[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2013-April-19, 18:42, said:

I disagree with most of what directors have written above. The effect is "it usually does no harm to break these rules, so rather than appear pernickety, we turn a blind eye when players, in the know, break them, routinely". On the contrary, IMO:

• When rules are stupid, they should be dropped or changed.
• Until daft rules are dropped, directors should comply with them and enforce them as written.

I don't think it is up to players (or directors) to pick and choose.

So it is "daft" to require players to leave their bidding cards on the table during a live auction?

[blackshoe]

First Amendment to the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people…"
Thomas Jefferson, on his first reading the above: "Hm. Should have put a period after the word 'law'".

Perhaps we need a house of lawmakers and a house of law unmakers. I believe Friedrich Hayek suggested something very similar several decades ago.

[nige1]

 Vampyr, on 2013-April-20, 11:20, said:

So it is "daft" to require players to leave their bidding cards on the table during a live auction?

I think it's sensible but other posters seem to think it's daft. IMO the law should be that you mustn't pick up your bidding cards until after the opening lead is faced. FWIW, I also agree with the law that says you should nominate cards from dummy by rank and suit. Anyway, whatever protocols are specified by the rules, players (and directors) should comply with them, as written, however daft they judge them to be, until they've successfully campaigned to have them changed.

[barmar]

 nige1, on 2013-April-20, 18:25, said:

I think it is sensible but other posters seem to think it's daft. IMO the law should be that you mustn't pick up your bidding cards until after the opening lead is faced.

Bidding cards aren't mentioned in the Laws at all, are they? The Laws are agnostic regarding spoken bidding, bidding boxes, written bidding, electronic bidding, and anything else we might come up with. Regulation of the mechanics of these methods is left to the RAs.

[nige1]

 barmar, on 2013-April-21, 12:49, said:

Bidding cards aren't mentioned in the Laws at all, are they? The Laws are agnostic regarding spoken bidding, bidding boxes, written bidding, electronic bidding, and anything else we might come up with. Regulation of the mechanics of these methods is left to the RAs.

I deplore the fact that there are holes in the law-book that local regulators have to plug.

[aguahombre]

 nige1, on 2013-April-21, 14:16, said:

I deplore the fact there are holes in the law-book that local regulators have to plug.

So, you think there should be bid-box rules for jurisdictions without bid boxes? Should the WBF also tell the Australians how to scribble? These are not holes in the lawbook. they are not "Laws" at all if we draw the distinction between laws and local regulations.

[FrancesHinden]

 aguahombre, on 2013-April-21, 14:23, said:

So, you think there should be bid-box rules for jurisdictions without bid boxes? Should the WBF also tell the Australians how to scribble? These are not holes in the lawbook. they are not "Laws" at all if we draw the distinction between laws and local regulations.

We don't have bid-boxes in the UK, either.

[aguahombre]

 FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-21, 15:27, said:

We don't have bid-boxes in the UK, either.

Huh? Was Bluejack just talking out of his hat about how rude it is in England to pick up the bid cards?

[RMB1]

 aguahombre, on 2013-April-21, 15:50, said:

Huh? Was Bluejack just talking out of his hat about how rude it is in England to pick up the bid cards?

Oh we have boxes, but more respect for language than to call them "bid-boxes".

[nige1]

 aguahombre, on 2013-April-21, 14:23, said:

So, you think there should be bid-box rules for jurisdictions without bid boxes?

Yes rules for "bid-boxes" (IMO that terminology is fine) , screens, bridge-mates, and so on.

 aguahombre, on 2013-April-21, 14:23, said:

Should the WBF also tell the Australians how to scribble?

Yes although I'm told that bidding boxes are becoming more popular in Australia. Written bidding has it's advantages, but, as Aquahombre implies, legibility can be a problem (see recent thread).

 aguahombre, on 2013-April-21, 14:23, said:

These are not holes in the lawbook. they are not "Laws" at all if we draw the distinction between laws and local regulations

A tautology. I hope there's a change for the better.

[aguahombre]

 RMB1, on 2013-April-21, 16:06, said:

Oh we have boxes, but more respect for language than to call them "bid-boxes".

I do hope the respectful of language did not misdirect because of the common terminology for the containers. And I know it wasn't my use of the hyphen, since I only used it to make an adjective for "regulations" and not when referring to the bid boxes themselves.

[gnasher]

It's usually unwise to argue with Frances and Robin about language, but I think "bid box" is acceptable as long as "bid" is being used as a noun rather than as a verb. A "bid box" is a box containing bids (cf "biscuit barrel"), and a "bidding box" is a box that we use for bidding.

Anyway, both terms are inaccurate: the box doesn't actually contain bids and we don't use the box itself for bidding. A better term would be "bidding-card box".

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2013-April-21, 14:16, said:

I deplore the fact that there are holes in the law-book that local regulators have to plug.

Maybe it would help if you thought about it differently. The Lawbook tells us what is and is not bridge. Its function is not, and should not be, to micro-manage the way the game of bridge is played in clubs and tournaments, nor to anticipate the needs and problems of organisers.

