BBO Discussion Forums: Badly worded Laws - BBO Discussion Forums

Been meaning to do this for a while - I'm going to copy here my post from another thread about Law 24, which reads a bit funny with a "then" before paragraph A.

Quote

Also yesterday Law 55A came up. This bit is very badly worded if you ask me:

Law 55A said:

Suppose the lead is in dummy and declarer leads from his hand - which is the player "next in turn", LHO or RHO? Looking at the similar "you can accept the IB/call out of rotation/lead out of turn" laws you might guess it's LHO (the player next in rotation from the one who made the lead out of turn), but as it stands it'd be perfectly reasonable to interpret the wording as meaining RHO (think "next in actual turn").

How about changing this to (assuming "LHO" is the correct answer to the above question):

"If the defenders choose differently:
(1) when the lead is actually in dummy, the option expressed by declarer's RHO shall prevail.
(2) when the lead is actually in declarer's hand, the option expressed by declarer's LHO shall prevail."

or similar (I tried to word it in one sentence but couldn't make it read nicely).

In the meantime can someone who knows what the correct answer to the LHO/RHO question is clarify this for me because I'll bet it comes up on my TD exam - thanks.

Any other badly worded laws people have run into?

ahydra

If we're aiming at a similar level of readibility to the current laws, maybe this would do:

"If the defenders choose differently the option expressed by the player whose turn it would have been had the lead been made by the correct hand shall prevail."
(If the WBFLC are too mean to spend a comma on this sentence, they're not having one of mine.)

But there are at least two more problems with this law:
- Does "If the defenders choose differently" apply only if they simultaneously make different choices, or does this allow for one defender to say "I want to accept the lead", and the other to overrule him?
- In either case, it conflicts with parts B1 and B2 of the same law, which should read "if he is required to retract the lead as in A" rather than "if either defender requires him to retract the lead".

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-June-22, 13:04

And another thing:
should (I assume) be simply:
Or if it doesn't mean that, it should say what it actually does mean.

 ahydra, on 2012-June-22, 09:54, said:

Law 55A said:

I believe "Next in turn" refers to the player next in turn after the player (declarer or dummy) who led out of turn.

That is: If declarer leads out of turn from dummy then "Next in turn" for the purpose of Law 55A is Declarer's RHO.

But I agree a clarification is needed here and am passing the question to Grattan (See "An invitation from WBFLC" in this forum)
regards Sven

 pran, on 2012-June-22, 14:25, said:

So, you believe "next in turn" means next "out of turn".

 ahydra, on 2012-June-22, 09:54, said:

I invented a new game today:
- Go to http://www.random.org/
- Generate a random number between 1 and 93.
- See how many examples of poor wording you can find in the corresponding Law.

It took me five turns to find a Law whose wording was faultless: Law 56.

Kind of hard to mess that one up.

 aguahombre, on 2012-June-22, 14:57, said:

No, I believe it implies next in turn after the lead just made (out of turn).
He is in fact next in turn if/when he accepts the lead out of turn.

To me it is illogical to use the clause "next in turn" to mean "in turn after a lead not made".

 gnasher, on 2012-June-22, 16:15, said:

Well, the wording may be faultless, but the Law certainly is not:

The "right" person reading this law will, when faced with a defender leading out of turn find this law, then go to Law 54D and find:

Law 54D said:

and will incorrectly rule that Declarer must refuse this lead by a defender.

Because of the reference in Law 56 he will overlook Law 53 which applies to any lead out of turn and use Law 54D which only applies when declarer refuses an opening lead out of turn by a defender.

Are you suggesting that the reference should be to Law 53 rather than Law 54D?

 blackshoe, on 2012-June-23, 01:37, said:

Absolutely.

And this is what I have sent to Grattan:

Subject: Duplicate Bridge Law - 56

This law is unfortunate, and possibly even misleading.
It had best been deleted completely, but when kept for numbering purposes it should refer to Law 53 rather than to Law 54D.

The slightly incompetent Director faced with a defender's lead out of turn (to trick 2 or later) will find Law 56 (from a list of headings), follow the reference and find Law 54D which explicitly applies when declarer refuses an opening lead out of turn by a defender.
He will then incorrectly rule that declarer must (is expected to) refuse the lead out of turn (Completely overlooking Law 53).

I think Law 56 should probably be written out in full, something like "When a defender leads out of turn to a trick other than the first:
A) Declarer can accept the lead out of turn (see Law 53).
B) Declarer can require the offender to retract the lead out of turn, the withdrawn card becoming a major penalty card. Law 50D applies."

As for Law 55A, I found this in the Book Rulings notes booklet I received at the course, as the "solution" to a simulation where declarer (North) has led from dummy (South) out of turn:

"Either defender can reject or accept the lead, but they cannot confer. If West (next to play to the lead out of turn) speaks, his option prevails."

ahydra

 ahydra, on 2012-June-23, 07:38, said:

You do take the fun away from the Law maze in this situation?:

Starting with Law 53 takes you in sequence through the following laws when a lead by a defender out of turn is not accepted:

Law 56 -> Law 53(A) -> Law 47B -> Law 49 -> Law 50(B) -> Law 50D

Ough!

The only way that law 55 makes sense is if it means "the player to the left of the hand from which the incorrect lead was made", since "the player to the left of the hand whose lead it was" isn't necessarily a defender.

Got another one... L45C2a. What does "held" mean here?

My partner yesterday was playing in a club contract when he tried to ruff a spade using a heart :/ He pulled the H3 out of his hand (just above the hand - the bottom of the card was still in the hand) and turned it enough so that the "heart" symbol and "3" were clearly visible at its top-left, but did not actually remove the card completely from his hand, nor place it on the table. He then thought "wtf am I doing" and put it back. Does that count as "held face up"? The TD ruled it did (well, I wonder if she was remembering the right Law or if she had it confused with 45C1 - she was not carrying a Law book, naughty girl).

The main thing is, does "held" mean "momentarily reaches a position" or "maintained in such a position for X seconds" or what? I think it would be clearer to scrap 45C2a and just have a slight enhancement of 45C2b instead (e.g. card is played when it's (fully) detatched from the hand and either maintained face up in a position that indicates it's been played, or is placed on the table face up).

ahydra

 ahydra, on 2012-June-25, 04:19, said:

Law 45C2 said:

L45C2a applies if the card has been held (as opposed to dropped accidentally)* face up, touching or nearly touching the table; it doesn't matter for how long it has been in this position.

L45C2b applies if the card has been maintained (i.e. held steadily) in such a position as to indicate that it has been played.

So in your case the card was neither (nearly) touching the table (L45C2a), nor was it maintained in a position as to indicate it had been played (L45C2b).
It would seem that the Director was wrong.

(A case for L45C2b: Declarer removes a card from his hand, turns it around and holds it steadily for everybody to be seen. That card is played even though it is in no way near the table.)

* added after noticing Campboy's very correct remark.

The point of "held" is to exclude the case where declarer drops a card and it lands face up.

I agree with pran about the situation in question.

 pran, on 2012-June-23, 00:59, said:

I think it has to be this, because this defender might accept it by playing to the trick.

A through Z are all standing in the chow line. I am B. C crowds ahead of us. I could get hungry waiting for D through Z, then A, to get served.

 aguahombre, on 2012-June-25, 11:31, said:

I should think that your metaphor is a non sequitur.

In theory, the player with the option is an adversary of the offender- and is partnered to a non offender with a common interest.