[pran]

nige1, on 2021-August-10, 15:07, said:

Twin bases of WBFLC policy seem to be

• Delegation of key responsibilities to NBOs (creating a fragmented, over-sophisticated, incomprehensible Tower of Babel); and
• Empowering TDs (too often relying on their subjective judgement in preference to objective criteria).

sanst, on 2021-August-11, 01:47, said:

Your first point is probably correct. But that’s not the WBFLC’s fault, but of the NBO’s who claim the right to make their own rules. I got the impression that the ACBL for one, is an organization that won’t compromise easily. Besides, what’s usual in one country, is sometimes highly unusual in another. And there are NBO’s that differentiate between players based on level, others don’t.
I think your second point is only half finished.

It would appear as if you are completely(?) unaware of

Law 80 said:

A. The Regulating Authority
.....
B. Tournament Organizer
.....
2. The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include:
.....
(f) to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws.

[sanst]

pran, on 2021-August-11, 05:13, said:

It would appear as if you are completely(?) unaware of

Neither of us is stupid or don’t know the laws, quite the contrary. But you don’t understand what the point is, namely that those supplementary regulations lead to the situation that everywhere the game is played by different rules. In what other sport can the powers that be add some regulations to the laws? Just one set of clear and good alerting rules should be sufficient for the whole world.

[pran]

sanst, on 2021-August-11, 07:50, said:

Neither of us is stupid or don’t know the laws, quite the contrary. But you don’t understand what the point is, namely that those supplementary regulations lead to the situation that everywhere the game is played by different rules. In what other sport can the powers that be add some regulations to the laws? Just one set of clear and good alerting rules should be sufficient for the whole world.

As supplementary regulations may not be in conflict with the laws such supplementary regulations may only clarify how otherwise incomplete laws are to be understood.

(The first major step towards a world wide common set of bridge laws was taken in 1936.
Until then America and Europe (England) 'suffered' from significant differencies in this respect. And the work still continues ...)

[mycroft]

I'm being quiet here for reasons (that most of you can figure out trivially). But Blackshoe, I request you pay attention to *all* of what PesceTom said in that bit you quoted.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2021-August-10, 10:26, said:

I say that directors should enforce the rules of the game.

jillybean, on 2021-August-10, 12:40, said:

That would be super!

pran, on 2021-August-11, 05:13, said:

It would appear as if you are completely(?) unaware of ...

Players are aware of the unnecessary delegation of rule-making to local NBOs and TDs.

The results is an opaque, fragmented, over-sophisticated, over-subjective, morass of minutes, laws, regulations, conditions of contest, etc....

Commentators complain that, even when an irregularity seems obvious, it can be unclear to the local director how to "restore equity" let alone deter future transgression.

Bridge-rules need some common-sense, clarity, consistency, and simplicity.

[blackshoe]

Quote

LAW81 THE DIRECTOR
B. Restrictions and Responsibilities
1. The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament. He has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer.
2. The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws.

Other than "omissions of the Tournament Organizer", I don't see where the laws allow TDs to make rules.

Quote

Law 80A. The Regulating Authority
1. The Regulating Authority under these laws is:
(a) for its own world tournaments and events, the World Bridge Federation.
(b)the respective Zonal Authority for tournaments and events held under its auspices.
(.c) for any other tournament or event, the National Bridge Organization under whose auspices the tournament takes place.

How would you improve this law?

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2021-August-11, 09:03, said:

I'm being quiet here for reasons (that most of you can figure out trivially). But Blackshoe, I request you pay attention to *all* of what PesceTom said in that bit you quoted.

Are you referring to this bit: "sometimes even courageous directors need firmer regulations or at least sure support of the regulatory body and organisation"? If so, I'd agree that it's probably a valid complaint. A RA that won't back its directors is not good for the game.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2021-August-10, 17:16, said:

Well, the ACBL regulation has its faults, but it's a good start. Or would be, if directors enforced it (NB: some do; the problem is that some don't).

It has this specific fault.
Why not state penalty of (say) 10 IMPs (or equivalent in MP) for any pair without a valid card.
This would take the pressure off directors (and conformant players) and onto miscreants.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2021-August-11, 15:58, said:

It has this specific fault.
Why not state penalty of (say) 10 IMPs (or equivalent in MP) for any pair without a valid card.
This would take the pressure off directors (and conformant players) and onto miscreants.

I don't disagree, although I might suggest a smaller penalty. What's the equivalent in MP? A full board? More?

[pran]

pescetom, on 2021-August-11, 15:58, said:

It has this specific fault.
Why not state penalty of (say) 10 IMPs (or equivalent in MP) for any pair without a valid card.
This would take the pressure off directors (and conformant players) and onto miscreants.

I don't see lack of valid cards to be any real problem in the top A-level (say) 10% of all bridge arrangements.

But what do you prefer for the less formal events where players assemble just to play bridge for the fun of the game?
Participation generally reduced by 90% because you will lose all those players who do not bother too much about their declaration cards? (They just want to play bridge)

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2021-August-11, 15:58, said:

It has this specific fault.
Why not state penalty of (say) 10 IMPs (or equivalent in MP) for any pair without a valid card.
This would take the pressure off directors (and conformant players) and onto miscreants.

Here is a new pair, that has just learned to play bridge and comes to your club for the first time. They, with some help, find out what’s expected of them and during the first round the TD arrives, find out they have no CC, and penalize them. Do you really believe these will become members or even continue to play bridge in an affiliated club?
In general, if you penalize people who are playing for fun, they won’t come again. It’s far more sensible to explain the why of the rule they violated and if necessary, warn them not to do it again.

