[blml] A player's view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Nigel]

[Richard Hills]
Secondarily, I argue that (in some circumstances) non-objective or 
subjective Laws are highly desirable, despite Nigel Guthrie's vehement 
philosophical opposition.

[Edward Tenner, Why Things Bite Back, page 251]
For clubs, the rules become deliberately subjective. The head must be 
"plain in shape". This, for example, really means that it must look like 
a golf clubhead. Defining plainness precisely would have the reverse 
effect of promoting a search for loopholes.

[Richard]
A recent blml search for loopholes has been on the extensive thread 
discussing when, exactly, a card has been played. I like the plain in 
shape subjective solution proposed by John (MadDog) Probst that "a card 
has been played when the player stops waving it around".

[nige1]
The dispute was whether "held" means "held *stationary*". Richard, John 
and Grattan seem to think it does. If the law actually specified "held 
stationary" the law would still be complex but less controversial. IMO, 
a simpler law would be better.

[Richard (13th February 2007)]
Thirdly, I argue that (in some circumstances) non-objective or 
subjective Alert regulations are highly desirable, to prevent 
sea-lawyers wriggling through loopholes.

[John McEnroe (CR)]
You cannot be serious!

[nige1]

Again Richard argues that a subjective rule may be better than the same 
rule phrased objectively.

Admittedly, Richard has a point: it is hard to argue with a subjective 
ruling. A subjective regulation makes it easier for each individual to 
impose his own idiosyncratic interpretation and judgement *unopposed*, 
but...
[A] Different assessors arrive at different judgements on identical 
facts, so
[B] Inconsistent rulings result in worries about fairness, and
[C] Justice is not *seen to be done*. 

[Richard] 
There are two ways to construct an Alert regulation. One way, chosen by 
the Australian Bridge Federation, is to create (non-objective or 
subjective) general principles, and then to provide some indicative 
examples as guidance for players and directors on the application of 
those (non-objective or subjective) general principles. The other way is 
the "death by detail" approach, with large numbers of specific situations
specifically defined as ... [SNIP]

[nige1]

The Australian Bridge Federation has a sensible tolerant attitude to 
systemic agreements and its disclosure regulations seem more objective 
and simple than most.

Some years ago, however, the ABF asked for suggestions about disclosure 
rules and rejected my *third way* :(

[3] Dispense with alerts completely :)

...Don't *alert* partner's calls, instead...
 
(a) *Unless* opponents asked you *not to explain* before starting the 
round --
(b) *During* the auction, *explain* (announce) any call that you would 
have alerted.
(c) *After* the auction, offer to explain, anyway.

...This protocol [3] avoids any unauthorised information that might be 
engendered, had you asked selectively. If you would have asked about 
*all* alerted calls then it saves the time wasted by alerts and 
questions. If you *switch off* explanations that further reduces UI and 
saves more time because instead of waiting for an explanation of each 
alertable call...

(d) At the end of the auction, You may ask a *Sven Pran* question "What 
do your partner's calls tell you about his hand?" to elicit a succinct 
and lucid response: shape, strength, and so on.

...Disclosure is even simpler if you...

(e) Explain departures from a (local or international) *standard* system.

This disclosure protocol is no panacea (Frances Hinden and others were 
kind enough to point out shortcomings) but, overall, IMO, it would be 
fairer, faster and simpler.