Maybe the Laws should specify that alternating red and blue packs of cards are used, to minimise mistakes in replacing stray cards? Or that travellers (yes they still exist) are scored in (preferably heavy) ink to prevent the unscrupulous from changing the scores after the opponents leave the table (yes this has been done). Maybe the Laws should specify how many minutes should be allowed for each board, so that foreign visitors are not inconvenienced by having to play at a quicker pace than they are used to.

Your fantasy player poll might well vote in favour of global regulations (sure, why not, seems like a good idea). This would be transformed into howls of outraged protest when these voters learned that this meant that their own regulations would have to change.

And bear in mind that the majority of players do not even realise that there are regulations in the world that are very different to the ones that they are used to, so they would not even have any idea of what they might be getting themselves into. Although I think that everyone on these forums knows; it would be ACBL regulations for all.

 FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-21, 15:27, said:

We don't have bid-boxes in the UK, either.

Seriously? And there are no sidewalks and you never eat eggplant? I can't see what reason there is to disrespect another region's terminology and pretend you don't know what they are talking about.

[gnasher]

I never eat eggplant.

[Vampyr]

 gnasher, on 2013-April-22, 06:13, said:

I never eat eggplant.

You are missing out.

[nige1]

 Vampyr, on 2013-April-22, 05:43, said:

Maybe it would help if you thought about it differently. The Lawbook tells us what is and is not bridge. Its function is not, and should not be, to micro-manage the way the game of bridge is played in clubs and tournaments, nor to anticipate the needs and problems of organisers.

It's hard to do but it might help us all if we overcame our prejudices and thought more clearly. Laws plus Regulations are the Rules by which we play Bridge. A rule-book that included both laws and regulations would be only a little bigger than the current law-book plus a book of regulations. It could be well-integrated, better structured, internally consistent, and easier for players and directors to consult.

 Vampyr, on 2013-April-22, 05:43, said:

Maybe the Laws should specify that alternating red and blue packs of cards are used, to minimise mistakes in replacing stray cards? Or that travellers (yes they still exist) are scored in (preferably heavy) ink to prevent the unscrupulous from changing the scores after the opponents leave the table (yes this has been done). Maybe the Laws should specify how many minutes should be allowed for each board, so that foreign visitors are not inconvenienced by having to play at a quicker pace than they are used to.

Rule-makers may deem such advice excessive (but it may well be useful, if concisely expressed). Dropping unnecessary rules, simplifying existing rules, and devising new rules, (e.g. making bridge a properly timed game) are well-worth considering as a separate exercise from integrating current laws and regulations.

 Vampyr, on 2013-April-22, 05:43, said:

Your fantasy player poll might well vote in favour of global regulations (sure, why not, seems like a good idea). This would be transformed into howls of outraged protest when these voters learned that this meant that their own regulations would have to change. And bear in mind that the majority of players do not even realise that there are regulations in the world that are very different to the ones that they are used to, so they would not even have any idea of what they might be getting themselves into. Although I think that everyone on these forums knows; it would be ACBL regulations for all.

Before a poll, players should be told the main arguments on both sides; also the results of a poll are influenced by the way it is phrased; but a (reasonably) fair poll of a (roughly) representative sample of duplicate players would suffice to test opinion.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2013-April-22, 06:13, said:

I never eat eggplant.

 Vampyr, on 2013-April-22, 06:15, said:

You are missing out.

Possibly. I remember years ago having a dish of Eggplant Parmesan that was outstanding. Since that one time I've not had any eggplant dish (including several tries at Eggplant Parmesan, both at home and in restaurants) that was worth eating.

[StevenG]

 nige1, on 2013-April-22, 07:00, said:

Before a poll, players should be told the main arguments on both sides; also the results of a poll are influenced by the way it is phrased; but a (reasonably) fair poll of a (roughly) representative sample of duplicate players would suffice to test opinion.

In retrospect it might be a good idea. It would be nice to get rid of that pesky multi-2♦ (at least at club level).

Of course, having to alert everything that wasn't Polish Club might be a bit annoying.

[Zelandakh]

Nige might be onto something - at the same time we could also add to the Laws a universal bidding and cardplay system so we can remove the whole set of regulations for alerts, announcements, MI and (the equivalent of) BSCs and HUMs. Perhaps we could go a stage further and regulate the size of the tables. Gone will be the days of not knowing where to place your coffee mug/beer glass. Perhaps we could also regulate a minimum number of hcp for every player to receive during a session - I am sure that would go down well with players who always feel they get bad hands. The possibilities are endless.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2013-April-22, 08:36, said:

Possibly. I remember years ago having a dish of Eggplant Parmesan that was outstanding. Since that one time I've not had any eggplant dish (including several tries at Eggplant Parmesan, both at home and in restaurants) that was worth eating.

In addition to abusing language, I also abuse recipes. The basic ingredients of Moussaka can be used to make a delicious lamb stew. Eggplant is an essential taste.