[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2019-August-17, 01:42, said:

I was talking about a hypothesis of revised and more logical rules. Asking dummy to play any card is not logical when you can obtain the lowest card in the legal suit with just one word.

Is it logical to do anything other than say "two of spades" or whatever when calling for a card from dummy? After all, that's what Law 46A defines as the correct procedure.

For that matter, is it logical for the laws to include Law 46B at all? Why not "if declarer does not comply with Law 46A, either defender may specify which card is to be played from dummy"? Why should the rules coddle declarers who cannot or will not follow them?

The argument goes, it seems, that if declarer intends "play" to mean "follow suit with the lowest card available", then the word "play" is perforce a word of like meaning to "low". I don't buy it. Neither does my dictionary. There is "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible", but what makes his intention incontrovertible? "Not able to be denied or disputed", the word means. You can't read his mind, so this provision isn't a "get out of jail free" card for him. Although in my experience directors will often rule as if it is.

[sanst]

I don’t think that the Laws are perfect. They are not. Those instances where you are supposed to be a mind reader, like unintended call or designation and the incontrovertible intention, are impossible to handle. Dropping these provisions seems to be the obvious solution, but what then about your 1♠ bid where the 1NT card came out too? What about a tremor which causes you to click just next to the intended spot on the screen? The comparable call is also far too difficult and it would be much easier to drop that, let the auction continue and award an AS when the NOS is damaged and give a PP if there’s use of AI. With some others we have proposed that to the WBFLC, but they have decided against it. I’m sure a new attempt will be made when the next revision of the Laws comes up. And does anybody knows what to do with Law 57D?

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2019-August-17, 10:06, said:

I state that the current laws are often not very good or logical. Sometimes they are both and occasionally they are excellent, but not often enough, as evidenced by the frequent incapacity of TDs to agree what they mean or what consequences their application should have.

Part of the problem is that they're written in human language, which is notoriously imprecise, and subject to many ambiguities due to multiple meanings of words.

The same problem exists with real world laws. Consider that we convict people of crimes using the criteria "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Everyone has a different idea of what's reasonable, yet we expect a jury to come to a unanimous decision.

We have this idea that we shouldn't have as much problem in the limited world of a game. That ideal may be approachable in relatively simple games (there's not much need for judgement calls in most board games), but bridge is complex enough that it's hard to make everything precise. As long as we have a vague concept like "meaning of a call", we're not going to be able to make really precise laws regarding them.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2019-August-17, 20:56, said:

Part of the problem is that they're written in human language,

You are very generous.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-August-17, 10:35, said:

Is it logical to do anything other than say "two of spades" or whatever when calling for a card from dummy? After all, that's what Law 46A defines as the correct procedure.

For that matter, is it logical for the laws to include Law 46B at all? Why not "if declarer does not comply with Law 46A, either defender may specify which card is to be played from dummy"? Why should the rules coddle declarers who cannot or will not follow them?

The argument goes, it seems, that if declarer intends "play" to mean "follow suit with the lowest card available", then the word "play" is perforce a word of like meaning to "low". I don't buy it. Neither does my dictionary. There is "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible", but what makes his intention incontrovertible? "Not able to be denied or disputed", the word means. You can't read his mind, so this provision isn't a "get out of jail free" card for him. Although in my experience directors will often rule as if it is.

In a perfect world I would be happy if there was only Law 46A, which is coherent with my preference for clear and simple laws. But I also recognise that many if not most players would simply ignore it and that as a TD it would be difficult to enforce - that's presumably why 46B was added after all. So I could live with a few standard phrases that would cover most of normal play. The law can assign them any meaning it wants. If you don't like "play" then maybe "follow", or "low" if you really must (repeating it continually would sound like a bunch of cows). I would also add (gasp) "ruff". And I would make them legal alternatives to specifying rank and suit.

[pran]

pescetom, on 2019-August-18, 08:12, said:

In a perfect world I would be happy if there was only Law 46A, which is coherent with my preference for clear and simple laws. But I also recognise that many if not most players would simply ignore it and that as a TD it would be difficult to enforce - that's presumably why 46B was added after all. So I could live with a few standard phrases that would cover most of normal play. The law can assign them any meaning it wants. If you don't like "play" then maybe "follow", or "low" if you really must (repeating it continually would sound like a bunch of cows). I would also add (gasp) "ruff". And I would make them legal alternatives to specifying rank and suit.

Law 46B was never "added" to the laws!

The Laws of Duplicate Contract in 1933 did not state any particular manner in which Declarer should designate and call a card to be played from Dummy,
but it included under "irregularities:

Law 34 {c} Ambiguous designation by Declarer which does not clearly identify the card.
Penalty: Dummy or either adversary may require the Declarer to name the exact card intended. [...]

