[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-May-31, 19:37, said:

I agree, but that's what the players want. If bridge was a game for directors, that would be fine. But it's not.

I would be happier if there were more actual obvious penalty rectifications; more "we actually expect you to follow these rules, and maybe a sharp shock will help you remember" than "let's try to get back to what would have happened". But then the deadly "win from the director what they couldn't at the table" comes into view...

Another book I skimmed was from 1933, when Auction bridge was still dominant in UK. Arguing courageously that Contract Bridge was the future and not just a fad, it praised the new Laws and said that "maybe this will be the game that finally convinces us all to abandon the widespread and absurd conviction that someone who demands to play a card game by the rules is not a person we are happy to acquaint with".

Maybe it could have been, too, with just a little more effort in the right direction, who knows? Some games hit the sweet spot in terms of conformity culture (rugby, golf) most do not.

[sanst]

It’s a pity that you don’t read Dutch. We have both a booklet explaining how to handle the most common irregularities and an app, android and Ios, that does the same, guiding the director with a decision tree. You answer yes or no to the questions and the app tells you what the decision should be. Of course it can’t solve the comparable call problem or a claim, but it’s quite handy. Free for all at the site of the union (bridge.nl), but unfortunately for you only in Dutch.

[axman]

mycroft, on 2023-May-31, 19:37, said:

I agree, but that's what the players want. If bridge was a game for directors, that would be fine. But it's not.

I would be happier if there were more actual obvious penalty rectifications; more "we actually expect you to follow these rules, and maybe a sharp shock will help you remember" than "let's try to get back to what would have happened". But then the deadly "win from the director what they couldn't at the table" comes into view...

It would seem that for some reason (that lowers to grotesque status) that the law requires declarer have no PC. Thus, a trick has begun and declarer's card is on the table (since some previous trick not having been retracted) being a faced card, it is played (a done deal)- not to be retracted except as L47 enumerates. Such an experience is likely to impart indelible memories… and profuse** broadcasts of the news that will suppress the desire by others to have the experience; and correspondingly instill a motivation sooner to find out for themselves what the law says.

** the recent Mike Levine slow play ruling at the Bermuda Bowl trials comes to mind

[mycroft]

I really like Law 10B. I am ambivalent about Law 11A, but axman should be happy: "you know that even as the offending side, you should be calling the TD and not getting rules advice from the opponents who want to do well. Yes, the result is worse than the penalty the TD would have ruled. But you chose to accept it at the time, and you get to keep it. Of course, we're assigning the result the 'non-offenders' would have got if I had been called at the time as the Law requires."

Nah, he'd probably want a PP as well. As would blackshoe. And they ain't wrong.

Oh, and I still remember the second motorcycle riding lesson, way back in the day. More than one person said "it's amazing how many bikes were out on the road this weekend". Remember, that even not counting violations of 46A (which is so expected the whole rest of Law 46 exists) I'd guess we probably average one infraction per table per hand, even in Flight A. How many of them are even noticed, never mind "corrected at the table"...

[mycroft]

The way Mike Levine was treated was a travesty. Of course, I am putting "by his team" in that mix, to what extent would depend on opportunity.

"We're going to need more time and assistance"
"Here's what we'll give you"
do not test it until "the day" to find out that 15 extra seconds a hand (plus whatever cushion the pair would normally have - the "time per pair" is a maximum, not an intended) isn't enough, and therefore have no argument other than "it took longer than expected" (like "yeah, it takes a long time to read the cards and make the inputs, but he's definitely using that time to think too") against not following the rules.

All respect to that team - and I've played against Mike a few years ago, and I didn't see him as particularly slow - but the time to protest is before the event starts, with documentation from testing/practise.

All respect to the USBF, but 3 minutes added on to a 15 board session seems like a ludicrously short window for what was expected to be needed.

I would suggest, however, that "profuse broadcasts" (especially on That Site, with its Alternative Title and desired readership) are nothing compared to what happens when you actually try enforcing the rules to "BB trials" level for the 99.8% of players (and 100.0% of the new players) that don't play at the BB trials. How much of that is that we don't actually teach the [-] Laws...



