[nige1]

The rules of Bridge shouldn't embarrass players unnecessarily. Nor should they require a director to court slander actions. For example, law-makers should ...

• Reduce dependence on the subjective judgement of the director, especially over the intent of the alleged rule-breaker. Many laws would be simpler (and IMO fairer) if unnecessary subjective judgement were eliminated. For example rules about "mechanical" errors.
• Specifically, prohibit the director from taking into account the public-reputation of the alleged law-breaker and his own personal-relationship with him. Bluejak and others tell us that directors should take all such evidence into account when judging veracity. I feel that this puts an impossible strain on directors when dealing with friends, enemies, acquaintances, strangers, compatriots, and foreigners. Thus, some posters don't comment on high-profile cases. Others say they might rule differently for a lesser mortal. (IMO, that creates a dangerous impression). Official legal records are a different matter.
• Eliminate PPs and DPs for purely Bridge offences. Players resent them. Most view them as discriminatory. Some believe that they are an accusation of cheating. Directors are reluctant to impose them. (IMO, PPs and DPs are a botched attempt to patch blatant flaws in the "Equity" -- restore the status quo -- philosophy).
• Incorporate a greater deterrent element into the ordinary rules. For example tighten up current rules so that they no longer ensure a long term-profit for the habitual offender.

[axman]

nige1, on 2011-July-27, 07:15, said:

The rules of Bridge shouldn't embarrass players unnecessarily. Nor should they require a director to court slander actions. For example, law-makers should ...

• Reduce dependence on the subjective judgement of the director, especially over the intent of the alleged rule-breaker. Many laws would be simpler (and IMO fairer) if unnecessary subjective judgement were eliminated. For example rules about "mechanical" errors.
• Specifically, prohibit the director from taking into account the public-reputation of the alleged law-breaker and his own personal-relationship with him. Bluejak and others tell us that directors should take all such evidence into account when judging veracity. I feel that this puts an impossible strain on directors when dealing with friends, enemies, strangers, compatriots, and foreigners. Thus, some posters don't comment on high-profile cases. Others say they might rule differently for a lesser mortal. (IMO, that creates a dangerous impression). Official legal records are a different matter.
• Eliminate PPs and DPs for purely Bridge offences. Players resent them. Most view them as discriminatory. Some as an accusation of cheating. Directors are reluctant to impose them. (IMO, PPs and DPs are a botched attempt to patch blatant flaws in the "Equity" -- restore the status quo -- philosophy).
• Incorporate a greater deterrent element into the ordinary rules. For example tighten up current rules so that they no longer ensure a long term-profit for the habitual offender.

Nigel,

The criteria of intent wrt to bridge law is best incorporated as guidance so that players might know where a breach of propriety occurs.

For instance, L25A. a player intending to call X at the time he did call knows by his intent that X was not inadvertent- even though he has misgivings about it; thus he thereby knows that it is a breach of propriety to even consider attempting to exchange X for Y.

In other words, where the law invokes ‘inadvertent’ it is [as in it ought to be] speaking to the player’s sense of propriety rather than an instruction to the TD for a ruling. Why? It is a horrible thing to rule based upon mind reading- the last known person to have proficiency of such being Solomon.

Which means that it is a good idea for the law to provide wisely, the specification for measuring the recognition of irregularities- such as correct a call without pause [rather than correct a call without pause for thought].

As for the place of PP and DP. What you have written doesn’t say anything meaningful; without elaboration it is akin to babbling without purpose.

The appropriate place of PP and DP is to take into account the severity of the past offense, and to instill an evangelical desire to avoid offenses in the future.

Granted, as employed many [most] PP and DP are issued for the purpose of ‘making right’ a perceived wrong perpetrated by applying the law. But, certainly, the best and most expeditious way to get wrong-headed law corrected is to apply consistently exactly as written.

People are fallible. Every procedure in some way distracts players from the task of skillful play and therefore it is ill conceived for law to place burdens unnecessarily upon players and it is the place of lawmakers to invoke the wisdom of Solomon in making the distinction between the necessary and the unnecessary [and likewise to ascertain penalties and remedies that balance the scales of all sides] so that mortals do not need to be Solomon.

[AlexJonson]

People are fond of saying that rules define a game.

When the proprieties were incorporated in the rules of Bridge, consequences followed. I don't think that Nige1 can will away the current situation.

Things are fine for the top level and tournament level (more or less), but the rules are essentially incomprehensible at the average/lower level.

I have no idea what the answer is. Given a choice I would lean towards solutions for people playing a card game for recreation, versus any other part of the Bridge community. People playing for money and glory can be covered by CoC, perhaps.