[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2023-July-16, 09:43, said:

Joost, you paint me poorly here. I'll not thank you for that.

He paints all of us writing here poorly And while I would agree that the WBF does its best and has many great people (I speak from direct experience of working for them), it has its work cut out in terms of Law and is not a volunteer effort as he depicts.

[mycroft]

Last go-round's comment on the "full rewrite": there are too many directors out there who know where things are in the Laws that would be absolutely disrupted by a rewrite.

Given the response I got to "it's just like IBs back in the 2007 Laws" to which the response was "yeah, these club directors don't do that, either", they're probably right.

If those are all the suggestions made, I would be very surprised. I may have to ask where the rest went.

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2023-July-16, 09:43, said:

Joost, you paint me poorly here. I'll not thank you for that.

Sorry, that was never my intention. I wanted to put in a good word for the lawmakers. I’ve the impression that many here think that they made a lousy set of laws. Well, I don’t think so. Yes, there are many points that could be clearer, there are also laws that are unworkable, like 23, there some that put the director in an impossible position - who can know with some certainty what another was thinking and convince the opponents that that was the case? - but overall they are good enough to run the game. And a complete rewrite means such an enormous amount of work and would cost so much time, money and discussions, that’s unrealistic to think that this can be done with the means available.
In the real world of democratic countries there are also many laws that could be improved by a complete rewrite. In this country that’s not often done, laws are amended and even that takes a lot of work and time from professional lawmakers. Our penal code, based on the Napoleontic French Code penal, is from 1881 and has evolved over the years. The articles about dueling were valid, but hardly if ever used in the last hundred years, till 2006, on public blasphemy, also a crime that hardly ever led to a conviction, till 2014. If you look at the text of this law book, which is pretty important in daily live, it’s clear that a complete overhaul is more than necessary, but that’s such a huge undertaking that no government is willing to do so. And governments have far more money and manpower available than the WBF.
Your post gave me the impression that you think that the Drafting Committees are unwilling to rewrite the Laws, not because the amount of work, but because they are satisfied with the present set. I think they also see that there are problems, that there are omissions and that a thorough modernization is called for. If you read the Laws you still see four people sitting at a table and using nothing but cards. All calls are made vocally and everything that was invented since 1928 has been added, but basically these are still the Laws of ’28. A complete rewrite would result in a set that reflects 2023, but that will have become old fashioned in ten or twenty years time. I think we’re better of with regular and thorough amending and editing every five or ten years, than such a rewrite.
Please accept my apologies, as I wrote I never intended ‘to paint you or anyone else poorly’.

[axman]

sanst, on 2023-July-18, 02:25, said:

Your post gave me the impression that you think that the Drafting Committees are unwilling to rewrite the Laws, not because the amount of work, but because they are satisfied with the present set.

A small refresher of history. Lawmakers such as Kojak have expressed the notions that the bridge law is not broken and the frustration with those that persist to persuade them otherwise. A large number of bridge laws mailing list threads document it.

[blackshoe]

Apology accepted.

Heh. In the state of Delaware here, one possible punishment for certain misdemeanors was flogging. These laws remained on the books until sometime in the 1950s. So I understand your point. Perhaps I should have said reorganize rather than rewrite. I think they’d be better if the laws describing proper procedure were all in one place, and if laws that talked about the same thing were consolidated. Best example of that is law 75, which ought to be with law 16. But the lawmakers don’t want to do that because, they say, they fear confusing directors. I think that’s a specious argument. It’s not a complete rewrite but it’s a start.

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2023-July-18, 07:30, said:

Apology accepted.

Heh. In the state of Delaware here, one possible punishment for certain misdemeanors was flogging. These laws remained on the books until sometime in the 1950s. So I understand your point. Perhaps I should have said reorganize rather than rewrite. I think they’d be better if the laws describing proper procedure were all in one place, and if laws that talked about the same thing were consolidated. Best example of that is law 75, which ought to be with law 16. But the lawmakers don’t want to do that because, they say, they fear confusing directors. I think that’s a specious argument. It’s not a complete rewrite but it’s a start.

Stated like you do, I agree. That’s more editing than rewriting and the argument about confusing the directors, is nonsense. There’s quite a lot in the Laws that’s confusing and only introduced recently. The ‘comparable call’ is a fine example of a very confusing concept. That was clear when introduced in the 2007 Laws, but, though they were aware of the difficulties that created for even good directors, it didn’t keep the lawmakers from putting it in Law 23 as well.