The reason declarer doesn't have penalty cards is obvious - there is no possible use of that information that will aid the offending side. The fact that declarer has that card can only help (or be of no consequence to) the defence, unlike the obvious benefit the defenders can get by "showing partner their hand". It's not a penalty for playing wrong, it's an attempt to minimize the damage of the leaked information.

I do understand that's your point - that it *should be* a penalty for playing wrong - but it's by no means "grotesque" and "some (implied - unknowable) reason".

And you are still talking to the person who missed his first ever chance of making day 2 of a national event because the spade 2 touched the table in its never stopping circle back to declarer's hand (instead of missing by an inch). So, it's not like it's always "don't care, it's declarer".



But I am actually quite happy to play a game where "two minutes for cross-checking" isn't the policy. Especially given the inability to (at cost) constantly surveil all the tables for "cross-checking". I am actually quite happy for the instruction that "yes, 81C3 exists, and it must be followed. Because it's not fair to those tables you're *not* watching, that means you do not kibitz as a TD; and while you're wandering the tables, try to not pay the kind of attention to the play that would trigger 81C3. Of course, if they make it obvious..." Especially in a "fun" club.

No matter how much I wish for ASL's A.2 (*) and its footnote (**), I'll settle for 10C3.


(*) Please note that the Laws of Duplicate Bridge could fit quite comfortably in *the index* for Advanced Squad Leader. Having said that:

A.2 ERRORS: said:

All results stand once play has progressed past the point of commission. In other words, if an error is discovered after play has progressed that point, the game cannot be backed up to correct the error, even if such error is in violation of a rule..."

(**)

A.2 Footnote, my emphasis said:

to the unscrupulous, these mechanics for handling errors might be viewed as a license to steal. We do not mean to intimate that cheating is acceptable behaviour; rather, that backing up a game to accommodate a forgotten rule/unit is a drag on play. In essence, the player's knowledge of the system and methodical application of its benefits as opportunities present themselves becomes an added skill factor better reflecting the abilities of an experienced battlefield commander. Ultimately, the only protection against a cheater is not to play them.

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2023-May-31, 13:02, said:

Sure. What do you want to allow? (Penalty, due to forced pass) doubles after insufficient bids? Revoke penalties on trick 12, or after the hand is over? Revokes are always 2 tricks? (or 1 trick?) "Just make it sufficient"? Always correct partner's misinformation after the auction? Three passes ends the auction even if one was out of turn? Asking questions for partner's benefit (or to hook the opponents into a UI trap)?

The problem with bridge is that it's not simple, and even at the club level, people know how to game the rules. A lot of the "complication" in the Laws comes from "closing loopholes", and they're necessary. And some, even if they weren't gamed on purpose, obviously feel wrong (like equity after revokes), so the complication is put in so that doesn't happen.

A lot of the other complications come from "multiple irregularities" (second revoke in same suit, multiple penalty cards, next player accepts an illegal call); those you can as a club director safely ignore, as long as you remember in the back of your head that "I remember reading something about this..." so that if it comes up, you can find the law again and do it.

Rather than players gaming the rules I think the major problem is that players don't know the rules! but you are obviously much better informed than I am.
The Laws of Duplicate Bridge are something like 65 pages detailing 94 laws with numerous subsets with perhaps thankfully, no requirement to read or understand the laws to play the game, otherwise we would only have the SB's playing this game.


A few of the laws which are routinely ignored without redress;
41A Face-down Opening Lead (Opening leads are made face up)
41B Review of Auction and Questions (Questions are asked by anyone at any time during the auction and before the opening lead)
45F Dummy Indicates card (Dummy plays the low card and only waits for Declarer to designate a card when they have a choice or should play high)
20 Explanation of calls (Players are unaware of their responsibilities, MI, UI. Although I think this one should stay)

Why have all these rules in a Club game? If there was a subset of the Laws for Club play, the players would be happier, the Laws could be made into a form that the average player would be happy to read and understand, the game would be conducted on a more equal basis as players would be aware of, and could follow the Laws, and the Secretary Birds would shut up.