[blackshoe]

Do you really think any TD worth his salt would do that? OTOH, the second or third time they need to be penalized. If that's not going to happen, then there should be no requirement for system cards for anyone.

[jillybean]

pran, on 2021-August-11, 23:07, said:

I don't see lack of valid cards to be any real problem in the top A-level (say) 10% of all bridge arrangements.

But what do you prefer for the less formal events where players assemble just to play bridge for the fun of the game?
Participation generally reduced by 90% because you will lose all those players who do not bother too much about their declaration cards? (They just want to play bridge)

Which other rules is it ok to not bother too much about and who decides when and which laws to apply?

Obviously, the requirement to have a full system card is not applied to the full extent for newer players, but wouldn't it be a good opportunity to provide some education and guidance so when these players do become experienced club players and tournament players they are comfortable filling in a card and it's normal to have one.

If only the top A level players are using system cards, and that's ok, then we should have the law rewritten to say it only applies at top A level competition. You can't arbitrarily decide when to adhere to the laws and when you won't.

[pran]

pran, on 2021-August-11, 23:07, said:

I don't see lack of valid cards to be any real problem in the top A-level (say) 10% of all bridge arrangements.

But what do you prefer for the less formal events where players assemble just to play bridge for the fun of the game?
Participation generally reduced by 90% because you will lose all those players who do not bother too much about their declaration cards? (They just want to play bridge)

jillybean, on 2021-August-12, 05:40, said:

Which other rules is it ok to not bother too much about and who decides when and which laws to apply?

Obviously, the requirement to have a full system card is not applied to the full extent for newer players, but wouldn't it be a good opportunity to provide some education and guidance so when these players do become experienced club players and tournament players they are comfortable filling in a card and it's normal to have one.

If only the top A level players are using system cards, and that's ok, then we should have the law rewritten to say it only applies at top A level competition. You can't arbitrarily decide when to adhere to the laws and when you won't.

Do you want more members in your club or don't you care?

[nige1]

jillybean, on 2021-August-12, 05:40, said:

Which other rules is it ok to not bother too much about and who decides when and which laws to apply? If only the top A level players are using system cards, and that's ok, then we should have the law rewritten to say it only applies at top A level competition. You can't arbitrarily decide when to adhere to the laws and when you won't.

The problem is that players and TDs have individual likes and dislikes among Bridge laws, regulations, etc. As JillyBean points out, In a fuzzy legal framework, once the rot has started, it's hard to stop.

[nige1]

pran, on 2021-August-12, 07:32, said:

Do you want more members in your club or don't you care?

Many don't care but some want to play a game according to it's rules.

[jillybean]

pran, on 2021-August-12, 07:32, said:

Do you want more members in your club or don't you care?

I can only infer from your reply to my question is that the person(s) with the most influence will decide which rules to follow based on personal whims, financial gains or favorite friend of the day. So let's stop the nonsense, stop issuing and charging for master points and play for fun.

It's a common argument that enforcing the laws will drive people away, I don't buy that. If players were gently taught, and clubs gently enforced the laws from day 1, it becomes a normal part of the game.

nige1, on 2021-August-12, 11:33, said:

The problem is that players and TDs have individual likes and dislikes among B[/size]ridge laws, regulations, etc. As JillyBean points out, In a fuzzy legal framework, once the rot has started, it's hard to stop.

The rot is well under way.

[mycroft]

I thought masterpoints was "playing for fun"?

And that's a lot of the problem. Regulation is hard and thankless work, and in most RAs, unpaid. Given that, not expecting the kind of annual review document put out by say, Canadian Baseball or the PGA is probably the way to go. Get better? That would be good, yes.

But if you're expecting an administration - any administration - to pay more attention to what's important to you than what's important to them ... you poor naïve beauty. Expecting the people in the middle to pay more attention to what's important to you than what's important to the administration is also naïve. So if you think something should be taken more seriously by the directors - talk to management. It won't work, but it'll work better than not doing it.

Complaints that boil down to "why are you not listening to *ME*?, "this isn't important, why do *I* have to follow the rules?" and, later, "I got penalized for X [and that was unfair]. My opponents are doing X, you have to punish them, too, or *it's even more unfair to me*" are endemic in bridge (witness the last 18 months here, and, well, *forever* on That Other Site). Change actually happens two ways - convince the people actually able to make the change, or put in the work to become one of them.

Playing "who's the bastard in the black", while enjoyable, is neither.

And I 100% see myself in what I just said. I am not innocent by any means (despite occasionally *being* the bastard in the black, quite literally). In fact, just yesterday I was made aware of a change to the ACBL Alert Procedure that means we have to Alert something that we explicitly were told not to before, and which I think is stupid. And I feel personally attacked. I get it.

[pran]

nige1, on 2021-August-12, 11:33, said:

The problem is that players and TDs have individual likes and dislikes among B[/size]ridge laws, regulations, etc. As JillyBean points out, In a fuzzy legal framework, once the rot has started, it's hard to stop.

I believe it is high time to realize that this discussion is not about the laws of bridge, instead:

Law 40A1(b) said:

Each partnership has a duty to make its partnership understandings available to its
opponents. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this is done.

(My enhancement)

and:

Law 40B2(a) said:

The Regulating Authority:
(i) is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any
special partnership understanding.
(ii) may prescribe a System Card, with or without supplementary sheets, for the prior
listing of a partnership’s understandings, and regulate its use.
(iii) may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a
partnership’s methods.
(iv) may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the
auction or play following an irregularity committed by the opponents.
(v) may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.

[jillybean]

pran, on 2021-August-12, 13:01, said:

The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this is done.

Where does the ACBL, and other RA specify this?