[pescetom]

Said on another prominent forum by a national level player, in reply to a discussion about an apparent fielded psyche.
I cannot dislike the comment, only flag it (as here too) which I see no reason to do.
Anyone else find it disconcerting?

[hrothgar]

No

And, FWIW, I find claims that "individuals owe something to the game" more disconcerting

[jillybean]

I was very surprised, given the source.

Personally, I don't understand why anyone would care go to such length debating, and disagreeing, how the Laws are being applied without any desire to change the status quo.
Some people just like to debate for the sake of debating?

[mikeh]

I suggest re-reading the lengthy thread on the other site. Andy Bowles (I’ve never met him, fwiw) seems to me, from numerous posts, to be both a fine player and an ethical player (the two should be but are not quite synonymous). He was responding, in the passage cited, to a post by someone else asking the rhetorical question of what all the back and forth (on the thread) was doing for the game. I took Andy’s comment to be, in essence, saying….I’m in this thread because I find the subject interesting. I’m not in this thread to ‘do something for the game’. Hence the rhetorical question was not merely rhetorical but of zero interest to Andy.

I do not believe, for one minute, that Andy isn’t interested in the good of the game…merely that his participation in that thread, which thread to me smacked of arguing about angels on pin-heads, was out of personal interest.

As for the actual thread, I frankly couldn’t care less. There wasn’t, imo, enough information provided to allow us to characterize what was done wrong, but there seems a strong inference that South either knew that 3H was showing a stopper rather than, as I think virtually everyone plays it, a suit or that, if it showed a suit, it was a psyche. In the former case, an alert was in order and in the latter he fielded a psyche. Either way, N-S erred. All the back and forth about which error was committed seems to me to be a waste of effort, since only the NS pair knew and either they weren’t asked or the poster omitted the answer.

[jillybean]

I have no question about AB's ethics as a player.

The some-other-person's rhetorical question was not about that thread but rather about the endless stream of ruling questions , and what the constant debating and bantering was doing for the game?

"We see an endless stream of these ruling questions on BW"....

[pescetom]

I too have a high esteem of AB based upon his many posts and his excellent innovations in the field of online bridge. Probably I should just have asked him the question in private, but I was genuinely surprised. Thinking about it, mikeh is probably right that he was defending the right to debate without such an ambition rather than denying that he usually had it.

As for the thread itself, yes I agree with mikeh that the all important answers from NS are simply missing.

[blackshoe]

There are some who are just not interested in rulings. Or at least, not in rulings that don't affect them directly. Some of us like to know how rulings should be made, what the laws actually say, and other such irrelevancies. <shrug>

[awm]

The current situation where laws and rulings are quite complex and even many very experienced players don’t understand them probably isn’t great for the game. It can lead to a lot of uncertainty and bitterness around the results, especially where some ruling (or lack thereof) was involved.

Anything that can be done to simplify or at least demystify these things is a plus. Not that the particular thread in question fits this criteria.

[mycroft]

Bridge is a complicated game with complicated situations. And because it's a team game rather than an individual one, and one where we have decided that limiting communication methods is a core pillar of the game, many of the complications (play and legal) revolve around that communication.

Those complications can not be simplified beyond a specific point without changing the game. Have we reached it yet? Possibly not. I expect there are ways that could push it farther. I would agree with you that some simplifications, provided they don't change the game, would be a plus. Of course, some other changes to the game - like "very experienced players" being willing to learn enough about "the complicated bits" that they *do* in fact understand the rulings in future (even if they disagree with them) - would also help.

But we also have at least four points in the road. One of the complications is that while those points are bright and obvious, they are in no ways discrete; in fact, they are more "attraction points on a continuum" than obviously assignable marks.