[mycroft]

It seems that Law 23 was an experiment that didn't work completely.

I strongly believe that most of the time, how the Law works is obvious and gets us back to Real Bridge Auctions. I also think that's a large part of many people's objection to it.

I understand that when it wasn't obvious, it was very challenging; and it required the Directors at least to learn how to think in an uncommon way (that is very natural to me). I also think that's a large part of many people's objection to it.

My guess is that the overlap between those two groups of "many" isn't as large as people would think. And I think that will be a hurdle the WBFLC needs to jump when producing the replacement/refinement.

I, too, have my issues with it (not least the "don't make Judgement Rulings at the table"), but it succeeded in its goal of Allowing Bridge To Happen, rather than generating semi-random results (usually, but definitely not always, to the detriment of the offenders, and anything that stops me from having to explain L10C4 is a plus in my book) when something went wrong.

It isn't anywhere near a 1997 L25B2b2(*) issue. At least partially because it came up often enough that people didn't give a "they can do that?" look (never mind the "I can do that?" look) when it was mentioned by the director (and how many directors mentioned it, because even they were asking "they can do that?") But mostly because most of the time, that insufficient transfer gets put up to the right level, or the 1♥ undercall becomes a negative double, or the opening pass out of turn becomes a 1NT response, or...

(*) And yes, I had to look the reference up. Thankfully that actual connection has been lost to time in my mind. Did remember what lawbook to look at, and what phrase to look for; 'twill take a lot more tequila to remove all memory of that horror...

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2023-July-18, 07:30, said:

Heh. In the state of Delaware here, one possible punishment for certain misdemeanors was flogging. These laws remained on the books until sometime in the 1950s. So I understand your point. Perhaps I should have said reorganize rather than rewrite. I think they’d be better if the laws describing proper procedure were all in one place, and if laws that talked about the same thing were consolidated. Best example of that is law 75, which ought to be with law 16. But the lawmakers don’t want to do that because, they say, they fear confusing directors. I think that’s a specious argument. It’s not a complete rewrite but it’s a start.

Heh. I just played a game in which I pass and LHO opens 1♥, my partner doubles, RHO bids 1NT, I (looking at ♥A96) bid 2♣, LHO bids 4♥... dummy comes down with 4 hearts and 10 HCP. TD asked to examine auction says nothing, 1NT is suddenly explained as "fit". And you want to abolish flogging?

I'm not sure there is a huge gulf between reorganize and rewrite. Certainly we have to reorganise, both to better order the laws and to distinguish between an abstract core and specific modules for the various play modes (cards without screens, cards with screens, electronic). It seems to me that suggests a rewrite (hardly impossible, we have courageous people wishing to teach after 3 months) but also ample re-use of the existing laws, many will be almost a cut and paste onto the new improved structure. Others will need to be reconciled, some need a bugfix, others cancellation or a total rewrite.

It's not rocket science. There is more than enough brain power available. We do have to consider that things need to be clearer and that the ideal of letting them "play bridge" at all costs may have been a mistake.

[blackshoe]

I didn’t say I want to abolish flogging, I said that Delaware didn’t abolish it until the 1950s, by which time it had become “cruel and unusual” and thus unConstitutional. I’m pretty sure that flogging for certain things would be more effective than what we have now.

[akwoo]

mycroft, on 2023-July-16, 10:48, said:

Heh, akwoo, I am reminded of a ruling from the last Toronto NABC (one of my colleagues took it and tells the story, I've just heard it secondhand).

There's a ruling in the Regional Open Pairs where there was a hesitation by partner and a double. After getting all of the information, my colleague goes to the DIC of the event, Gary Zeiger. (I mention the name, because those of you who knew him will get more out of the punchline. Gary was - a treasure(*).) They work through it and basically it's a "well, you know, it's probably the right call, but double after a hesitation is always suggested because partner can do what they wanted to do. But still" hand. Plus the players who called were basically being jerks about it, trying to push around the much younger (therefore newer, therefore maybe push-aroundable) players.

At the end of the discussion, Zeiger says, with that Zeiger smile, "well, you'll have to poll it. Luckily, we have a whole room of peers to this pair; the Junior NABC is downstairs. Take it down there and see." Sure enough, "No LA to double, score stands."(**)

(*) Sometimes Smaug's...
(**) Somewhere I read "I was in 4♦xx making. I went to look at the card, when RHO called the score. Trust a junior to know that one off the top of their head."

