[jallerton]

When is the next version of the Laws due to be published? When is it likely to come into force?

What changes are expected? Is it realistic to hope that many of the contradictions and ambiguities in the current Laws will be removed?

[gordontd]

jallerton, on 2016-September-22, 15:32, said:

When is the next version of the Laws due to be published? When is it likely to come into force?

What changes are expected? Is it realistic to hope that many of the contradictions and ambiguities in the current Laws will be removed?

It's due next year but I wouldn't be surprised if it were a bit late, so probably coming into force in 2018. I know that the dreaded Law 27B1B is being looked at but I also know there isn't an obvious solution to it. My expectation is that a number of things will be clarified and it won't be couched in Grattanese, but no doubt there will still be thing we think have been overlooked. I must say though that my exchanges with the current Secretary of the WBFLC, when I've made a few suggestions to him, have inspired me with confidence.

[gordontd]

gordontd, on 2016-September-23, 06:16, said:

It's due next year but I wouldn't be surprised if it were a bit late, so probably coming into force in 2018. I know that the dreaded Law 27B1B is being looked at but I also know there isn't an obvious solution to it. My expectation is that a number of things will be clarified and it won't be couched in Grattanese, but no doubt there will still be thing we think have been overlooked. I must say though that my exchanges with the current Secretary of the WBFLC, when I've made a few suggestions to him, have inspired me with confidence.

I have it on good authority that it will be ready early in 2017 for intended implementation later in that year.

[FrancesHinden]

"I know that the dreaded Law 27B1B is being looked at but I also know there isn't an obvious solution to it."

That's a matter of opinion. I know that there is an obvious solution to it.

[gordontd]

FrancesHinden, on 2016-October-10, 14:59, said:

"I know that the dreaded Law 27B1B is being looked at but I also know there isn't an obvious solution to it."

That's a matter of opinion. I know that there is an obvious solution to it.

What would that be?

[cherdano]

I have no idea about this process (and I have essentially no opinion on problematic aspects of the law, or what needs changing).

But I am a little surprised. Whenever a committee plans changing a document specifying a software standard, they put out a "RFC" (request for comments). I.e., the committee posts a draft, and invites comments. Changing the bridge laws seems about as complicated a matter to me as updating a software standard. Could it possibly benefit from a similar RFC process? Note that the point wouldn't be to invite a general discussion on what should be changed - it would just be an invitation to invite comments about potential problems with the changes.

[gordontd]

cherdano, on 2016-October-10, 15:32, said:

I have no idea about this process (and I have essentially no opinion on problematic aspects of the law, or what needs changing).

But I am a little surprised. Whenever a committee plans changing a document specifying a software standard, they put out a "RFC" (request for comments). I.e., the committee posts a draft, and invites comments. Changing the bridge laws seems about as complicated a matter to me as updating a software standard. Could it possibly benefit from a similar RFC process? Note that the point wouldn't be to invite a general discussion on what should be changed - it would just be an invitation to invite comments about potential problems with the changes.

They invited comments and have been receiving and discussing them for most of the last ten years. That's not exactly what you are suggesting, I don't think, but I can't imagine much clarity coming from issuing a draft and asking for comments about it. On the other hand, when the 2007 Laws were first issued, there was a great deal of concern expressed about the wording of Law 27, the insufficient bid law mentioned up-thread, and it was quickly changed - though not quite quickly enough to precede the printing of the new law books in one country, and it's questionable how much better the replacement was than the original wording.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2016-October-10, 15:42, said:

[...]On the other hand, when the 2007 Laws were first issued, there was a great deal of concern expressed about the wording of Law 27, the insufficient bid law mentioned up-thread, and it was quickly changed - though not quite quickly enough to precede the printing of the new law books in one country, and it's questionable how much better the replacement was than the original wording.

I remember that well because I was involved in the Norwegian translation of the first issue. At that time I raised an alarm that L27B1b appeared to say exactly the opposite of what seemed to be the intention (about which call, the insufficient bid or the replacement call, should be "more precise" than the other)!