• One is "communication beyond legal limits happened, it may have got used, the communication was either unintentional or an unintended side-effect of legal consideration, and the use (if any) was subconscious." Now, we all know about this one, and what happens if we do anything that even implies intent. Frankly, it's hard enough giving a ruling that really *is* "we know you didn't mean to do anything, but someone who was trying..." never mind when we aren't 100% sure of that (or, more obviously, when the opponents are 100% sure of not that).
  
• One is "communication beyond legal limits happens regularly, with no attempt to minimize, and it gets taken into consideration, with no attempt to avoid; but nothing is deliberate". These are the windmills I tilt against - the "but I don't want to hold up the game when I have nothing to think about" (and everybody knows it, and magically your partners guess really well. Also, of course, when you *do* have something to think about. Ex: "WeaSeL vs. preempts/weak NT"); the "what's 2♦?" ("natural and preemptive, as you well know, because anything else is Alertable. And what we all also now well know is that you have about 13 about balanced, and I bet your partner's balancing decision is going to be spot-on." Note, this worked very well back when it was part of "WeaSeL vs. Alerted (weak) NT" and even now when it is "WeaSeL vs. Unannounced NT"); advanced courses are in "partner jumped, so I stare at RHO while he thinks 'forever' (~10 seconds), then when he passes, now I start to think", I mean, it's not fair for the opponents to impede my information pass by giving me time to work my call out, is it?
  
• There's "communication patterns that are clearly beyond desired limits in process, but in a clearly deniable (or 'how could I know') pattern. No, of course it has never been discussed." Pescetom's opponent with the 4-row card holder (and the abled equivalent of play a card and resort one's hand); the "play a card, stare at partner, this is a signal" pattern (and the converse "play a card, look at partner to see if it was what he wanted"); prep before it's your turn, ... I tend to lump in "Undiscussed. Sure, we've been playing for 3 years and 15 000 hands; sure there's a bunch of stuff that was discussed that is it couldn't be; sure we both learned how to play from this teacher and play in an environment where ..., but we haven't specifically discussed this auction, so 'Undiscussed.' Oh, and you can guarantee that we won't, in fact, discuss this auction later, either, so next time it will still be 'Undiscussed.' " here, for reasons.
  
• Then there's actual cheating, collusive or otherwise. Someone who knows better does something not legal for their own benefit; someone has a discussion about something and hides everything but "what's in the written notes"; the score-checkers, the actively listen to post-mortems people, all the way up. And yeah, there are "points of attraction" even here; but once it gets here, I don't really care. (Yes, I know there are many who really do care about the gredations, and want various levels of sledgehammers depending on the actual acts, rather than the intent or the impact on the game as a whole. I am much less concerned with the actual methods as opposed to the "damage to the game", but I see their point.

Now, the problem with "centres of attraction" rather than "discrete points" is that we want to treat box 1 this way, box 2 this other way, box 3 like this, and cheaters as pox to exterminate.

But where do we put "mostly 2, or it would be if we did it, but I don't know if they even realize; but the offended opponents see it as clearly Box 3 ("... and they tried it against *us*! Can you believe it?) with a heavy implication that They Knew What They Were Doing? And yes, that's very complicated, and both sides are likely to "not understand" the ruling - partly because it is complicated, partly because the director ruled from a Different Box than it Obviously Was.

Now, a lot of this is mitigated to an extent with screens. Yea! for screens. Which is why people have to Just Not Follow The Screen Regulations When They're Stupid. Okay, that's why the ones who exhibit/invent actions farther up the chain do it. They are, of course, helped by the "ethical pros" who would rather be lazy and Do What's Obviously Right (because we're all clean, aren't we?) than follow the rules (Because They're Stupid) which provides cover for the ones who aren't All Clean. But that's not a problem, is it?

Also up in that rarefied air are those who won't *learn* the Laws, because "It's all too complicated". Not, you know, like their four pages of notes after 1♣-1♥; 2♣-2♦, or... What's so good about that is that they can honestly say that "I don't understand the ruling, I mean, what we did (or what they should have done) was So Obvious". ISTR being a little more sarcastic than even my usual in my opinion of that Marrakesh appeal, but it really is a "point of pride" to many top-flight players (and definitely to many "top of area Flight A" players).

