[blml] L27

[David Burn]

[SW]

The present Law -- here I go again! -- is another problem caused by mixing
mechanical and information penalties.

[DALB]

This "mixture" is a result of what I have always considered to be muddled
thinking about the purpose of the laws of a game.

A game is an artificial construct - it is not intended as a model or a
reflection of correct ethical or social behaviour. What is legal may be done
without moral censure attaching to whoever does it; what is not legal may
not be done however "unjust" it may seem not to be able to do it.

That is why the laws were originally what they were. They didn't presume
that players were cads and bounders, nor did they presume that players were
solid and upright citizens. They merely sought to make it unprofitable for
cads and bounders to do what they might otherwise do. If you ruffed a trick
when you could have followed suit, not only did you have to give that trick
back, but you had to hand over another trick as well - the first by way of
restitution, the second by way of penalty. If you illegally showed your
partner one or more of your cards during the bidding or play, he might
thereby obtain an advantage; the laws were constructed so that not only
would he not obtain an advantage, your side would (usually) be
disadvantaged. If you bid when it wasn't your turn, or did not bid enough
when it was, similar considerations applied.

The rules of all games except, nowadays, bridge, work as I have indicated
above, and work very well. It is easy to state them. It is easy to apply
them. And when players fall foul of them by mistake, they know that they are
subject to the same penalties as if they had fallen foul of them on purpose,
and they do not mind because they know that they are playing a game.

For several years now, the laws of bridge have been subject to a process of
watering down, to cater for the assumption that no one who plays bridge is
actually a cad and a bounder. To exactly the extent that this watering-down
process has taken place, the laws have become more confusing. If you gain no
tricks by revoking, you are one or two tricks worse off than if you had not
revoked. If you gain three tricks by revoking, you are no worse off than if
you had not revoked. No one has a clue why this is - understandably, because
it is irrational, so there is no "reason why" it is.

Law 25 in the 1997 code was a catastrophic attempt to allow people not to
have to face the consequences of their error in making the wrong bid at
their turn. Law 27 in the 2007 code is an equally catastrophic attempt to
allow people not to have to face the consequences of their error in making
the wrong bid at their turn. No bridge player would mind in the least if the
rules were "A call once made may not be changed", and no bridge player would
mind in the least if the rules were "An insufficient bid bars partner for
the remainder of the auction". What bridge players will mind - and mind very
much - is the chaos and confusion that are bound to follow now that certain
insufficient bids can be corrected to certain sufficient bids (or passes, or
doubles, or redoubles - ye Gods!) while others cannot, and no one has a clue
why this is.

David Burn
London, England