[blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure.

[Harald Skjæran]

On 22/05/2008, gesta at tiscali.co.uk <gesta at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
> [following address discontinued:
> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
> *************************
> "A full cup must be carried steadily."
>                      [English proverb ]
> "*************************
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Guthrie" <Guthrie at NTLworld.com>
> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 5:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure.
>
>
> > Law 27 could be simplified. For example ...
> >
> > If a player makes an insufficient (or out-of-turn or illegal) call then
> > the call is cancelled and the information is unauthorised to his
> > partner, who is silenced for the rest of the auction. The offender, at
> > each of his legitimate turns to call, may make any legal call. The
> > director ratifies the actual result achieved unless he judges that the
> > offender could have silenced his partner deliberately.
> >
> > Notice that an attempt to "condone" the illegal call is likely to be
> > another infraction. Exceptionally, for example, against a handicapped
> > offender, the non-offenders may ask the director to waive their rights.
> >
> > A few advantages ...
> >  - No options for anybody.
> >  - Simple UI restrictions.
> >  - the actual result will usually be upheld.
> >  - Some directors and players may be able to understand this rule.
> >
> +=+ Your views, Nigel, on the way the laws should go are
> well known. However, the remit the DSC set itself was to
> increase the number of occasions when the board could be
> played and a result obtained. It was agreed that less priority
> be given to the convenience of the Director.
>      So I see more advantage now in dealing with what we
> have, with procedures under the 2007 laws, as against a
> discussion of  what might be the law perhaps in ten years'
> time.
>                                            ~ Grattan ~   +=+
>
I agree, the new law 27 is clearly a step in the right direction. It
most probably could have been worded better that it is now - we'll
probably see an improvement in that regard in ten years time. Now we
need to get used to applying it.

-- 
Kind regards,
Harald Skjæran