Now, if it came with a "call the director, make my point, let the person *paid to know how to do this* do the complicated, and accept the ruling, even if it was 'too complicated for me to understand'" attitude, I'd be fine with it. Confused, but fine. But it's frequently not, it's accompanied by a "the Laws are too confusing, surely there's a way to simplify them so that the ruling is in my favour, as Is Obvious most bridge players could understand them". And absolutely no interest in "these Laws are confusing, and most bridge players don't understand them. But, like Flannery, they could if we taught it and they cared enough to listen." And very little interest in finding ways to make it more likely for "most bridge players" to "care enough to listen".

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2024-October-09, 11:25, said:

Bridge is a complicated game with complicated situations. And because it's a team game rather than an individual one, and one where we have decided that limiting communication methods is a core pillar of the game, many of the complications (play and legal) revolve around that communication.

The Laws are revised every 10 years, and many of the changes in the past few revisions involved these issues. They keep tweaking how to deal with things like insufficient bids, revokes, and bids/plays out of turn. Some of these changes are intended to simplify things, but they inevitably create new complications. There will be many complaints that the old way was better.

Players often wish there weren't so much room for judgement by directors, since it means you'll get different rulings depending on which TD comes to the table. But since this is a game of imperfect communication, it's practically impossible to make objective rules about these situations.

[mycroft]

True, but judgement rulings should not be (and in ACBL tournaments where there is more than one director during the session(*), are not) dependent solely on "which director comes to the table". They are done with consultation, with the DIC/IC Floor at least, if not more. They Just Are.

Exceptions - which I am uncomfortable with, yes - are those where an immediate ruling is required to have the game continue. "25A or 25B", "comparable call", "bid made or card played" being the big ones. They definitely are the ones where I will mention that "this is my judgement based on what I have heard/asked the player. If, after seeing the hand, you believe this not to be the case, please call me back and we will investigate." At which point, if they do dispute it, it goes to consultation, for a potential L81 ruling.

What is reliant on the table TD is (barring video or other records) their opinion on what occurred at the table, based on the statements made or evidence shown by both sides. If you think that that is sufficient to have the ruling "depend on which TD comes to the table", I will disagree with you, while still holding out that that I am biased here, and I could be wrong.

(*) And frequently when there is only one director during the session, or even at the tournament. Mobile phones are wonderful things, and directors not working this session, or even directors not in the country of the ruling, are frequently consulted when a judgement ruling comes in. I've even been asked about things "at random" (although usually from club directors that know me, not ACBL TDs).

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2024-October-09, 14:05, said:

True, but judgement rulings should not be (and in ACBL tournaments where there is more than one director during the session(*), are not) dependent solely on "which director comes to the table". They are done with consultation, with the DIC/IC Floor at least, if not more. They Just Are.

Maybe at a tournament, there's no such thing in a club game.

In the incident I was recalling, I think there actually was an appeal and we were explaining the situation to her at that point.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2024-October-09, 14:23, said:

Maybe at a tournament, there's no such thing in a club game.

In the incident I was recalling, I think there actually was an appeal and we were explaining the situation to her at that point.

I'm not in ACBL (in FIGB Italy), and that may affect my intepretation too (to me, a sanctioned club game is already a tournament).
Be that as it may, for us any club game (including the local instance of a national simultaneous tournament) is adjudicated by the local TD, without any senior power that can judge appeals or otherwise overthrow his decision before the end of the tournament.
Players unhappy with his decision can appeal it directly to the RA, the result will not be changed (unless Director changes his mind or there is ascertained Director Error) but a verdict will be registered and the Director may be referred for possible punishment.
Given the ample room for interpretation that our national regulations allow (for better and for worse) I think this is a reasonable state of affairs, certainly nowhere near the core problem.

