[BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Hirsch Davis hirsch9000 at gmail.com
Thu Dec 30 16:05:26 CET 2010


On 12/30/2010 7:06 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote:
> Grattan<grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk>  wrote:
>> Grattan Endicott<grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk
>> ****************************************************
>> Skype directory:  grattan.endicott
>> ****************************************************
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Thomas Dehn"<blml at arcor.de>
>> To:<blml at rtflb.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 9:01 AM
>> Subject: Re: [BLML] interesting dWS case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>>
>>
>>> I still think that the dWS is wrong. Not because of
>>> what TFLB says, but in practical terms.
>>>
>> +=+ I am in doubt as to what dWS is or its implications.
>>        However, from what (little) I have read of this topic
>> the reference to TFLB is misplaced since wherever this
>> episode occurred it was not in a competition played
>> under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.
> There exist two philosophies on how to deal with defects
> in a law.
>
> 1. "This law is a bad law, but nevertheless I will follow it literally"

HD: Since the game is defined by its Laws, this is the only viable 
option in play, whatever your philosophical leanings.

> 2. "This law is a bad law. I will violate it, and do something sensible instead".

HD: Viable as philosophy, but not viable at the table. As Grattan has 
pointed out, the moment that this occurs in actual play, the game is no 
longer bridge. You're entitled to think that the Laws should be 
different, and to advocate for their change.  However, until such change 
occurs, the game is bound by the Laws as written, whether we believe 
them to be good or bad.

A competent TD would enforce 72.B.1 and should apply severe sanctions 
even if the TD agreed that the infraction might indeed represent a 
better approach to the game.  Neither the player nor the TD may define 
what is "sensible". That's up to the WBFLC and the various regulating 
organizations.

We've been here before. In  a real bridge game, the PP Alain received 
for his intentional infraction would wipe out his above average on the 
hand. Repeated intentional infractions would result in ejection and a 
Conduct and Ethics hearing.

My comments do not apply, of course, if the game in question is not 
bridge as defined by the Laws as written and interpreted by the WBFLC. 
However, it is my belief that such social games are not on topic for a 
bridge laws mailing list, since said laws are not applicable to the game 
in question.

Hirsch




More information about the Blml mailing list