This story suggests a question, a serious one for once.

How in the world do directors pick good samples for polls at local Sectionals or even smaller Regionals? I imagine that, for certain situations, when the director is a local and knows most of the players well, they'd basically know what answer they'd get from whom. Do they resort to putting slips of paper into a hat? Does ACBLScore have a pick some random players function?

[TylerE]

blackshoe, on 2023-July-18, 07:30, said:

Apology accepted.

Heh. In the state of Delaware here, one possible punishment for certain misdemeanors was flogging. These laws remained on the books until sometime in the 1950s. So I understand your point. Perhaps I should have said reorganize rather than rewrite. I think they’d be better if the laws describing proper procedure were all in one place, and if laws that talked about the same thing were consolidated. Best example of that is law 75, which ought to be with law 16. But the lawmakers don’t want to do that because, they say, they fear confusing directors. I think that’s a specious argument. It’s not a complete rewrite but it’s a start.

If they were really that concerned about it, Law 75 can become "Refer to 16A.4". Don't use 75 for a new law if things get that high.

Alternatively, it might be easier to just, say, start with Law 100 so the namespaces don't clash at all.

[mycroft]

Serious answer (and only my own): I try to pick peers. I don't try to pick results.

"looking for good C players with experience with non-standard systems/can think about unusual situations"; "she's flight A, mostly because she's played a lot for a lot"; "aggressive bidder, thinks he can play a trick better than the field"...

I don't want a result; I really try (in most cases) to wait for my opinion until after the polling. It doesn't work, but I do tend to keep it to "let's see how I'm going to be surprised here" (because I will be, more often than not).

Yes, I'm sure you *could* bias the poll to try to get the answer you want; but if you're doing that, you're not really polling, so why not just rule the way you want and not take it to a poll? Yeah, eventually someone will ask for an AC, and the AC might disagree with you (with their own "polling", or actually doing a poll) and the ruling may be overturned. Oh well.

But why would anyone become a tournament director and think like that?

Note that in that story, sure, they had an idea what result they would get, but you can't deny that they weren't peers much more than random 300-point 60-year-olds, even "high-achieving Cs". "We took it to 4 juniors of about this player's experience, and they all doubled" is - perfect, no? Whether or not you can guess how those peers would think?

Having said that, I have called/texted players, my area managers, or bridge clubs (there's an obvious if you know them benefit to having the [other city] Bridge Centre on speed dial) for polls/assistance in those "small sectionals" if there weren't good peers in the room (or if I was unsure how to go about thinking about the ruling). Others have contatcted me.

[mycroft]

Having said that, I am going to be In The Weeds very very soon...30 tables or so of NLMs, most of whom I almost never see in the games I play at (or play against in the games I do see them at(*)). My "Who to poll", but also "how to poll", skills will definitely be challenged...

But I've been practising. I almost deliberately chose the Gold Rush pairs as my default "area to cover" all week in Victoria, for instance. But GR and NLM are not quite the same...

(*) We have a Swiss Teams event that runs every couple of weeks. You enter as pairs, and are MP-seeded from the edges (strong A with newer B, less-strong A with less-new B,...) And the tables are set so that the A pairs of each team play each other, and the B pairs play each other (as best we can in the 3-way, if there is one). There are bad sides to it, but the pluses are definitely there (occasionally).

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2023-July-14, 10:49, said:

I don't share your doubts about the practicality of respecting Law 16: if I am a logical player of a certain level then LAs coincide with what I would seriously consider on the basis of AI, peers are just an objective and non-judgemental way to reality check. What's difficult about this law for players is that it is not what they expect (without specific education) and can seem contorted and unduly restrictive.

I stand by my feeling about this.

The problem with Law 16 is that LAs are defined statistically, based on what a number of your peers would consider and do. But the player only knows what they considered and would do, absent the UI. That's like just polling one peer, but it's worse because that peer is inherently biased.

Remember that when we poll, we first describe the situation without the UI, and ask what they would consider/do. After we get that answer, we then ask what they think the UI suggests.

So not only does the player have to try to think like a bunch of peers rather than just themselves, but also ones who haven't received the UI. I think this is just asking too much of anyone.

If a TD can't determine what the LAs are without polling, how is a player supposed to do it? Of course, part of the problem may be that the TD is not a peer of the player. But the other part is that there's just one player, and you need several peers to determine LAs.

