[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2023-June-03, 12:48, said:

Of course, removing all the laws is absurd. However, everyone at the club knows how to play the game and they understand the mechanics. Heavens, it's not like we are inundated with new players and the few that do come know how to play and learn the "rules" from observing and listening to other players. I'm sure the majority of players don't infringe the laws deliberately.

I have so far encountered only one pair of new players who infringed the laws deliberately (and severely to boot): after stern warning they stepped back into line, at first reluctantly and then with conviction, one of them is fast improving as a player and as pair they are now an example in terms of obedience and understanding of law. The problem in my experience is not the new players but the old ones, several of whom do infringe the laws more or less deliberately and have been used to doing so for decades. Maybe I'm just unlucky that we have a poor history of Directors and Presidents.

 jillybean, on 2023-June-03, 12:48, said:

As Mycroft mentioned, it's a "well, they do it anyway approach". My LHO makes a bid which is alerted, partner forgets to ask so I will help them. I ask a question in the middle of my opponents keycard responses after the have had an uncontested auction to the 5 level and if a remark is made the response is usually "I AM allowed to ask a question about your bids!!"

Not sure where you want to go here. Asking to help partner is clearly wrong, but yes it's the sort of nonsense that unprincipled people will learn to assume they can get away with. Asking a question in the middle of opponents' keycard responses or control-bids (rather than "please can you explain the auction" at your turn when they have finished) is quite probably in the same category however.

 jillybean, on 2023-June-03, 12:48, said:

Let's lower the bar for Clubs and Club Directors and play a nice game. If 99% of the calls are correct for mechanical errors, insufficient bids, LOOTS, BOOTS and revokes, everyone will be happy.

Again I'm not sure if you are ironic or what. Just a moment ago you thought that Laws 16 40 73 are the essence of the game.
A national director who I admire once told me "In the club common sense is important and you can close an eye on almost any law except for law 16, there you should not give an inch".

[jillybean]

Tom,

Were these new players new to the game or new to the club? It sounds like the latter if they were infringing on the laws deliberately.
Kudos for giving this pair s stern warning. I think stern warnings or warnings of any kind are avoided in clubs as it is perceived that it will negatively affect player retention. The problem is the old players, who teach by example to the new players.

"well, they do it anyway" is an example of the slow but steady decline in adherence to the Laws.

Yeah, I'm being ironic. I think if 16, 40, 73 were brought to people's attention and uniformly applied, things may improve.
As it is, I am can only be concerned about LOOTS, BOOTS and revokes.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2023-June-04, 09:17, said:

Were these new players new to the game or new to the club? It sounds like the latter if they were infringing on the laws deliberately.
Kudos for giving this pair s stern warning. I think stern warnings or warnings of any kind are avoided in clubs as it is perceived that it will negatively affect player retention. The problem is the old players, who teach by example to the new players.

Our new entries are either people who never played bridge and took our free training, or people who previously played bridge in an unsanctioned club and then decided to upgrade. Either way, they are quite likely to have played whist-like games for much of their lives and to be well acquainted with every dirty move in the book once the bidding is over. So it can be a challenge to get them into line, but ultimately it's a pushover compared to reforming the established players: the new entries are looking for something new and for social approval, explain how the game really works and they will give it a try, if the old players don't get to them first.

 jillybean, on 2023-June-04, 09:17, said:

Yeah, I'm being ironic. I think if 16, 40, 73 were brought to people's attention and uniformly applied, things may improve.
As it is, I am can only be concerned about LOOTS, BOOTS and revokes.

Bringing to attention and applying 16 40 73 requires consensus from the club, which is the hardest battle (see previous point about old players). But I don't see the point of Directing if we do not try. LOOTS, BOOTS and revokes are trivial in comparison, and disappear with electronic play which is the future anyway.

[blackshoe]

I agree with sanst regarding "comparable call". I think the introduction of this concept into the laws was a mistake, one which hopefully will be corrected in 2027.

Electronic play may be the future, but that future ain't here yet.

I used to give periodic talks about the laws at one of the local clubs. The newer players would attend them, and I often had one come up to me afterwards and thank me for telling them things they should know, but didn't. The "old hands" routinely ignored these talks -- and continued to play in their willful ignorance. Last time I gave one of these was several years before Covid. :-(

There are little bits of "correct procedure" that are straight-forward and easy to learn, and when you think about it there's good reason for them. But players don't know them, or routinely ignore them if they do know them, and routinely violate them. Sometimes this causes no problem, sometimes it does cause a problem. At clubs, these irregularities are often ignored or worse mishandled by directors. The game would be better off if these little things were handled fairly every time they occur (or at least every time the director finds out about them) even at clubs. As for different rules for clubs and tournaments, there's one major problem with that, and one to which I see no solution: if a club player ever goes to a tournament, s/he's going to be at best dismayed, and at worst annoyed enough to quit going to tournaments, when s/he finds out -- gets bit by the fact that -- the rules are different. Clubs are the source for tournament players. If that source dries up, the game loses.

[mycroft]

Comparable calls are uncomfortable, but 90% of the time are obvious. The problem is that the other 10% of the time, it's "judgement at the table", something that shouldn't be done. Harder for the less experienced (in both bridge and directing) club directors, but still ugly at the tournament level.

But what it replaced was bad. Sure, make it a penalty; but when it triggered 10C4, you should remember hearing the screams. The right answer to the old law was "Bid 1NT or 3NT (or 6NT), depending on best guess"; when it got lucky (even "real auction would have pinpointed the lead that here was blind and missed, -630", but also "150 beats the obvious around the room 140") was a huge cause of gripe. And the people who weren't experienced enough to know to guess at 1NT or 3NT got to play 2♦ for 110 or 130 because "oh partner has to pass, but I'll make the normal bid anyway" - is it fair that this kind of understanding the Laws IS a bridge skill that is rewarded?

I expect it will be tweaked somewhat, but I don't expect it to be replaced, and I definitely don't expect it to go back to the 2007 (or 1997) laws.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2023-June-05, 10:05, said:

Comparable calls are uncomfortable, but 90% of the time are obvious. The problem is that the other 10% of the time, it's "judgement at the table", something that shouldn't be done. Harder for the less experienced (in both bridge and directing) club directors, but still ugly at the tournament level.

But what it replaced was bad. Sure, make it a penalty; but when it triggered 10C4, you should remember hearing the screams. The right answer to the old law was "Bid 1NT or 3NT (or 6NT), depending on best guess"; when it got lucky (even "real auction would have pinpointed the lead that here was blind and missed, -630", but also "150 beats the obvious around the room 140") was a huge cause of gripe. And the people who weren't experienced enough to know to guess at 1NT or 3NT got to play 2♦ for 110 or 130 because "oh partner has to pass, but I'll make the normal bid anyway" - is it fair that this kind of understanding the Laws IS a bridge skill that is rewarded?

I expect it will be tweaked somewhat, but I don't expect it to be replaced, and I definitely don't expect it to go back to the 2007 (or 1997) laws.

I think 90% obvious is at least a slight overbid and that the remaining "other" 15-33% (or whatever) is a threat to credibility of the Laws. I haven't met anyone at any level (WBF included) who wants to go on with this Law. The question is (I hope) what it will be replaced with. I agree that a return to 2007 is both unsatisfactory and improbable, there are plenty of alternatives (see DBurn and FIGB to start with).