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2024-October-09, 14:23, said:

Maybe at a tournament, there's no such thing in a club game.

Of course, at a club, there almost never is an issue with "which TD comes to the table" (*). And if there is, I assume they consult, as we are taught.

Yes, I know, "depends on which day it is and which TD is running today's game" is in many ways equivalent, but not between calls in the same game.

One of the benefits of the new generations of Laws is that many things that were up to interpretation (by the TD, or by the RA) have been codified (I'm looking at you, Logical Alternative. Oh, and the footnote to "normal".) Sure, it's still judgement, but at least the standards are set.

(*) Oddly enough, this is significantly more likely to happen if I'm in the room, because of who I am (and that the directors in the clubs (and almost all the players) I play in all know me, and also know who I am). If things are busy, especially if the director is playing, and there's a call, and I'm *not* busy, I will (with permission) take it. But if it's going to be a judgement ruling, I stop and insist the TD whose game it is takes the call - or if it's a "rule later" one, I take the information and present it to the TD as if she were the DIC, and let her make the ruling. I even make it clear to the table that I will do so, and why. One of the reasons TDs are willing to let me do this occasionally is because they know I won't put them into "which TD showed up" problems...

[shyams]

mycroft, on 2024-October-09, 11:25, said:

Bridge is a complicated game with complicated situations. And because it's a team game rather than an individual one, and one where we have decided that limiting communication methods is a core pillar of the game, many of the complications (play and legal) revolve around that communication.

My opinion is that bridge regulations are written such that the game becomes more complicated than it ought to be.

* An issue with the Bridge Laws (or the Lawmakers?) is that there is one set of Laws for all Duplicate Bridge even though three customised sets (based on environments) may be better:
A. For the "usual" face-to-face duplicate bridge without screens,
B. For "serious" bridge with screen regulations strictly enforced, and
C. For application-based ("online") bridge.
At the very least, Lawmakers need to make two sets (online and face-to-face). My guess is that the 2027 edition of the Laws will also be one book, with barely anything specifically for online play.


* I am not fully conversant with how Laws are rewritten but I will not be surprised if it's always incremental --- there is no appetite for a revisit & complete overhaul.

I recall some years ago David Burn had proposed a complete overhaul of the Laws (he even made numerous posts about it on the other forum). I don't recall what came out of that creative work, but my guess is that it went nowhere (in terms of impact on the Lawmakers). In my cynical view, Lawmakers will be aghast if (e.g) David proposed to renumber the Laws such that Law #16 is about something other than AI/UI.

In summary, perhaps those entrusted with writing & changing Laws should scrap and rewrite everything to make it a "friendlier" set of regulations.

[pescetom]

shyams, on 2024-October-10, 00:47, said:

My opinion is that bridge regulations are written such that the game becomes more complicated than it ought to be.

* An issue with the Bridge Laws (or the Lawmakers?) is that there is one set of Laws for all Duplicate Bridge even though three customised sets (based on environments) may be better:
A. For the "usual" face-to-face duplicate bridge without screens,
B. For "serious" bridge with screen regulations strictly enforced, and
C. For application-based ("online") bridge.
At the very least, Lawmakers need to make two sets (online and face-to-face). My guess is that the 2027 edition of the Laws will also be one book, with barely anything specifically for online play.


* I am not fully conversant with how Laws are rewritten but I will not be surprised if it's always incremental --- there is no appetite for a revisit & complete overhaul.

I agree that merely adding in an appendix or occasional comments for electronic play will not cut it in 2027 and think that developing two different sets of the Laws would be even worse.

My suggestion remains that the Laws should be rewritten in a modular structure, with a core module of rules of the game which is independent of mode of play, plus a specific module for each mode of play: cards without screens, cards with screens, electronic play.

[jillybean]

I am not going to address the issue of online laws here.