[shyams]

barmar, on 2023-July-14, 08:22, said:

I've long maintained that Law 16 is for TDs, not players; players should obey Law 73 (try to avoid taking advantage of the UI). It's not really feasible for a player to determine what their peers would consider and do (they obviously can't conduct a poll), especially given the time constraints at the table.

So you try to avoid taking advantage, but otherwise "just play bridge", then the TD uses Law 16 to decide if you achieved it.

I agree with barmar's view on this topic. If, as a player, I am faced with this problem, I would use the Law 73 standard and ensure I don't take advantage of the UI. That's all.

I think that, at MPs, this is a non-issue --- in that no one action is demonstrably suggested over the other. Each player, relying solely on own hand assessment, may decide that the 420 vs. 430 scoring differential merits a specific action. Regardless of my partner's BIT, on most hands I should be free to assess that 450 is more likely than 420 and that it beats a 3N +1 so I should bid on.

The equation is very different at IMPs. Here the need to not take advantage of the BIT will actually matter. Presumably nobody will say "I thought 450 will score 1 IMP vs. an estimated 430. That's why I removed 3N to 4H"

[mycroft]

I am reminded of the Before Times in a tiny little NBO across the Water. In Those Times, a different statistical rule was applied: there was no Logical Alternative to the call if it was the one that would be taken by 70% of their peers (a "70% action"). There were several cases written on this forum and others, or related by directors on these forums, of people considering if the action they wanted to take - the one clearly suggested by the UI - was a "65% action" or a "75% action".

At least part of Those Times was after the proprieties were incorported into the Laws themselves. 73C was always in the proprieties; but when not a Law, it was ignored. Even when a Law, it was ignored by those who were trying to convince themselves their suggested action was "70%" - sure wasn't "carefully avoid", more like "carefully consider if they can get away with it".

Law 73 explains what a player is to do. Law 16 explains how it will be ruled if someone has an issue with it. I'm not sure I go as far as to say "ignore 16 as a player", but I have said "if you have followed 73 to the best of your ability, there is no shame in being ruled against if it turns out the TD determines it doesn't meet 16. If you ignore 73, there is shame there, even if it passes 16 this time."

[Gilithin]

mycroft, on 2023-July-16, 10:48, said:

Heh, akwoo, I am reminded of a ruling from the last Toronto NABC (one of my colleagues took it and tells the story, I've just heard it second hand).
...

While meant as a humorous story, this sadly reflects one of the major issues I have with the current rules. It allows for a TD to justify giving different rulings to different pairs within the same competition according to her/his opinion of their ability. This goes against every tradition of competition. Rulings either need to be made more objective generally, or the peers clause should be interpreted as the ability of the competition players more broadly. It is otherwise an unfair advantage and an obvious invitation for helping out one's mates, which is absolutely a massive problem in rulings at all levels of the game.

[blackshoe]

I would not tell players to ignore Law 16, but I recognize that Law 16 is harder to understand than Law 73C. I would tell players "follow Law 73C. Only consider Law 16 if you're certain you fully understand it." Although, truth to tell, if they think they fully understand it, they're probably wrong.

[blackshoe]

Gilithin, on 2023-July-28, 23:05, said:

While meant as a humorous story, this sadly reflects one of the major issues I have with the current rules. It allows for a TD to justify giving different rulings to different pairs within the same competition according to her/his opinion of their ability. This goes against every tradition of competition. Rulings either need to be made more objective generally, or the peers clause should be interpreted as the ability of the competition players more broadly. It is otherwise an unfair advantage and an obvious invitation for helping out one's mates, which is absolutely a massive problem in rulings at all levels of the game.

How would you fix it?

[Gilithin]

blackshoe, on 2023-July-28, 23:20, said:

How would you fix it?

As mentioned previously, the easy change is to clarify "class of players in question" to be the class of the competition rather than the individual pair, which is not my understanding of how this is currently interpreted. A more comprehensive solution might require a change in playing conditions. It has been pointed out fairly often on these forums that moving to a virtual 2 (or 4) room environment with fully electronic CCs would not only reduce the amount of cheating but also the number of difficult rulings. It is probably not possible to take bad refs out of the picture completely but it is possible to reduce the effect they have. It just takes a long time to overcome inertia before such changes can be implemented. That applies not only to sport generally, such as baseball (eventually) moving over to automatic strike calling, just as much as for bridge itself.