Anyway we received notification that this law had to be rewritten. As a consequence we postponed the transition from the 1997 laws to the 2007 laws in Norway until July 20. 2008.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps (I don't know) this is also the reason, or part of the reason, why the ACBL version of the laws did not become effective until September 8.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2016-October-10, 15:06, said:

What would that be? (regarding an obvious solution to problems caused by 27B1(b)

One obvious solution is to abolish it completely. It would then read:

B. Insufficient Bid not Accepted
If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call (but see 3 following).Then:

1. If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the Director’s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply but see D following.

2. except as provided in 1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender’s partner must pass whenever it
is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23. <snip; no further change>

An alternative is to allow any correction, but make the original bid UI to the partner of the person making the IB, an option I believe propounded by Dburn.

[pran]

lamford, on 2016-November-08, 05:17, said:

One obvious solution is to abolish it completely. It would then read:

B. Insufficient Bid not Accepted
If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call (but see 3 following).Then:

1. If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the Director’s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply but see D following.

2. except as provided in 1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender’s partner must pass whenever it
is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23. <snip; no further change>

An alternative is to allow any correction, but make the original bid UI to the partner of the person making the IB, an option I believe propounded by Dburn.

Well, the objective of the bridge laws is to encourage and allow "normal" play as much as possible, not to penalize (and destroy play) whenever there is an irregularity.

The current Law 27 allows for instance an answer at the four-level to a Blackwood 4NT bid to be replaced by the corresponding answer at the five-level when the Director judges that the insufficient bid was unintended (but not replaceable under Law 25A). I believe we all can agree that this ruling best serves the game of Bridge as such?

However, experience has shown that Law 27 is indeed unfortunate with all its undesirable side-effects, and I (for one) is very anxious to see the outcome in the next law-book. I am convinced that something will be changed, and going back to the previous law by completely removing L27B1b (as indicated by lamford) is certainly a possibility, maybe the best.

[sanst]

Law 27B1b is also at the top of my list, but I sure hope the laws about unintended calls and designations (25A and 45C4b) will be axed. These are impossible to aopply, since you can't possibly find out whether there was a thought involved or not. The result is that such changes are rarely allowed, not to say extremely rarely and even then open to fierce debate. Who doesn't remember that infamous “Oh, S**t!” case from the March 1999 Vanderbilt Knockouts?

[lamford]

pran, on 2016-November-08, 06:02, said:

Well, the objective of the bridge laws is to encourage and allow "normal" play as much as possible, not to penalize (and destroy play) whenever there is an irregularity.

I don't think the proposed reversion to the old IB law destroys play. It usually forces people who are careless to guess the final contract, and there is quite a bit of skill in this, judging what partner's average hand is likely to be. Some penalty will encourage people to make sufficient bids next time.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2016-November-08, 05:17, said:

An alternative is to allow any correction, but make the original bid UI to the partner of the person making the IB, an option I believe propounded by Dburn.

I think this option has quite a bit of support although the information I have is that it won't be adopted in the new laws. I disagree with this idea because I think UI cases are the hardest for club directors, are often misunderstood by players who don't recognise their obligations, and they lead to more appeals and more acrimony than any other category of cases. The last thing I think we want to do it to increase their scope and number.

[Vampyr]

sanst, on 2016-November-08, 13:39, said:

Law 27B1b is also at the top of my list, but I sure hope the laws about unintended calls and designations (25A and 45C4b) will be axed. These are impossible to aopply, since you can't possibly find out whether there was a thought involved or not. The result is that such changes are rarely allowed, not to say extremely rarely and even then open to fierce debate. Who doesn't remember that infamous “Oh, S**t!” case from the March 1999 Vanderbilt Knockouts?

25A is quite a good law, especially now that we use bidding boxes, as bidding cards can stick together, drop, etc. In my experience 25A changes are allowed much more than rarely. As for unintended designations, I think the law is basically OK. The "oh, sh it" case was just a very bad rulings. Bad rulings happen whatever the laws are.

gordontd, on 2016-November-09, 07:32, said:

I think this option has quite a bit of support although the information I have is that it won't be adopted in the new laws. I disagree with this idea because I think UI cases are the hardest for club directors, are often misunderstood by players who don't recognise their obligations, and they lead to more appeals and more acrimony than any other category of cases. The last thing I think we want to do it to increase their scope and number.

