[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2024-January-17, 16:37, said:

The wording of Law 46B should be changed: "If you don't want to follow Law 46A you can instead..."

"We understand that Law 46A is a fantasy. Here's how players really designate a card from dummy."

[blackshoe]

The only thing wrong with 46A is that players have the attitude "this law sucks. I'm going to do what I want, screw the law."

[mycroft]

I actually think that "going to where the people are, unless it causes a problem" is a better way of handling a lot of situations, and "herding cats a bunch of rich people who have basically were able to do what they wanted all their life, who 100% have two reactions(*) to being Told What To Do When It's Stupid™" is one of them, especially when we're already struggling to retain players.

I'm sure the Navy works very well with "This is the way. Do it this way, no other, because I Say So" (but I also bet that line is tempered a little bit when it comes to Admiral's Sons and Military Family turned Politician's Nephew. At least that is what I hear). My experience is that Bridge players are different.

And therefore, I think "here's what you're supposed to do. We know you won't, because nobody has for the last 80 years, despite our efforts; and also 99.99% of the time everybody knows what everybody means, and that's okay; so let's codify a bunch of 'what players mean by Y' and let the Person-on-the-Floor's discretion be final for the other 1 in 50 000." is Just Fine.

I mean, my preferred legal pattern (which I've railed at for years, to about as much avail as anybody else's) would remove L46B in favour of detailed "Commentary on 45A" that basically would repeat 46B; along with annual "case review" documents, one of those cases "this year" might be "here's a new, interesting L46A violation, and here's how we want it to be ruled". I'm betting that a lot of them would look like - and some would actually be - lamford's North London Club hands.

The people who complain that the Laws are too complicated would be "happier", but they'd be confused by how to do all the rulings. The people who complain that there are too many Laws to understand would be even more upset when we tell them that they have to read both the Laws, and the Commentary to those Laws, and "oh, see this case in the 2022 review that hasn't got into the commentary yet".

My snarky opinion is, of course, that the Venn Diagram of those two groups isn't *quite* a circle, but you might need your magnifying glass. My real opinion is less snarky.

But it is what it is, and almost nobody has any serious problem with it, and even those SBs (in the legal sense, not the NLC sense) will admit that it almost always works in practise (and if your director has enough skill, confidence and support, when they make a "not incontrovertible" ruling, it's not clearly wrong, the players (grudgingly) accept it, and if they don't, the response is "we weren't at the table, the Director was, and we're trusting they got it right.") even if, theoretically, a Probst Cheat could drive a truck through it - once.

(and, in case it wasn't clear from my other posts, I agree with blackshoe about the actual ruling. It's obvious that declarer meant 'an another high club', not 'and another club')

(*) those two reactions, depending on how embedded they are in the community, are "fine. There are other things I can do with my time where I don't have to deal with Petty Jumped-up Martinets that finally got a Bit of Power" and "Hey Golf Buddy/Drinking Buddy/occasional teammate who actually does have Power, did you hear what Petty Jumped-up Martinet did *to me*?" The results of both of which I think are obvious...

[jillybean]

How many players would you say have read the Laws?

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-January-18, 15:25, said:

How many players would you say have read the Laws?

More than you might expect, even amongst those who pretend otherwise.
But given that there are 93(?) and some not easy to fathom even for the TD, many players feel entitled to flaunt them or at least adopt a fatalistic attitude.

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2024-January-18, 15:25, said:

How many players would you say have read the Laws?

Not as many as should have.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2024-January-18, 16:00, said:

More than you might expect, even amongst those who pretend otherwise.
But given that there are 93(?) and some not easy to fathom even for the TD, many players feel entitled to flaunt them or at least adopt a fatalistic attitude.

I suspect less than you expect.

I know some OCDish types who I'm pretty sure have never read most of the Laws; they're often surprised at some of the details I point out to them (e.g. that the Laws specifically say that you should count your cards, shuffle before returning to the board, and that dummy's cards should be in a particular order). If something specific has come up, they might then go and read the specific laws that are relevant.

I doubt this is unique to bridge. How many Monopoly players do you think have read all the rules (even though they're just a few pages)?

Nor is it even specific to games. Few drivers have ever read the relevant laws. We're taught to drive, and we pick up the important things from our teachers.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2024-January-19, 15:12, said:

I know some OCDish types who I'm pretty sure have never read most of the Laws; they're often surprised at some of the details I point out to them (e.g. that the Laws specifically say that you should count your cards, shuffle before returning to the board, and that dummy's cards should be in a particular order). If something specific has come up, they might then go and read the specific laws that are relevant.

And I know some RRish types who I'm pretty sure have read the relevant parts of the Laws, yet still feign surprise when I point them out.

barmar, on 2024-January-19, 15:12, said:

I doubt this is unique to bridge. How many Monopoly players do you think have read all the rules (even though they're just a few pages)?

Perhaps not many, but they hardly need to. The rules are simple and nobody would accept a violation, it takes only a few seconds to check in the rules and nobody finds it strange.
If only we could say the same about Bridge.

[jillybean]

barmar, on 2024-January-19, 15:12, said:

I doubt this is unique to bridge. How many Monopoly players do you think have read all the rules (even though they're just a few pages)?

That's understandable, Monopoly is just a game. Every child learns the game from their parents or older siblings.
Oh, wait.