[blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission

[Guthrie]

[Richard Hills]
> Let me pose four questions.
> (1) Should the Lawbook be written for the
> convenience of, and easy comprehension by,
> the average club TD?
[Nige1]
The main target audience should be the average
player (among whom are many club directors).

[Richard]
> (2) Is the current organisation and wording
> of the Lawbook inconvenient for, and often
> incomprehensible to, the average club TD?
[Nige1]
There are many examples in BLML, of national
directors and law-writers citing the wrong rule
and many more cases of misinterpretation. At club
level, some directors are just as bad.

[Richard]
> (3) Would *any* sensible rewriting and
> reeorganisation of the Lawbook be a *vast*
> improvement on the arcane wording and
> spaghetti organisation of the current
> Lawbook?
[Nige1]
IMO a competent lawyer and a competent technical
writer (both good bridge players) would produce a
vastly improved document.

[Richard]
> (4) Is the Lawbook merely written for the
> convenience of those members of the ACBL LC who
> wish to track the changes in specific Laws over
> the decades ? If it is definitely broke, still
> don't fix it, because it is too hard for very
> busy ACBL LC members with more important work
> to do?
[Nige1]
IMO the main criticism is that the rules don't
have players as their main target audience.