[nige1]

pran, on Sep 19 2010, 08:07 AM, said:

The question is four-fold

• Intentionally committing a violation of law,
  
  
• Accidentally committing a violation of law,
  
  
• Intentionally attempting a violation of law,
  
  
• Accidentally attempting a violation of law.

I agree with Paul Lamford that the law-book should mandate that merely trying to break a law is subject to penalty. Redress to the other side seems inappropriate, however, if no other law has in fact been broken. To some it may seem obvious and redundant but I think that the law-book should deal explicitly with Sven Pran's four cases.

[matmat]

I think intentionally trying to break the law should be a violation of the law. To me it's somewhat of an oxymoron...

[hrothgar]

matmat, on Sep 23 2010, 09:15 PM, said:

I think intentionally trying to break the law should be a violation of the law. To me it's somewhat of an oxymoron...

I disagree...

In basketball, deliberate fouls are part and parcel of the game.
Other sports have very different standards.

[pran]

hrothgar, on Sep 23 2010, 07:26 PM, said:

matmat, on Sep 23 2010, 09:15 PM, said:

I think intentionally trying to break the law should be a violation of the law. To me it's somewhat of an oxymoron...

I disagree...

In basketball, deliberate fouls are part and parcel of the game.
Other sports have very different standards.

Indeed.
And for Bridge please read Law 72B1

[Vampyr]

hrothgar, on Sep 23 2010, 07:26 PM, said:

In basketball, deliberate fouls are part and parcel of the game.

And in football even accidental fouls can result in a player's being sent off or suspended. So what?

Quote

Other sports have very different standards.

This is why it annoys me when posters make fatuous comparisons between bridge and other games. I am going to set out a list of the principal differences between bridge and several other popular games. Readers may, if they wish, work out for themselves why this makes any direct comparisons quite impossible.

Golf: You keep your opponent's scorecard.
Bridge: You keep your own scorecard.

Tennis: The playing surface is grass, clay or hard court.
Bridge: The playing surface is a table.

Hockey: You have to wear skates.
Bridge: You can wear normal shoes.

Formula One: You have to drive a car.
Bridge: You can take a bus or a train to the bridge club, or walk there.

[iviehoff]

nige1, on Sep 23 2010, 07:10 PM, said:

I agree with Paul Lamford that the law-book should mandate that merely trying to break a law is subject to penalty. Redress to the other side seems inappropriate, however, if no other law has in fact been broken. To some it may seem obvious and redundant but I think that the laws should deal explicitly with Sven Pran's four cases.

I agree with precisely that too, with one exception: I think an "attempt" implies intention (at least intent to commit the act, it may not have been an intention to break the law) so I'm not sure all 4 cases exist, though I could be persuaded by a good example.

Bluejak says that intentionally attempting to break the law is so offensive he would penalise it and cite 72B1. But he'd be on safer ground if he had something explicit to point to.

[hrothgar]

Vampyr, on Sep 24 2010, 03:29 AM, said:

Golf: You keep your opponent's scorecard.
Bridge: You keep your own scorecard.

Tennis: The playing surface is grass, clay or hard court.
Bridge: The playing surface is a table.

More often than not:

1. The playing surface for bridge is a computer screen
2. The great server in the sky keeps score for you and the opponents

Quote

And in football even accidental fouls can result in a player's being sent off or suspended. So what?

matmat made a specific comment. He felt that the distinction between intentionally trying to break the law and breaking a law was an oxymoron.

I was responding to this comment and attempting to demonstrate that the distinction is salient to many discussions.

Hrothgar

<<Who has intentionally broken bridge regulations at events>>

[bluejak]

iviehoff, on Sep 24 2010, 02:57 PM, said:

Bluejak says that intentionally attempting to break the law is so offensive he would penalise it and cite 72B1.  But he'd be on safer ground if he had something explicit to point to.

Do not misunderstand: I agree.

I think my interpretation is good enough. But there are many situations where we make rulings based on interpretations of the Laws by various people or authorities, and where it would be better if the Laws were less ambiguous.

[jdonn]

Look back at the other thread, dburn offered an excellent explanation of why, in the specific case offered, attempting to break the law (so to speak) was punishable under that very law.

[pran]

iviehoff, on Sep 24 2010, 02:57 PM, said:

nige1, on Sep 23 2010, 07:10 PM, said:

I agree with Paul Lamford that the law-book should mandate that merely trying to break a law is subject to penalty. Redress to the other side seems inappropriate, however, if no other law has in fact been broken. To some it may seem obvious and redundant but I think that the laws should deal explicitly with Sven Pran's four cases.

I agree with precisely that too, with one exception: I think an "attempt" implies intention (at least intent to commit the act, it may not have been an intention to break the law) so I'm not sure all 4 cases exist, though I could be persuaded by a good example.

Bluejak says that intentionally attempting to break the law is so offensive he would penalise it and cite 72B1. But he'd be on safer ground if he had something explicit to point to.

A player gets a "good", but illegal idea and tries to make it but fails.

If the player is unaware of the fact that his idea is illegal (this happens!) then his attempt to violate the law was accidental while the idea to try the idea itself of course was intentional.

[matmat]

hrothgar, on Sep 24 2010, 09:10 AM, said:

<<Who has intentionally broken bridge regulations at events>>

so event regulations are the same as bridge laws?

[blackshoe]

Regulations are made, or at least are supposed to be made, "supplementary to these laws" and not in conflict with them. Such legal regulations have the force of law, and infracting them is, in effect, infracting the law under which they are made.

[nige1]

hrothgar, on Sep 24 2010, 09:10 AM, said:

<<Who has intentionally broken bridge regulations at events>>

matmat, on Sep 24 2010, 02:25 PM, said:

so event regulations are the same as bridge laws?

WBFLC policy is to delegate more power and responsibility to local regulators and directors.
The law-book should explicitly state that you must not break or attempt to break such local regulations and conditions of contest; and should license local legislators to specify appropriate sanctions.
As more and more varieties of Bridge with increasingly sophisticated regulations evolve under all the different jurisdictions, it will become harder for players to keep up and comply.

[cloa513]

Vampyr, on Sep 23 2010, 07:29 PM, said:

Hockey: You have to wear skates.
Bridge: You can wear normal shoes.

Formula One: You have to drive a car.
Bridge: You can take a bus or a train to the bridge club, or walk there.

Skates are the playing tool in ice hockey as well as a hockey stick.
Cards and hands or electronic data are the playing tool.
The car in Formula One is a playing tool.

Always possible to make comparisons if you use the right references . Any game can be a sport.

[bluejak]

Personally I think that comparisons with other sports and mindsports provides some value but the differences must be remembered.

There was a case in Scrabble where there was a rule that if someone wanted to go to the toilet during play then play was suspended for a period of time, let us say eight minutes. If he was not back after eight minutes then his personal time was being used - I think they may use chess clocks so his clock would be restarted after eight minutes. At a championship a player wished to go to the toilet, so he did. But he had to go along a corridor, down two floors, along another corridor, up in a lift, along a third corridor and then when he got there only two people could use th facilities at once - and there was a queue! So he got back to the table after seventeen minutes [say - I do not know the precise details] to find he had lost nine minutes. He became rushed by the lack of time, made an important error, and lost the match.

He sued the authority. I understand that he represented himself and did it on the cheap. He won but only got ten pence damages. Nevertheless the cost of the action nearly bankrupted the Scrabble authorities. Now the EBU L&EC had a bit of a discussion about this. While we do not have the same scenario, time penalties apply, and the type of problem could occur.

So looking at other sports and mindsports for comparing Laws and Regulations seems sensible so long as the differences are not forgotten.

[lamford]

bluejak, on Sep 27 2010, 06:56 AM, said:

He sued the authority.  I understand that he represented himself and did it on the cheap.  He won but only got ten pence damages.  Nevertheless the cost of the action nearly bankrupted the Scrabble authorities. Now the EBU L&EC had a bit of a discussion about this.  While we do not have the same scenario, time penalties apply, and the type of problem could occur.

http://www.msoworld.com/mindzine/news/prop...ures/funny.html gives the story, and I think he obtained £90 damages. A penny might have been more appropriate. I like the name of the venue - the Burstin Hotel.

Some time later a strong opponent of Mr Goldman had the letters AILNRSU on his rack at Scrabble, and the best play was INSULAR, but the player could not resist playing its anagram URINALS. A Scrabble magazine had the appropriate heading "Taking the P***". More seriously, at Brighton this year several toilets were out of action and a player of "perhaps disproportionately strong feelings" (the judge's description of Mr Goldman), receiving a time penalty for being late finishing the round, because he was bogged down searching for a working toilet, might indeed sue the EBU for not extending the round.

In my view the key is to get the rules watertight, if you forgive the pun, so that they cater for every eventuality, and provide for TDs in their absolute discretion to decide on matters not covered therein. But we have wandered from the theme of this thread. Essentially all that is needed is a change to 72B1:

1. A player must not intentionally infringe or attempt to infringe a law, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.