The Laws of 1936 and later (as far as I can see) were completely silent on this matter until:

The Laws of 1975 where we find Law 46 which appears equivalent to the law we have today except that the clause
except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible only applied when:

- declarer designates a suit but not a rank or

- declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank

not for the other situations covered by law 46B today.

[blackshoe]

There is a principle that says one should not give an order one expects will not be obeyed. By the same token I suppose one should not make rules that will be ignored. On the other hand, following that principle we should probably toss about ninety percent of the current law book, if not the whole thing. I don’t think that would do much for our game.

Given that we have rules, if a director is unwilling to enforce them, he should consider another line of work.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-August-18, 09:28, said:

There is a principle that says one should not give an order one expects will not be obeyed. By the same token I suppose one should not make rules that will be ignored.

That's one of the lessons I have learned from life, at any rate.

blackshoe, on 2019-August-18, 09:28, said:

Given that we have rules, if a director is unwilling to enforce them, he should consider another line of work.

I agree.
But if he believes they are misguided he does well to say so, in the right times and places.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2019-August-18, 09:28, said:

Given that we have rules, if a director is unwilling to enforce them, he should consider another line of work.

Some laws are a nuisance to enforce rigidly. Punishing everyone who says "play" just makes work for the TD, annoys the players, and does little to improve the game. This is a clear "no harm, no foul" situations, IMHO. It's easy to view 46B as a list of examples, not a definitive list of incomplete designations that can be translated.

[axman]

sanst, on 2019-August-17, 08:43, said:

So you have a new and better lawbook ready.

Actually, I am working on the efficacy of a solution for the UI of penalty cards.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2019-August-19, 08:09, said:

Some laws are a nuisance to enforce rigidly. Punishing everyone who says "play" just makes work for the TD, annoys the players, and does little to improve the game. This is a clear "no harm, no foul" situations, IMHO.

Not sure. It is soooo annoying, and I shall call the director every time I hear it. Or the opponent will when I select the card from dummy.

[jeffford76]

Vampyr, on 2019-August-19, 12:11, said:

Not sure. It is soooo annoying, and I shall call the director every time I hear it. Or the opponent will when I select the card from dummy.

I'm sure that procedure will make you many new lifelong friends.

[jerdonald]

ACBL

My partner and I have an agreement that opening 2NT shows a balanced hand with exactly 21 points.
It is marked on our convention card as 21 to 21 does this bid need to be alerted?

Jerryd

[Vampyr]

jeffford76, on 2019-August-21, 18:31, said:

I'm sure that procedure will make you many new lifelong friends.

Luckily I don’t expect it to happen very often,

In any case, my sanity is worth more than new friends, especially annoying ones.

[pescetom]

jerdonald, on 2019-August-21, 20:41, said:

My partner and I have an agreement that opening 2NT shows a balanced hand with exactly 21 points.

As we are already decidedly OT, may I ask why you chose this agreement?

[pran]

jerdonald, on 2019-August-21, 20:41, said:

ACBL

My partner and I have an agreement that opening 2NT shows a balanced hand with exactly 21 points.
It is marked on our convention card as 21 to 21 does this bid need to be alerted?

Jerryd

Why not?
If your regulation requires an opening bid of 2NT to be alerted the fact that it is (completely) described on your CC makes no difference.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2019-August-22, 02:17, said:

Why not?
If your regulation requires an opening bid of 2NT to be alerted the fact that it is (completely) described on your CC makes no difference.

I think he's asking whether the agreement requires an alert under ACBL regulations. It doesn't.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-August-22, 05:03, said:

I think he's asking whether the agreement requires an alert under ACBL regulations. It doesn't.

It wouldn't here either.
But it would require an announcement of "21 to 21", if you take the regulations literally

[barmar]

jerdonald, on 2019-August-21, 20:41, said:

ACBL

My partner and I have an agreement that opening 2NT shows a balanced hand with exactly 21 points.
It is marked on our convention card as 21 to 21 does this bid need to be alerted?

As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the ACBL Alert Procedure about alerting or announcing natural NT bids other than 1NT. An extremely weird range (e.g. 2NT weaker than 1NT) would almost certainly fall under the general requirement to alert "highly unusual and unexpected meanings". But 21-21 instead of the more common 20-21 or 21-22 ranges doesn't see so different that it would meet this criteria.

A better question might be whether you need to alert if you swap the meanings of opening 2NT and opening 1X then jumping to 2NT.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-August-22, 08:36, said:

A better question might be whether you need to alert if you swap the meanings of opening 2NT and opening 1X then jumping to 2NT.

That might qualify for a Pre-alert, see the paragraph 'Systems that may be Fundamentally Unfamiliar to the Opponents'. It's not a common method like normal un-swapped strong NT.