[axman]

mycroft, on 2023-June-01, 10:08, said:

The reason declarer doesn't have penalty cards is obvious - there is no possible use of that information that will aid the offending side. The fact that declarer has that card can only help (or be of no consequence to) the defence, unlike the obvious benefit the defenders can get by "showing partner their hand". It's not a penalty for playing wrong, it's an attempt to minimize the damage of the leaked information.

I do understand that's your point - that it *should be* a penalty for playing wrong - but it's by no means "grotesque" and "some (implied - unknowable) reason".

I'll point out that merely because it can, it does not follow that it should. The PC indemnity is an attractive nuisance. An example of an attractive nuisance is Houston's mandatory tailgate law which severely punishes drivers for passing cyclists that aren't 3 feet away. The effect of this law is that cars six lanes away slam on their brakes (refuse to pass) upon site of bicycle 200 yards away. It also has the effect of pedestrians and cyclists feeling indestructible since no car dare come close enough to hit them which encourages reckless behavior. I reckon that the law directly kills 5-10 cyclists and pedestrians every year by making reckless behavior attractive (road deaths of pedestrians and cyclists skyrocketed after enactment).

By the same route, non PCs attract declarer to reckless behavior such as POOT and revokes. Which begs the question, why should declarer get facilitation to commit the Alcatraz coup but the defenders do not? There is compelling reason to treat all players the same as practical. It establishes the climate of good habits and fair play. In other words it is not obvious why declarer does not have PC.

Granted, use of a word to spark a reaction has some downside. Yet, whether or not someone disagrees, there is something grotesque about rules concerning fair play that facilitate the Alcatraz.

[mycroft]

You're suggesting they do it deliberately? Or, it's not enough of a problem with "no penalty" that they don't care, get sloppy, and either frustrate the opponents or "accidentally" gain an advantage?

And, given 72B1 exists, if the issue is simply "don't allow declarer to gain advantage through a lower penalty", I would suggest that the lawbook already has sufficient teeth. Okay, we don't enforce it as strongly as we probably should, but when we do, it tends to be slightly more of a penalty than "3♥-2 instead of -1"

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-June-01, 10:04, said:

I really like Law 10B. I am ambivalent about Law 11A, but axman should be happy: "you know that even as the offending side, you should be calling the TD and not getting rules advice from the opponents who want to do well. Yes, the result is worse than the penalty the TD would have ruled. But you chose to accept it at the time, and you get to keep it. Of course, we're assigning the result the 'non-offenders' would have got if I had been called at the time as the Law requires."

Nah, he'd probably want a PP as well. As would blackshoe. And they ain't wrong.

Oh, and I still remember the second motorcycle riding lesson, way back in the day. More than one person said "it's amazing how many bikes were out on the road this weekend". Remember, that even not counting violations of 46A (which is so expected the whole rest of Law 46 exists) I'd guess we probably average one infraction per table per hand, even in Flight A. How many of them are even noticed, never mind "corrected at the table"...

Wow, the sacred and the profane.

I too like Law 10B, although I think that if the WBF insists on shall/should/might/must etc. to indicate level of seriousness then 10A should include such explicit indication rather than just "do not have the right".

I am decidedly negative about the new Law 11A, I don't understand it as written (and not because I failed to try or to read the Commentary) and I hope that I convinced senior people that it needs a rewrite.

The miserable Law 46A is less challenging intellectually, but perhaps more so ethically: it establishes de facto the detestable principle that players not only do not need to know the laws but even to respect them.

"Really like" I reserve for Law 16, which is probably why I got myself into this mess in the first place

[OT: why the *second* motorbike lesson? I remember the first, which consisted of taking the keys and riding the thing. Went well until the first bend, when I figured it would need more gas to get around the bend and instead it straightened up and headed into the wall. So much for natural logic ]

[sanst]

jillybean, on 2023-June-01, 10:12, said:

Rather than players gaming the rules I think the major problem is that players don't know the rules! but you are obviously much better informed than I am.
The Laws of Duplicate Bridge are something like 65 pages detailing 94 laws with numerous subsets with perhaps thankfully, no requirement to read or understand the laws to play the game, otherwise we would only have the SB's playing this game.


