[blml] The new L27C2

[Stefanie Rohan]

Steve Willner:

> We'll have to see what really happens when the new
> Laws take effect, but for now it looks like the unforeseen problems have
> to do with "incorporates" rather than what replacement call is selected.

Personally, I think that "incorporates" is difficult but potentially 
workable. What I find impossible is determining the "meaning" of an IB; 
after all it is illegal for them to have any meaning at all.

I had been thinking the same thing that another poster suggested, ie to 
cancel the IB and let the IBer make any call, with the IB UI to the OS. I 
think that this is in line with the apparent goal of the DSC. But the UI 
rulings would be way too tough for many directors, particularly those at the 
club level.

One thing the WBF must take into account is that many clubs are member-run, 
and use volunteer playing directors, often with no training. The further the 
Laws move away from automatic/mechanical adjustments towards judgement 
rulings, the more difficult it is for them to be properly applied at club 
level.

Also, automatic/mechanical adjustments are received well by the players. 
There is no bad feeling resulting from perceived bias/incompetence by the 
director. People shrug their shoulders and resolve not to make infractions 
in future. (Would just like to take a moment to once again express my 
disappointment about the new gain/break even revoke Laws. I think that this 
is one case where a deterrent effect is desirable.)


Stefanie Rohan
London, England