[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-07, 08:40, said:

Hm. That "infringing calls shall not be accepted" bit bothers me. If N makes an IB, under Law 27A, East may accept it. This part of the regulation conflicts with the Law. I don't think that's legal.

The reason for that law is because it's not possible to unring a bell that has been heard by partner. But screens solve that problem inherently, and the need for accepting IBs that haven't been pushed through is gone. This regulation allows us to get a normal bridge result, without the need to tell partner to ignore UI, or worry about whether they managed to achieve a result they couldn't have gotten without the irregularity.

It's not much different from the way electronic bridge totally prevents these types of irregularities. They're considered "part of the game" only because the traditional playing technology makes them inevitable, not because we actually want to allow them.

[blackshoe]

Are sure it was the LC that promulgated the WBF's screen regs? I'm not.

If by "all bridge programs" you mean software used to play bridge they all (afaik) are in conflict with the laws. And there are a lot of people who think it's the laws that should be changed. That's ass-backward if you ask me.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-07, 14:12, said:

Are sure it was the LC that promulgated the WBF's screen regs? I'm not.

There's quite a degree of overlap between the LC and the Rules & Regulations committee. I doubt they would have felt able to make the screen regulations if they thought the LC wouldn't be happy about it.

[RSliwinski]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-07, 08:40, said:

Hm. That "infringing calls shall not be accepted" bit bothers me. If N makes an IB, under Law 27A, East may accept it. This part of the regulation conflicts with the Law. I don't think that's legal.

Well, I think that the law 80B2(e) gives the legality to the screen regulations. For those who are to lazy to look it up, it states that The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include: to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance with these laws, together with any special conditions (as, for example, play with screens – provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied).

[axman]

RSliwinski, on 2017-February-08, 07:34, said:

Well, I think that the law 80B2(e) gives the legality to the screen regulations. For those who are to lazy to look it up, it states that The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include: to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance with these laws, together with any special conditions (as, for example, play with screens – provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied).

Merely because the power exists does not prevent it from being wielded unwisely. 80B2e perhaps would be clearer if truncated to The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include: to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance with these laws, together with any special conditions. .

What makes the particular screen regs 'legal' in spite of creating possible 80B2f conflicts with law is , together with any special conditions .

[barmar]

axman, on 2017-February-08, 13:42, said:

Merely because the power exists does not prevent it from being wielded unwisely.

Well, that's your opinion.

My post above suggests why the screen regulations are reasonable. Many of the existing regulations exist to address situations that can't be prevented in normal playing conditions. Screens provide a way to prevent the situations from occurring in the first place.

[blackshoe]

I suppose one question is whether we want to game to allow for the possibility of human error, or to attempt to eliminate human error. The former is, I suppose, the "traditional" way. The latter may be better, I don't know.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-09, 10:13, said:

I suppose one question is whether we want to game to allow for the possibility of human error, or to attempt to eliminate human error. The former is, I suppose, the "traditional" way. The latter may be better, I don't know.

My impression is that the spirit of the game is that all calls and plays should be legal, and the laws that deal with errors in procedure are simply there to deal with the fact that such errors are inevitable, and try to act as a deterrent. If they were considered legitimate parts of the game, we wouldn't have a law that says you're not allowed to commit them intentionally, we would allow it and just impose the rectification when "caught".

Anything that can be done to reduce errors in procedure brings us closer to the "pure" game.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-February-09, 10:25, said:

Anything that can be done to reduce errors in procedure brings us closer to the "pure" game.

I understand your point, I think but… does this include changes that simply acknowledge that people cannot seem to follow the laws as written, such as the upcoming change to Law 7 allowing defenders to play dummy's cards, or the entirety of Law 46B, which IMO is there because almost nobody follows Law 46A?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-09, 15:51, said:

I understand your point, I think but… does this include changes that simply acknowledge that people cannot seem to follow the laws as written, such as the upcoming change to Law 7 allowing defenders to play dummy's cards, or the entirety of Law 46B, which IMO is there because almost nobody follows Law 46A?

They're simply acknowledging how people actually play the game. If you try for decades to legislate against something, and it doesn't have much effect, you eventually throw in the towel if it's not a serious problem.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-09, 15:51, said:

I understand your point, I think but… does this include changes that simply acknowledge that people cannot seem to follow the laws as written, such as the upcoming change to Law 7 allowing defenders to play dummy's cards, or the entirety of Law 46B, which IMO is there because almost nobody follows Law 46A?

