[blackshoe]

 lamford, on 2012-September-07, 07:51, said:

To ignore 16B and only follow 73C would be inconsistent. And many think that 73C is just a relic of old Laws, and 16B should apply, and be the main basis on which rulings should be made. The WBFLC have already pronounced that one need not apply 73C when changing an inadvertent call. Laws have to be applied together. To ignore 16B in order to follow 73C would not be correct. If you choose a bid that would not be given serious consideration using your actual methods but would be automatic using your imagined methods, and it happens to gain, perhaps by luck, then the TD should award an adjusted score. However if you follow 16B exactly, and apply 73C where there is a choice of calls using the partnership methods, then you have complied with the Law. You might gain from the UI. Tough, as long as you have carefully tried to avoid doing so. Change the Laws if you don't want that to happen.

The arguments that 16B does not say what it clearly does say are hogwash.

Who are we talking about here, directors or players? It seems to me that a ruling that "you have not violated Law 16B, but you have violated Law 73C" would make no sense. It also seems to me that a ruling that "you have not violated Law 73C, but you have violated Law 16B" might make sense. In any case, the basis for score adjustment (again, it seems to me) lies in Law 16B, not in Law 73C, because in all cases where an adjustment is appropriate, Law 16B will have been violated.

"If you choose a bid that would not be given serious consideration using your actual methods but would be automatic using your imagined methods, and it happens to gain, perhaps by luck, then the TD should award an adjusted score."

On what legal basis, please? Frankly, this seems dangerously close to "if it hesitates, shoot it".

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2012-September-07, 07:51, said:

To ignore 16B and only follow 73C would be inconsistent. And many think that 73C is just a relic of old Laws, and 16B should apply, and be the main basis on which rulings should be made.

If we shouldn't ignore 16B and only follow 73C then neither should we ignore 73C and only follow 16B. To suggest otherwise is inconsistent.

[bluejak]

Small point: there is always thread drift, and sometimes people make suggestions about changes to Laws, which are off-topic. Please try to desist since it is certainly not responsive to the question originally asked. The reason I have woken up and decided to actually remind people of this is that the suggestion[s] in this thread are repeats from an earlier thread on the same subject. You can always start a new thread on the subject in Changing Laws & Regulations.



I think some people are beginning to believe that all TDs do is poll and count votes. When you decide something for the class of players it may be that there are no such players available to poll, eg players playing Precision with a Multi 2♣ opening which they have forgotten is not a very large class of players.

But that is no reason not to apply the laws nor is it a reason not to poll. Just remember when polling that the pollee is not really of that class, but his reactions and answers are still helpful in judgement decisions. But at the end of the day, the TD makes that judgement decision, not the pollees.

[barmar]

 campboy, on 2012-September-07, 16:40, said:

If we shouldn't ignore 16B and only follow 73C then neither should we ignore 73C and only follow 16B. To suggest otherwise is inconsistent.

I don't think we should automatically give either one priority. What I suggest is applying common sense in the cases where they conflict.

Specifically, the part of 16B about "using the methods of the partnership" seems to be obviously conflicting with the intent of UI laws when a forget is involved. It makes little sense to consider the LAs of a player who has forgotten their system to be the actions that would be taken by players who have NOT forgotten their system. So in this case, 73C should take priority.

It would be better if the laws were written in a way that didn't result in conflicts like this. But I don't think we should be so robotic that we pedantically apply laws in ways that they obviously weren't intended.

[blackshoe]

So 16B conflicts with itself?

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2012-September-07, 16:40, said:

If we shouldn't ignore 16B and only follow 73C then neither should we ignore 73C and only follow 16B. To suggest otherwise is inconsistent.

There is VIP parking at the Emirates stadium, and guests of the club are told to park in the bays marked "VIP parking". This is next to the disabled parking, and VIPs are told to also "carefully avoid inconveniencing disabled drivers" (slight embellishment for effect). On your reasoning, they should not bring their cars at all, as they are taking up spaces which could be used by disabled drivers.

Law 16B is specific than 73C, in that it tells the player with UI exactly what he must not do. Law 73C is more general, and tells the player what principles he should follow, and therefore he does his best to follow both Laws. If he follows Law 16B exactly, then he is carefully avoiding taking any advantage of the UI.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2012-September-09, 14:22, said:

Specifically, the part of 16B about "using the methods of the partnership" seems to be obviously conflicting with the intent of UI laws when a forget is involved.

Specifically, the recent clarification by the WBFLC of the right of a player to change his call when he learns from UI that he made a mechanical rerror seems to be obviously conflicting with the intent of the UI laws. The player has to select his LAs somehow. The Laws specify that it is in accordance with the methods of the partnership not some other methods. He could otherwise give any reason for his misbid, which would make it much harder to rule, and I now think applying 16B as it stands is correct, and there is no reason to change it.

[blackshoe]

So, Paul, you disagree with the LC on whether a player should be allowed to change his unintended call when he is awakened to it by UI?

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2012-September-12, 04:57, said:

If he follows Law 16B exactly, then he is carefully avoiding taking any advantage of the UI.

Not in the case where he has forgotten his methods and is woken up by an alert. 16B says LAs are based on the methods of the partnership, but the only way for him to determine them requires taking advantage of the UI. This isn't a case of specificity, the two laws directly contradict each other when interpreted literally.

[RMB1]

 blackshoe, on 2012-September-12, 09:36, said:

So, Paul, you disagree with the LC on whether a player should be allowed to change his unintended call when he is awakened to it by UI?

Don't many of us?

The only argument is that some mistakes are bad for the game and players should be given every opportunity to be able to recover from those mistakes.

[blackshoe]

Well, that's not the only argument. I would argue that we TDs have been told how the LC wishes the law to be interpreted, so we must interpret it that way. If we disagree with the LC, the thing to do is to tell them that. Bringing it up in a forum intended to provide practical guidance to players and less experienced TDs seems like a waste of time to me.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2012-September-12, 09:36, said:

So, Paul, you disagree with the LC on whether a player should be allowed to change his unintended call when he is awakened to it by UI?

The WBFLC are the lawmakers, and I don't feel strongly either way. It does show that where two laws conflict, one has to take priority, and the more specific one should apply. Law 16B specifies exactly how the player has to behave, and he will not necessarily obtain any advantage by following it.

[bluejak]

A lot of Laws conflict and it is not worth the time or trouble - unless you wish to join BLML, of course - worrying about the principle of it. Just go with interpretations laid down for you, commonsense and everything else.

A player makes an IB. "That's insufficient" says his partner. The next player after the IB now makes a call before the TD is called. Legal or illegal? It is accepted as a general interpretation of Law 27A1 that it is legal, while Law 9B2 makes it illegal. But why should anyone worry?

There are, if you look carefully, a number of situations where a player uses UI from partner legally. No doubt a very careful Law book, four times the length of the current one, would give all those exceptions in both Law 16 and Law 73. But it is better not.