[blml] Burns investigates.

[David Burn]

[TK]

We probably can go on for years with examples

[DALB]

Well, not years. But I would suggest that there may be some merit in this
approach:

When a major revision of a Law is to take place, the DSC should physically
play out several scenarios (some plausible, some fantastical) under the
proposed new Law. The least experienced Tournament Director on the DSC
should come to an "actual" table where an actual insufficient bid has been
made, and - armed only with the proposed new Law as written - attempt to
resolve the situation. In that way, the difficulties with the new Law might
become more immediately apparent than they were when, for example, the
infamous 25(B) was launched upon an unsuspecting world.

Maybe this already happens - I don't know how the DSC goes about its
business. But somehow, I doubt that it or anything like it happens at all.

Not that it matters very much. For the most part, players try not to bid out
of turn or to make insufficient bids, and nobody except Nigel Guthrie's
opponents actually tries to cheat. And of course, there will be (to a very
good approximation) no problems at the highest levels of the game, because
screens will eliminate most of the problems that might otherwise occur.

But bridge clubs can't afford screens for every duplicate, nor would their
members want them. More to the point, they can't afford lack of clarity in
the Laws, because that may discourage people from playing the game at all.

David Burn
London, England