that is irrelevant, Sven, since nobody else will be.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2017-January-17, 07:03, said:

Well 27B1b has been changed in the new laws, though it is to be seen if you approve of it.

Do tell.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-17, 19:05, said:

Do tell.

Law 23 goes back to Law 72C, where it came from ten years ago. There is now a new Law 23 using the concept of a "Comparable Call", which will be used in various situations (calls out of turn as well as insufficient bids) to determine whether there is non-barring replacement.

I suspect you won't like it, though you might grudgingly admit that removing "in the director's opinion" and replacing "same meaning as the insufficient bid" with "the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call" are steps in the right direction.

Elsewhere, there are many changes of wording that are consistent with your advice to avoid convoluted phrasing and break things up into short sentences to aid clarity.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2017-January-14, 12:53, said:

Why does it "seem like it should also apply"? He did not lead trumps on the previous trick, so he is not "continuing trumps". The law seems just ambiguous to me. Is there any minute about this, and has it every been discussed in the EBU, ACBL, or other than Denmark?

Not as far as I know and I checked with my predecessor in the EBU. It had never seemed ambiguous to either of us (and we both would have applied it in the same way). It seems far more likely to me to have been a product of the literary style of the previous two secretaries to the WBFLC* than to reflect a different intention.

*Having gone back and checked, it seems I'm maligning both of them: this wording has been the same since 1963, which is when it was first introduced.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2017-January-18, 07:32, said:

Law 23 goes back to Law 72C, where it came from ten years ago. There is now a new Law 23 using the concept of a "Comparable Call", which will be used in various situations (calls out of turn as well as insufficient bids) to determine whether there is non-barring replacement.

Have they given a definition/example of a "Comparable Call"? And what information will LHO be entitled to before deciding whether to accept?

Quote

I suspect you won't like it, though you might grudgingly admit that removing "in the director's opinion" and replacing "same meaning as the insufficient bid" with "the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call" are steps in the right direction.

Removing "in the director's opinion" seems to be meaningless, since someone has to make the determination as to whether the call is the same or similar. Who will do that? What will happen to pairs who have not assigned any meanings to insufficient bids? Do we still have to rule based on the bidder's report of their mental state at the time the bid was made?

Quote

Elsewhere, there are many changes of wording that are consistent with your advice to avoid convoluted phrasing and break things up into short sentences to aid clarity.

This is very good to know. Maybe we will soon see the last threads on how to interpret a law?

Is there a table of contents?

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-18, 07:53, said:

Is there a table of contents?

We are told there will be (this was something I brought up on a few occasions) as well as an index, but they haven't yet been released.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2017-January-18, 07:32, said:

Law 23 goes back to Law 72C, where it came from ten years ago. There is now a new Law 23 using the concept of a "Comparable Call", which will be used in various situations (calls out of turn as well as insufficient bids) to determine whether there is non-barring replacement.

I suspect you won't like it, though you might grudgingly admit that removing "in the director's opinion" and replacing "same meaning as the insufficient bid" with "the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call" are steps in the right direction.

Elsewhere, there are many changes of wording that are consistent with your advice to avoid convoluted phrasing and break things up into short sentences to aid clarity.

I think that there will be problems deciding what the "meaning attributable to the withdrawn call" is. It will depend on what the person thought the auction was, and what he vaguely intended to bid. Usually, he intended to make the IB, as otherwise it would be mechanical error, and he had a senior moment. I think that, overall, dburn's suggestion is that it is made good, but the original call and any possible meaning it might have had is UI. But this discussion does not really belong in this thread.

[lamford]

WellSpyder, on 2017-January-16, 10:12, said:

I am amazed at some of the molehills people want to turn into mountains. I think it is completely obvious that this should be interpreted as saying that the suit assumed to be implicitly named by declarer is the same as the one that he either explicitly or implicitly named for the card that won the previous trick.

Then you and others differ from pran who, I believe correctly, writes:
"IMHO Law 46B3a never applies when Dummy has won a trick with a ruff and Declarer then calls a lead from dummy by specifying a rank but not a suit."

Personally, I think it is completely obvious that it should be interpreted as saying that no suit is assumed to be be explicitly or implicitly named by declarer when dummy ruffed, as there is no suit "in which" dummy won the last trick. And I am surprised there is no case law either way.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2017-January-17, 07:03, said:

I've asked the current secretary of the WBFLC to look at this 46B3 matter, which hadn't previously seemed ambiguous to me, but I think it's quite possible that they will say it is too late to start looking at new things. It is also the case that he has a lot on at the moment, so I don't know if or when I'll hear back.

I would have thought that changing "in which" to "with which", if that is the intention of the WBFLC, would not be an onerous task. Currently a TD has to guess which is intended when dummy ruffs and calls for a rank but not a suit, as some people have a habit of doing when they (erroneously) think that
a) they are being clever
b) dummy does not have another card of that rank.
Alternatively, leave the wording as it is and clarify which suit is implied when dummy ruffs. If no suit is implied, then it should say so.

To say that is too late to correct an obvious ambiguity is a poor show.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2017-January-20, 09:12, said:

I would have thought that changing "in which" to "with which", if that is the intention of the WBFLC, would not be an onerous task. Currently a TD has to guess which is intended when dummy ruffs and calls for a rank but not a suit, as some people have a habit of doing when they (erroneously) think that
a) they are being clever
b) dummy does not have another card of that rank.
Alternatively, leave the wording as it is and clarify which suit is implied when dummy ruffs. If no suit is implied, then it should say so.

To say that is too late to correct an obvious ambiguity is a poor show.

Maybe it won't be too late, but they may take the view that it hasn't caused a problem in the 54 years since the wording was first introduced...
They do have quite a lot else on their plate. Anyway, all we can do is wait and see.