[blml] 2007 laws

[Guthrie]

[Nigel]
I wish that a draft version of the new laws had been released for
comment by BLML and other interested parties. Constructive criticism
might confer some benefit, even at this late stage. It could
hardly do much harm because the WBFLC are free to ignore suggestions.

[Jerry]
Yes, I wish that too.  Maybe it was not possible for some reason.
It was released to NBOs.

[Eric landau]
The ACBL has named six individuals as its top-ranked tournament 
directors, qualified to serve as DICs at NABCs.  Two of those
directors are close personal friends.  Neither had seen (or been
offered) a draft or proof copy of the new laws until I sent them the
PDF from ECatsBridge.  Ordinary players don't stand a chance.

[Eric Landau again]
Let us hope that by the next round of law revisions the high and
mighty who sit on the councils of the WBF will have recognized the
reality that confronts actual bridge players who live in jurisdiction
of certain NBOs, including one very large one, to wit: Individual 
players wishing to express opinions have a better chance of conveying 
those opinions to the WBF if they write them on a piece of paper, put 
it in a bottle and float it out to sea than if they send them to their 
NBO. Grattan and the others, I'm sure, see some distinction between 
politely guiding players to send opinions to their NBOs and simply 
telling them to ---- off, but from where I sit there's no practical 
difference at all, and the WBF should not be surprised when players 
react to such "guidance" accordingly.

[Grattan Endicott]
+=+  Opportunity given to some 116 NBOs (plus eight Zonal 
Organizations and the Portland Club) to comment on our drafts
as they were in November could well have landed us (me) with an
indigestible problem in collating them law-by-law for presentation to 
the DSC. As it was, the responses returned from NBOs were not so 
extensive that I was unable to sort them in that way and communicate 
them to colleagues. Offering the opportunity to bridge players 
generally to present their views direct would have opened up an 
unacceptable risk of clogging to the procedure, and in any case it was 
proper that players should present opinions to their NBOs for 
consideration and influence upon the replies NBOs would send.  If 
players feel that their NBO is deaf to their thoughts players should 
use the ballot box to encourage greater attention for their 
correspondence; we do not determine their representation or the 
corporate structure of the organizations of which they are members.

[nige1]
In spite of the WBFLC's advertised efforts, no ordinary player was 
allowed to see or to comment on a draft of the laws. If the WBFLC 
perceives its prime duty as safeguarding the interests of directors 
and administrators, that may be no bad thing.

If a future WBFLC expands its remit to take into account the views of 
ordinary players, it may adopt something like the following procedure:

(1) Publish draft versions of proposed laws on the web and invite 
criticism.

(2a) Channel comments from hoi-polloi through NBOs/ZOs for collation.

*or much better -- because it is more open --*

(2b) Specify that comments should be submitted to a discussion group 
like BLML and appoint moderators to collate them.

(3b) The group moderators could set up polls, to canvas opinion on 
competing proposals (the status quo being the first option).

(4) If there was a large response from players, then NBOs or 
moderators could filter it before presenting it to the WBFLC.

(5) As would be made clear from the outset, the WBFLC would undertake 
to read (a digest of) comments and proposals; but would be free to 
incorporate, modify or ignore them at their complete discretion.

IMO, the rank-and-file response is unlikely to be overwhelming because...

(A) Many players are unhappy with Bridge laws but few players 
understand them. Fewer still feel qualified to make proposals. This 
results in widespread apathy.

(B) Some are reluctant to criticise the Bridge establishment
- Players in case thy risk adverse rulings.
- Directors, in case they jeopardise professional prospects.

(This is conjecture: but it is a fact that I get some supportive 
private emails; but few are prepared to pop their heads above the 
parapet on BLML or RGB).

A consultation process would have beneficial side-effects:
- education of players and directors in existing laws; and
- better appreciation of the hard task undertaken by law-makers.