A few of the laws which are routinely ignored without redress;
41A Face-down Opening Lead (Opening leads are made face up)
41B Review of Auction and Questions (Questions are asked by anyone at any time during the auction and before the opening lead)
45F Dummy Indicates card (Dummy plays the low card and only waits for Declarer to designate a card when they have a choice or should play high)
20 Explanation of calls (Players are unaware of their responsibilities, MI, UI. Although I think this one should stay)

Why have all these rules in a Club game? If there was a subset of the Laws for Club play, the players would be happier, the Laws could be made into a form that the average player would be happy to read and understand, the game would be conducted on a more equal basis as players would be aware of, and could follow the Laws, and the Secretary Birds would shut up.

You have these rules because there’s no real difference between the way the game is played at a club or at the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup. A face up lead that is taken back, because the partner should lead, conveys a whole lot of information. You’re planning to lead a king from KQJxx against 3NT, but your partner helpfully puts his ace on the table. No need to lead the king, a small card will do, partner wins the trick with the ace and returns a small card of the same suit. Result 3NT-1, other pairs did lead the king, resulting in 3NT made.
Dummy, knowing that you’re prone to forget that a seven or so has become the highest in a suit, ‘helpfully’ plays it, because (s)he strongly suspects that you won’t.
Besides, where and at what level would you draw the line between simplified rules and the complete set?
Please remember that the Laws are the result of decades of problems arising at bridge and discussing how to solve these. Throw half of these out and endless discussions will arise even at the lowest level. Just think about the the automatic trick adjustment at a revoke, that often leads to remarks like “There was no damage, so why a trick extra?” But was there no damage? The director should decide that, like in the old days. That was time consuming and quite often beyond the average club director, the reason it was changed.
And, however simple the Laws are, there will always be Secretary Birds.

[mycroft]

What I would give you, jillybean, on your last, is my standard lines:

1. if a club director gets 90% of the rulings 90% right, they're doing well enough for practical purposes.
2. The Laws (at least at the superficial, "read the text" level) are no more complicated than any of the other bridge books on their shelf. For some reason, they'd rather read 120 pages on Balancing (to take the second book I can see on my shelf) than 40 pages of Laws.
3. Most of those laws, as you say, are ignored anyway. Unless it causes problems, that's fine. If that bothers you, see the next spot.
4. Directors are pushed to care about the Laws the same way sysadmins are pushed into the sysadmin trap. That causes much frustration to directors when they're playing at clubs.

On the Laws you specifically mention - and yes, I understand the frustration:
- Thou shalt make thy opening lead face down, for thy partner's favourite question is "Why are you leading, partner?" And avoiding the 50-second "You have 5 options" spiel is worth much stupidity, especially in games with a playing director.
- 41B is definitely one of those "we saw people do this enough that we're stopping it, because of how bad it is" laws. I'm sure you've *never* played against someone who "helps" their partner along, whether by pushing that signal a little bit, or pushing the borders of Law 20G (or is that another one of those laws that we can be flexible with at the clubs?) to make sure that partner knows what they think she needs to know, or ... I can't tell you how many times I get (totally without intent) [bid] "Alert" "What is it?" "I'll tell you at your turn" "Yeah, okay, what is it?" (yeah, that's why) - how much worse would it be if they were allowed to ask "why are you bidding my suit" or "you need to know what this means, pd" (I'm sorry, what I meant to say is "please explain the Alert?") before rather than after?
- Oh my, how much more so is "Yeah, partner misinformed" (i.e. "wake up partner") at the wrong time.

Unfortunately, the Laws have moved toward "well, they do it anyway" in ways I don't like. "They do it anyway" where it explicitly assists those who think they need to help partner along a bit - well, it's a "polite, fun club", right? Not serious bridge? Not "call the police" bridge?

[mycroft]

"it's amazing how many motorcyclists are out there this weekend".
"No, that's what it always is. You're just noticing them now that you are one."