You mean we make the rules reflect the game that the players actually want to play, rather than the one that some other people want them to play? That approach seems unobjectionable.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-09, 15:51, said:

I understand your point, I think but… does this include changes that simply acknowledge that people cannot seem to follow the laws as written, such as the upcoming change to Law 7 allowing defenders to play dummy's cards,

What a terrible mistake. And does it mean that I cannot stop defenders from touching dummy's cards?

And will this lead to situations like a thread we had recently, when a defender placed the wrong card in the played position, and the other defender played a card? Presumably this situation is covered, as it must be with this misguided change?

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2017-February-10, 12:00, said:

You mean we make the rules reflect the game that the players actually want to play, rather than the one that some other people want them to play? That approach seems unobjectionable.

I don't know what players "want" to play, I only know what they do play. They ignore the rules, and TDs ignore the fact that the players ignore the rules. If that's how people want to play the game, why have rules at all?

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2017-February-10, 12:00, said:

You mean we make the rules reflect the game that the players actually want to play, rather than the one that some other people want them to play? That approach seems unobjectionable.

Does it? In Mr Bridge there were always letters from people who wanted 2♠+1 to be worth less than, or more than, 3♠=. And similar. There was a guy on BW who posted a series of articles suggesting eliminating most of the basic rules of the game.

Should each table play according to rules they prefer? Or should "some other people" make rules or Laws to allow the game to be played the same.

I know that there are many "home" versions of Monopoly, creating the game that the players actually want to play. Should all of these versions be equally valid if Monopoly were an international game where people paid money to compete against other players? Travelled to tournaments to do this on a bigger scale?

No doubt you will say yes. But most people do not want this for bridge. I personally like the fact that I can walk into a bridge club or tournament in any part of the world, and know that both the mechanics and rules of the game are the same. Of course there will be local regulations, but these are specifically prohibited from being in contravention to the A Laws.

[gnasher]

Stefanie, maybe it would be better if you leave me tell you what I think, rather than making up some opinions and then telling me I agree with them.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-10, 12:01, said:

What a terrible mistake. And does it mean that I cannot stop defenders from touching dummy's cards?

No. The new wording is:

Quote

No player shall touch any cards other than his own ... during or after play except by permission of an opponent or the Director.

So this simply legitimizes what already happens, which is that dummy leaves the table for some reason, and declarer asks defenders to play dummy's cards instead of reachinh across the table by himself.

If you don't want them to play dummy's cards, don't give them permission.

[Vampyr]

Yes, I have read it now.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-February-10, 18:24, said:

No. The new wording is:

So this simply legitimizes what already happens, which is that dummy leaves the table for some reason, and declarer asks defenders to play dummy's cards instead of reachinh across the table by himself.

If you don't want them to play dummy's cards, don't give them permission.

While I agree with your last sentence, I don't think you've accurately described what already happens. I have seen the following: dummy, prior to leaving the table, asks a defender to turn his cards, or dummy leaves and one of the defenders either offers to turn cards or automatically does so when declarer names a card. I have never seen declarer ask defenders to play dummy's cards.

I'm not sure legitimizing current infractions is the way to go in modifying the rules of a game.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-11, 01:22, said:

While I agree with your last sentence, I don't think you've accurately described what already happens. I have seen the following: dummy, prior to leaving the table, asks a defender to turn his cards, or dummy leaves and one of the defenders either offers to turn cards or automatically does so when declarer names a card. I have never seen declarer ask defenders to play dummy's cards.

I'm not sure legitimizing current infractions is the way to go in modifying the rules of a game.

I've participated in such actions, but only because I know from past history that the declarer is OK with it -- it's my regular club, where we all know each other. Similarly, I expect your regular opponents would know that you don't like this, and wouldn't perpetrate it on you.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-February-11, 11:17, said:

I've participated in such actions, but only because I know from past history that the declarer is OK with it -- it's my regular club, where we all know each other. Similarly, I expect your regular opponents would know that you don't like this, and wouldn't perpetrate it on you.

They do know it, and at least some of them do perpetrate it.