[blml] Fect in the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Robert Frick]

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:56:06 -0400, <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:

>
> 2007 Law 72A - Observance of Laws
>
> "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict
> accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a
> higher score than other contestants whilst complying with
> the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in
> these laws."

Ha. This is debated in the letters to the editor to the ACBL Bulletin (you  
can see my sources of information), with no agreement. So I would rank it  
as a controversial law. It is contradicted by 81C5 (81C8 in the old  
rules), which clearly (in my mind!) establishes a player's rights to  
request that penalties be waived, even if that would clearly be to a  
player's advantage.

Applying the Law of Specificity to this contradiction, I conclude (for  
now?) the following. It is appropriate to forfeit possible advantages  
through the application or nonapplication of the laws. It is NOT permitted  
to deliberately do poorly on a board because of bidding or play.

Yes, that's a little self-serving. The principle of Specificity just gets  
you to it being okay to waive penalities. But it is so obviously wrong to  
deliberately do badly on a board because of bidding or play, I like my  
interpretation.

>
> Richard Hills:
>
> In my opinion, choosing to _unnecessarily_ tell the
> opponents what cards you hold in your hand is an
> infraction of the 2007 Law 72A objective to strive for a
> higher score.

Hmmm. Does that mean that ethically I should appeal every director  
decision for which I think I have even the smallest chance of gaining? I  
am not allowed to tell an opponent to hold his/her hand back? Can I warn  
the opp before the opp commits an irregularity? Can I agree to sit E/W if  
the weaker field is NS?

I think there is an exception, but basically Law 72A refers only to the  
bidding and play.

(Don't most people give this interpretation to 73B1 in the old laws --  
gratuitous information is illegal only when it communicates information  
relevant to bidding or play, not information that would affect compliance  
with proper procedures?)

Bob