And yes, that's why I'm ambivalent about 11A. I wish I could still just say "you were happy with your own ruling when you thought it was in your interest. Now that it looks like it'll be worse than the Law, I don't see any reason to change it". Yes, everyone should call the director and by accepting the opponents' ruling and keeping playing, everyone is now an offender. But I don't think that means that the pair who get strongarmed into accepting a ruling at the table by "The Players" should get stuck with that bad ruling - even if the strongarmers don't benefit.

If you think it needs to be changed, I hope you've submitted your idea to the Committee. I may not like it, but I can't phrase what I want either.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-June-01, 10:12, said:

Rather than players gaming the rules I think the major problem is that players don't know the rules! but you are obviously much better informed than I am.
The Laws of Duplicate Bridge are something like 65 pages detailing 94 laws with numerous subsets with perhaps thankfully, no requirement to read or understand the laws to play the game, otherwise we would only have the SB's playing this game.

Well it's normal to read the rules of any game, if you intend to take it seriously. And the Laws of bridge are long in part because its a complicated game. But I agree that it is a telling error that one has to reach Law 72 before it starts to talk about player's duties rather than technicalities, and still never mentions the requirement to know the Laws.

jillybean, on 2023-June-01, 10:12, said:

A few of the laws which are routinely ignored without redress;
41A Face-down Opening Lead (Opening leads are made face up)
41B Review of Auction and Questions (Questions are asked by anyone at any time during the auction and before the opening lead)
45F Dummy Indicates card (Dummy plays the low card and only waits for Declarer to designate a card when they have a choice or should play high)
20 Explanation of calls (Players are unaware of their responsibilities, MI, UI. Although I think this one should stay)

Why have all these rules in a Club game? If there was a subset of the Laws for Club play, the players would be happier, the Laws could be made into a form that the average player would be happy to read and understand, the game would be conducted on a more equal basis as players would be aware of, and could follow the Laws, and the Secretary Birds would shut up.

Not sure why you would want these simplified for a club game, they seem more pertinent and necessary there than in an expert game where everyone is aware of their responsibilities and the opponent's needs.
41A: like it or not this is just a good suggestion to RAs, so no automatic redress.
41B: yes it is a mess if not respected, but again this is here mainly to protect club players - the question is rather why do the opponents not complain.
20: should stay, if players remain more or less blissfully unaware of their responsibilities who is to blame? Not the Laws, for sure.

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2023-June-01, 10:12, said:

Why have all these rules in a Club game? If there was a subset of the Laws for Club play, the players would be happier, the Laws could be made into a form that the average player would be happy to read and understand, the game would be conducted on a more equal basis as players would be aware of, and could follow the Laws, and the Secretary Birds would shut up.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to provide a subset of the laws for us (and the lawmakers) to consider. Should you fail in this mission, the Secretary will disavow all knowledge. :-)

[jillybean]

sanst, on 2023-June-01, 14:42, said:

You have these rules because there’s no real difference between the way the game is played at a club or at the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup. A face up lead that is taken back, because the partner should lead, conveys a whole lot of information. You’re planning to lead a king from KQJxx against 3NT, but your partner helpfully puts his ace on the table. No need to lead the king, a small card will do, partner wins the trick with the ace and returns a small card of the same suit. Result 3NT-1, other pairs did lead the king, resulting in 3NT made.
Dummy, knowing that you’re prone to forget that a seven or so has become the highest in a suit, ‘helpfully’ plays it, because (s)he strongly suspects that you won’t.
Besides, where and at what level would you draw the line between simplified rules and the complete set?
Please remember that the Laws are the result of decades of problems arising at bridge and discussing how to solve these. Throw half of these out and endless discussions will arise even at the lowest level. Just think about the the automatic trick adjustment at a revoke, that often leads to remarks like “There was no damage, so why a trick extra?” But was there no damage? The director should decide that, like in the old days. That was time consuming and quite often beyond the average club director, the reason it was changed.
And, however simple the Laws are, there will always be Secretary Birds.

In what way do you mean "You have these rules because there’s no real difference between the way the game is played at a club or at the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup."?
I imagine that the game goes along at the club very much like a game at the Bermuda Bowl, however the players knowledge of the Laws and how they conduct themselves at the table is vastly different.

