[blml] Clarification...

[Nigel]

Many rules in the law-book need clarification. For example, psyching 
is a thorny and contentious subject. The first step would be to define 
a useful vocabulary.

Another questio is whether misinfornation is worse that unauthorised 
information (De WAel et al)

Here are some other concrete examples. Please supply more...

[L76B, TFLB, 1997]
A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor 
speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director.

[nige1]
In its present form, this law it needs clarification.

Does it mean that a conscientious director, at his discretion, *can* 
ask spectators to draw his attention to any irregularities that they 
happen to notice?

Some say that the comma precludes such an interpretation.

Anyway, IMO law 76B should be scrapped.

Surely the law should *encourage* spectators to report infractions, as 
would be expected of any good citizen who witnessed law-breaking? If 
current law applied in 1965, then Reese and Schapiro were illegally 
convicted!

[L81C6, TFLB, 1997]
The Director’s duties and powers normally include the following...
...to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in 
any manner, within the correction period established in accordance 
with Law 79C.

[nige1]
Many law-makers and directors express the opinion that the director 
should avoid interference unless called by a player; they argue that 
singling out a particular table for attention would be unfair to the 
law-breakers at that table, when law-breakers at other tables might be 
getting away with similar infractions.

IMO law 81C6 should be clarified to mean that, on the contrary, time 
permitting, it is a director's duty to pro-actively seek out and 
investigate possible infractions.

This would help to deter to law-breaking at all tables, especially 
against less experienced players who might be unaware of an opponent's 
infraction.


[L45C2, TFLB, 1997]
Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or 
nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to 
indicate that it has been played.

[nige1]
There has been a long dispute as to whether the card must be held 
*stationary* before it is deemed to have been played.

IMO, the rule could be simplified eg "Declarer plays a card when he 
takes it from his hand and reveals its face."

[l65A]
When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own 
card face down near him on the table

[L45E1]
A fifth card contributed to a trick by a defender becomes a penalty 
card, subject to Law 50, unless the Director deems that it was led, in 
which case Law 53 or 56 applies.		
	
Is it legal to lead to the next trick, while there are still cards 
faced from the current trick? These laws seem to imply that such a 
card should be treated as a penalty card. But that is not the current 
official interpretation.

IMO a defender should not be allowed to keep an advantage gained by 
leading to the next trick before the current trick is quitted, when 
such a ploy is likely to cause a flustered declarer to make a mistake.

I feel strongly that the law on this matter should be clarified before 
its interpretation features in the destination of another Bermuda Bowl.