[mycroft]

In this case, Jillybean, you want to look at the history of the regulation (which I hinted at with my previous response). Most Of The World agreed with the "can't ask on defence, too much UI" position - and because "some people" couldn't remember that Life Is Different Here, and got penalized for revoking as a result, they got it changed (well, they got the default changed from "disallowed, unless RA allows" to "allowed, unless RA disallows" in 2007; they removed the "RA option" either way in 2017).

I find the TBW editorial interesting - because while the editors of TBW are as American as MLB's World Series, they do frequently have different opinions than "the way the world works" in top-flight ACBL; and they have a history of pushing said opinions, knowing how it will be taken by the world. They've always been big enough in bridge to be able to get away with it, and sometimes, they've even convinced enough people to change the world. I admire them for it - because I *don't* have the pull.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2024-April-11, 09:01, said:

The editorial in the latest (May 2024) "Bridge World" is about this. They're against it because of the UI potential when used by defenders.

Good thinking. Presumably that is what several RAs already thought back in 2007 when they insisted on being able to ban defenders doing this. Now who could it be that was pushing in the opposite direction?

jillybean, on 2024-April-11, 09:41, said:

Expecting players to follow the Laws and proprietaries is futile.
We keep on saying the same thing over and over, are we still expecting a different result?

I disagree, as always.
But the Laws should be simple and clear and reflect the proprietaries.
There was no reason to allow this nonsense in the first place, no reason to tolerate it let alone make it explicitly legal.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2024-April-12, 12:43, said:

I disagree, as always.
But the Laws should be simple and clear and reflect the proprietaries.
There was no reason to allow this nonsense in the first place, no reason to tolerate it let alone make it explicitly legal.

Interesting, concept. If the Laws were simple and clear what would the game look like?

[TMorris]

jillybean, on 2024-April-12, 21:33, said:

Interesting, concept. If the Laws were simple and clear what would the game look like?

Anything that becomes easier to understand is going to be much more popular. I see world class players say, apparently quite proadly, that they don't know the laws. I'd have thought it a source of embarrassment except that even the people who enforce them (or are supposed to enforce them) disagree on what many of them mean.

If you had clear laws then popularising bridge on TV would become feasible for example.

[smerriman]

TMorris, on 2024-April-13, 02:14, said:

If you had clear laws then popularising bridge on TV would become feasible for example.

I suspect the fact bridge is unpopular on TV doesn't really have much to do with the laws.

[TMorris]

smerriman, on 2024-April-13, 03:27, said:

I suspect the fact bridge is unpopular on TV doesn't really have much to do with the laws.

I have no TV so am likely not the right person to comment but there is so much rubbish on TV (based on the rare occasions I have to watch) something requiring intelligence is unlikely to be shown. to that extent I agree.

[mycroft]

I would suggest anyone who thinks simple, clear Laws is at all relevant to TV suitability look at the rules for Golf (you know, the one with a "rule of the day" segment for every broadcast?(*)), Football (any but Association, which does in fact have a fairly simple rulebook, except for That One Rule), MLB baseball, or, you know, pretty much anything on TV.

I mean, it's not needed to know (many of) the Laws to *play* bridge (in fact it seems to be a point of pride with some stronger players *not* to know the Laws); and you sure can't learn to play bridge by reading the Laws; why would it be needed to watch it?

(*) Although it's arguable here the reason, as this is the only one of my examples where self-application of the rules is a requirement, so yes, in this case, it *is* required to know the Rules that apply to play (tournament-level) Golf. Well, except for Some Golfer(s), where the Golden Rule is Rule Zero...

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-April-15, 10:46, said:

I would suggest anyone who thinks simple, clear Laws is at all relevant to TV suitability look at the rules for Golf (you know, the one with a "rule of the day" segment for every broadcast?(*)), Football (any but Association, which does in fact have a fairly simple rulebook, except for That One Rule), MLB baseball, or, you know, pretty much anything on TV.

I mean, it's not needed to know (many of) the Laws to *play* bridge (in fact it seems to be a point of pride with some stronger players *not* to know the Laws); and you sure can't learn to play bridge by reading the Laws; why would it be needed to watch it?

(*) Although it's arguable here the reason, as this is the only one of my examples where self-application of the rules is a requirement, so yes, in this case, it *is* required to know the Rules that apply to play (tournament-level) Golf. Well, except for Some Golfer(s), where the Golden Rule is Rule Zero...

I reply on the point of my toes, because I have only vague memories of the Laws of golf, although I don't remember them as confused, just complicated. But FWIW it seems to me one of the few sports where most people really stretch to follow the rules and are shocked whenever another player does not do so. This is also important as it happens to be one of the few sports where (like Bridge) there are multiple threads of the competition and it would be impractical to have a referee police each one directly.
Bridge is alas currently at the other end of the spectrum (despite the illusions of its Lawmakers), in undignified company like soccer (where it is retained normal to simulate injury and a question of skill to make tactical fouls justified by the competitive situation).

[thepossum]

The person who taught me bridge and its ethics and principles many years ago is a very experienced club player
Reading these threads incessantly makes me never want to set foot in a club ever again

Forgive me for my lack of (recent) club or professional knowledge the ethics used to just be plain decent common sense - different generation ruined it did they

I don't really like repeatedly commenting like this but as someone who has played the game for more than 40 years, and loves the game, but never would set foot in a club would suggest there is a problem in the game