The Laws and Regulations are complex, difficult to find, not always accessible on first reading and open to interpretation.
Bridge is complex, difficult to understand, open to interpretation and so on. We are smart people playing this game, the Laws should not be beyond our ability to learn.

While rewriting some of the Laws could help where we have differing interpretations, this is not going to help the root of the cause. Players are never required to learn the Rules of this game. None, other than the Secretary Birds, are going to willing sit down and read the Laws Of Duplicate Bridge.

Why isn't a copy of a very abbreviated, friendly set of Laws, with a reference to the full Law, given out to every new player and available at every sanctioned club?
This would hopefully reduce the number of self rulings and false Law rumours you hear at the table and start players off in the right direction.

Club players whom aspire to greater things will likely have the capacity to understand the finer details of the Laws and use this knowledge as they advance their game.
At the sharp end, we have different interpretations of the Laws. While we would ever reach a perfect, uniform interpretation of the Laws, some education, even at the top level, would help.

And then we have the Directors and appeals process. How do we achieve more uniform rulings?

[shyams]

pescetom, on 2024-October-10, 06:00, said:

I agree that merely adding in an appendix or occasional comments for electronic play will not cut it in 2027 and think that developing two different sets of the Laws would be even worse.

My suggestion remains that the Laws should be rewritten in a modular structure, with a core module of rules of the game which is independent of mode of play, plus a specific module for each mode of play: cards without screens, cards with screens, electronic play.

Agreed, this works too. However, my guess is that the "core" module will be more complex
--- e.g. much of "Law 16" (UI) for online bridge may well be different than for in-person bridge. However, Law 16 is core regardless of the play environment so the current format will have to be overhauled to include peculiar situations of online bridge

jillybean, on 2024-October-10, 08:28, said:

Why isn't a copy of a very abbreviated, friendly set of Laws, with a reference to the full Law, given out to every new player and available at every sanctioned club? This would hopefully reduce the number of self rulings and false Law rumours you hear at the table and start players off in the right direction.

The EBU has a Blue Book (https://www.ebu.co.u...k/blue-book.pdf) which is expressly written for the convenience & education of players. I think it's a very useful document...

I don't know if other national bodies do this; if not done, they ought to be persuaded to create something like it.

[jillybean]

shyams, on 2024-October-10, 09:12, said:

The EBU has a Blue Book (https://www.ebu.co.u...k/blue-book.pdf) which is expressly written for the convenience & education of players. I think it's a very useful document...

I don't know if other national bodies do this; if not done, they ought to be persuaded to create something like it.

This would be a great start!

It wouldn't take much to adapt the EBU Blue Book to ACBL land. Whose job is it?

[pescetom]

shyams, on 2024-October-10, 09:12, said:

Agreed, this works too. However, my guess is that the "core" module will be more complex
--- e.g. much of "Law 16" (UI) for online bridge may well be different than for in-person bridge. However, Law 16 is core regardless of the play environment so the current format will have to be overhauled to include peculiar situations of online bridge

I think the core module could (and must) be clear and relatively simple, such that a beginner can read it and understand the game. Otherwise we might as well give up and just write "go play chess instead".
I'm not convinced that Law 16 as it is formulated makes the cut, but that is another issue.
How a player should behave when confronted with UI should be made clear, and I don't see that it depends much upon the play mechanism.
As I see it the main limitation in my proposal is that if we have two different modules for cards then there will inevitably be much duplication, but that is something WBF can handle easily (the related Laws are well known and stable) without complicating things for players and Directors playing in one mode or the other (compare to the approach of a single module for cards and an exception module for screens, which is the approach our national regulations use).

shyams, on 2024-October-10, 09:12, said:

The EBU has a Blue Book (https://www.ebu.co.u...k/blue-book.pdf) which is expressly written for the convenience & education of players. I think it's a very useful document...

I don't know if other national bodies do this; if not done, they ought to be persuaded to create something like it.

I agree 100% and have been offering to write it for my RA for years... still waiting, maybe the next President will bite.