I believe I have a fairly good understanding of the reasoning behind the Laws. I am suggesting there be a much simplified version of the Laws for club games because so much inconsistency exists now. Players, Directors, Club Committees make their own version of the Laws for what they feel is right for their club, they don't want players "punished" for what they consider to be minor mistakes. Wouldn't it be beneficial to have some level of conformity?

pescetom, on 2023-June-01, 15:16, said:

Well it's normal to read the rules of any game, if you intend to take it seriously. And the Laws of bridge are long in part because its a complicated game. But I agree that it is a telling error that one has to reach Law 72 before it starts to talk about player's duties rather than technicalities, and still never mentions the requirement to know the Laws.


Not sure why you would want these simplified for a club game, they seem more pertinent and necessary there than in an expert game where everyone is aware of their responsibilities and the opponent's needs.
41A: like it or not this is just a good suggestion to RAs, so no automatic redress.
41B: yes it is a mess if not respected, but again this is here mainly to protect club players - the question is rather why do the opponents not complain.
20: should stay, if players remain more or less blissfully unaware of their responsibilities who is to blame? Not the Laws, for sure.

I too find it normal that one would understand the rules when embarking on a serious sport, never mind law 72, why are bridge players left to their own devices to find, read and understand the Laws?

Why are players blissfully unaware, why do the opponents not complain, who is to blame? are great questions.

blackshoe, on 2023-June-02, 11:33, said:

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to provide a subset of the laws for us (and the lawmakers) to consider. Should you fail in this mission, the Secretary will disavow all knowledge. :-)

the
I think a good start would be to remove all Laws except Law 16, 40 & 73

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2023-June-01, 14:55, said:

\
Unfortunately, the Laws have moved toward "well, they do it anyway" in ways I don't like. "They do it anyway" where it explicitly assists those who think they need to help partner along a bit - well, it's a "polite, fun club", right? Not serious bridge? Not "call the police" bridge?

Yes, it's just a game.

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2023-June-02, 12:15, said:

I think a good start would be to remove all Laws except Law 16, 40 & 73

So you want to remove all the laws that define what correct procedure is? IOW remove all the laws that actually tell you how to play the game?

[sanst]

jillybean, on 2023-June-02, 12:15, said:

In what way do you mean "You have these rules because there’s no real difference between the way the game is played at a club or at the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup."?
I imagine that the game goes along at the club very much like a game at the Bermuda Bowl, however the players knowledge of the Laws and how they conduct themselves at the table is vastly different.

I believe I have a fairly good understanding of the reasoning behind the Laws. I am suggesting there be a much simplified version of the Laws for club games because so much inconsistency exists now. Players, Directors, Club Committees make their own version of the Laws for what they feel is right for their club, they don't want players "punished" for what they consider to be minor mistakes. Wouldn't it be beneficial to have some level of conformity?

I too find it normal that one would understand the rules when embarking on a serious sport, never mind law 72, why are bridge players left to their own devices to find, read and understand the Laws?

