[BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Fri Apr 27 04:25:12 CEST 2012

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:29:30 -0400, <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:

> Robert Frick:
> [snip]
>> Do we really have to read the rules to see
>> that this isn't fair?
> Richard Hills:
> Yes.
> Only when The Drafting Committee is
> thinking about _changing_ The Laws of
> Duplicate Bridge is a Platonic ideal of
> "fairness" relevant. In all other cases
> contextual "fairness" applies, with the
> context being the current -- operative --
> edition of the Lawbook.
> For example, under the 1975 Lawbook, in
> situations where declarer led from the
> wrong hand, it was "fair" for the defenders
> to demand that declarer led The Same Suit
> from the correct hand, and it was "fair" for
> the defenders to thereby gain a bonus trick.
> The 1987 Drafting Committee consulted its
> Platonic ideal of "fairness" and changed the
> Law. Since 1987, when defenders demand
> that declarer lead from the correct hand, it
> is "fair" for declarer to lead Any Suit.
> Digory Kirke, the magician's nephew:
> "Grown-ups are always thinking of
> uninteresting explanations."

Since this is so important, I will respond. You define a Platonic idea of  
fairness. Obvioulsy, I *can* apply this Platonic idea to the current laws.

You state I *should not*. Actually, that no one should. Actually, you  
don't seem kind to people who don't. You pretty much fit the following  
description, right?

"It is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of  
their importance in maintaining a functioning society...If one person  
violates a law, perhaps everyone would -- thus there is an obligation and  
a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is  
morally wrong..."

There are other ways of being moral  
I am from a country that celebrates a bunch of thugs throwing precious tea  
overboard. Our founding fathers were all outlaws. The only American to get  
his own day (Martin Luther King) felt morally obligated to break laws.  
President Lincoln as far as I know obeyed the laws, but he once argued in  
trial that if the laws were followed, his client should lose, but that the  
laws should not be followed. He won his case.

My hero is Mahatma Gandhi, who made an art out of breaking laws.

And for all that, I follow the bridge laws. When the laws address a  
situation and tell me what to do, I do it. L84B. But when a situation is  
not clearly covered by the laws, and when the following the laws like a  
headless chicken leads to a bad ruling (Platonically speaking), then I do  
what most directors do -- I give the good ruling (Platonically speaking).

And what am I supposed to do when a law is simple wrong? Or I can't tell  
if the law is right or wrong?

Oddly enough, I am trying to build the world that we both want to live in  
-- where directors can read the laws and follow them and that works well  
and everyone is happy.

So I think you should accept that other people are different. Even if  
Wikipedia predicts that is hard for you.

More information about the Blml mailing list