It is a real pity not to go back to the former version. And after all, the same meaning thing is also very difficult for club directors to apply, unless they happen to be expert players and very familiar with the players' system. I hope that I never, as a player, need a ruling under the current law, because my partner and I have a specific agreement that we don't assign meanings to insufficient bids (unless, of course, the opponents have made one first". I guess "no meaning" can be any hand, so is any correction permitted?

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2016-November-09, 09:27, said:

It is a real pity not to go back to the former version. And after all, the same meaning thing is also very difficult for club directors to apply, unless they happen to be expert players and very familiar with the players' system. I hope that I never, as a player, need a ruling under the current law, because my partner and I have a specific agreement that we don't assign meanings to insufficient bids (unless, of course, the opponents have made one first". I guess "no meaning" can be any hand, so is any correction permitted?

I think you are skating on very thin ice here:

If your insufficient bid shall have the understanding "no meaning" you must either deliberately and intentionally have committed the irregularity of making an insufficient bid (so your partner will understand that this was indeed the meaning of that bid) or that bid must have "no meaning" whenever it occurs in any auction!

The way I know the laws it is illegal to vary the understanding of a call during an auction other than as the consequence of other calls in that auction preceding the call in question.

You cannot legally change the meaning of a call from what you intended when making that call to a different meaning when you discover that your call was illegal (in any way).

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2016-November-09, 09:27, said:

25A is quite a good law, especially now that we use bidding boxes, as bidding cards can stick together, drop, etc.

Perhaps the Laws regarding bidding should be updated to assume bidding boxes, since this is the primary mode in most of the world. There could be an appendix that addresses the modifications necessary if spoken or written bidding is used.

And maybe we could then have a Law that would address the Stop card. There seems to be a growing movement among ACBL members to get rid of it (because the impression many people get is that it's mostly misused to remind partner, rather than warn opponents).

[mycroft]

I'd be happy to get rid of the STOP card, if we also got rid of the "if you call within 10 seconds there's no 'hesitation'". Because the opponents don't heed the warning, and it's screamingly obvious (with some) when they have a problem after a 6-second pause. Because the previous 3 calls came out before I had a chance to finish bidding myself.

One thing I noticed in DC in a National Event was that one player-of-national-standard was consistent in his use of the STOP card. He'd use it when it was probable for me to have a problem. But when he was jumping to the final contract - no card. Ever. Note that I am *not* suggesting anything unethical in this, or from his partner. But if that level don't get it right, it's a lost cause. Let's find something else that will work.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2016-November-09, 10:48, said:

I'd be happy to get rid of the STOP card, if we also got rid of the "if you call within 10 seconds there's no 'hesitation'". Because the opponents don't heed the warning, and it's screamingly obvious (with some) when they have a problem after a 6-second pause. Because the previous 3 calls came out before I had a chance to finish bidding myself.

One thing I noticed in DC in a National Event was that one player-of-national-standard was consistent in his use of the STOP card. He'd use it when it was probable for me to have a problem. But when he was jumping to the final contract - no card. Ever. Note that I am *not* suggesting anything unethical in this, or from his partner. But if that level don't get it right, it's a lost cause. Let's find something else that will work.

It's not that hard. Somehow I and all my partners manage to use the Stop card every time. Experienced players will wait without indicating anything until the card is replaced in the box. I must admit that I don't usually call the director when LHO makes a call before the card is put back in the box.

I would be really pleased if EBU regulations changed to the effect that if an opponent replaces the Stop card immediately, you can bid whenever you want. Or just generally, you are not deemed to create UI if you bid after the card has been replaced, whenever that is. The regulation that one must still hesitate for 10 seconds is terribly unfair. Especially if you do have a tough bidding decision to make -- are you expected to keep track of how long it takes, as well? You are placed at a big disadvantage to players whose opponents use the Stop card properly.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2016-November-09, 10:01, said:

And maybe we could then have a Law that would address the Stop card. There seems to be a growing movement among ACBL members to get rid of it (because the impression many people get is that it's mostly misused to remind partner, rather than warn opponents).

Why have a Law about Stop cards? I realise that one of the purposes of the Laws is to gradually get everyone to do things the way they are done in the ACBL, but is your equivalent of the Laws and Ethics Committe really incapable of writing a regulation that is suitable for their own playing environment?