I think a good start would be to remove all Laws except Law 16, 40 & 73

I gather you want two sets of rules, one for the ‘serious’ matches and one for the social game. But the way the game is played is identical in both cases, a bid has to be higher than the previous, you have to play at your turn, you have to follow suit etc etc. Suppose you get your way, assuming you keep the rules how the game is played correctly. You would still need a method how to handle what the Laws call irregularities. If the players at the table solve these between themselves, there’s no problem as long you make clear that that is their own responsibility.
There’s absolutely no necessity for the average player to know more of the laws than how the game is played and the obligation to call a director if they think that there is something wrong. That’s not essentially different from any other sport. Look at world’s most populair sport, association football, aka soccer. Just read the part about a free kick on Wikipedia and tell me that the average player knows all of this. I’m quite certain that’s not the case.
You want to keep Law 16. That would be very impractical for the social club game, since the use of UI is probably the most frequent irregularity there. Only, most don’t notice it and the director is hardly ever called. That happens far more at the more ambitious clubs and tournaments.
I agree with you that the Laws could be simpler. I absolutely loathe the concept of the comparable call. Just get on with the game and let the director afterwards decide whether there’s a disadvantage for the NOS and if so, give an AS. The same could be done with an opening lead face up or a revoke. But it would make the director’s life far more difficult, since you would always have to decide what would have been the most likely outcome, given the level of the players and the actual play. And what about the discussions which will result from these literally arbitrary decisions. You would still have to explain to the players what made you decide as you did.
For what it’s worth: AFAIK there are far less irregularities at the top than at your club. Hardly any IB’s or revokes and all those technical mistakes for which the director is called. There are cases of UI, but more often MI because there’s a difference between the explanation on both sides of the screen. Sometimes a stupidly, like touching the wrong card, which did cost, if I remember correctly, Italy the gold medal by the narrowest of margins somewhere in the first decade of this century.
I still would like to know where you draw the line between social and competitive play. At least over here there are many clubs where the best players are more ambitious, also playing regional and national competitions, but the rest just playing for fun. And there are hardly any problems, although there might be some friction if these have to play against each other.
Lastly, as a club you’re completely free to join the national organization or not. In the last case you can have your own rules. Oddly enough, most of the non-affiliated clubs in Holland stick to the Laws and national regulations about alerting and BSC/HUM. So there must be something in it, even for these clubs.

[mycroft]

Well, then, expect the fun to include more of what makes people on that other site say "as long as you go in realizing it's Not Bridge, you'll have a good time."

I don't like those games, because the rules still exist. They're just unwritten, don't necessarily conform to the Laws, and are enforced through other methods than "Director please". But I guarantee you the rules still exist and are very much enforced.

I'm quite happy to deal with "the players enforce (most of) the Laws without me" as long as they're happy with liberal applications of 10C (and very slapdash applications of 11A; if they don't care enough to get accurate rulings, why should I take time out of my game to figure out exactly who was damaged by how much by them choosing not to DTRT until it affected *them*?) "Next time, call me when it happens, and you'll get a correct ruling. Try not to call with the tone of voice that says 'I want them punished, now', and it's likely they won't take it that way." But at Those Sorts of Clubs (see "the rules still exist", and they definitely apply to "who complains to whom when they get 'a bad ruling'"), that would just mean that I'd soon be politely asked if there was another game I could play/direct at?

Oh, and I'm writing up a talk for D16 on "Laws you need to know - the Director can't help you". The first one, I guarantee you, is "Call the Director. Here's when, who, how, and why." There's about 7 total, and only (misbid/misinformation/you misinformed) that requires them to actually know how the Law works. The players Do Not Need To Know The Laws (at least the parts that make it complicated); that's what Directors are for. They just need to know that they don't know enough to solve the issue at the table, so bring in the Expert.

Having said *that*, there was a hand Thursday night where declarer revoked, and only noticed it after she'd call the next card from dummy. The obvious "oops" was said, and we continued to the end of the hand. At which point, the three directors at the table announced "making 3?" in unison : -) (And yes, obviously, if it hadn't been 3 directors and a director's spouse at the table, we'd have called so that everyone was protected.)

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2023-June-02, 22:13, said:

So you want to remove all the laws that define what correct procedure is? IOW remove all the laws that actually tell you how to play the game?

Of course, removing all the laws is absurd. However, everyone at the club knows how to play the game and they understand the mechanics. Heavens, it's not like we are inundated with new players and the few that do come know how to play and learn the "rules" from observing and listening to other players. I'm sure the majority of players don't infringe the laws deliberately. As Mycroft mentioned, it's a "well, they do it anyway approach". My LHO makes a bid which is alerted, partner forgets to ask so I will help them. I ask a question in the middle of my opponents keycard responses after the have had an uncontested auction to the 5 level and if a remark is made the response is usually "I AM allowed to ask a question about your bids!!"
Let's lower the bar for Clubs and Club Directors and play a nice game. If 99% of the calls are correct for mechanical errors, insufficient bids, LOOTS, BOOTS and revokes, everyone will be happy.