Local regulation.

{Gordon Rainsford]
Nigel starts from a point with which many of us could agree, that the Bridge Laws would be better if they were simpler and clearer so that they could be more uniformly applied. Unfortunately he goes from that to believing that all regulations should be in the laws, which it seems to me would make them longer and more complicated as well as removing any allowance for geographical differences in procedure.

Many NBOs already have advice about polling (the EBU’s is here) and it’s part of a TD’s training. Replacing that by putting Nigel’s suggested protocol in the law book would not be an improvement.

[Nigel]
This topic merits a separate thread. Currently, you could argue that local regulations are needed in a few areas like system-regulation.  

IMO, for other purposes (e.g. bidding-boxes, polling), players would benefit from a single set of rules. 

In principle, such integrated rules would take *less* space. They would be easier for players to understand and to follow. Directors would need only one book of rules. Ruke-makers would be able to distil best practice from the current tower of Babel.

Admittedly, , in practice, when rule-makers  introduce simpler rules that players and directors can understand, they *might not* save space -- even after they expurgate unnecessary rules.  Well-organised, well-structured, comprehensive rules,  using short active sentences, and plain unambiguous words, without elegant variation,  might end up being longer. 

IMO, it’s also possible to have uniform system/disclosure rules; but that’s more controversial and a different argument.

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml