Local regulation.

Nigel Guthrie:

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

George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1898):

"Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of
his tribe and island are the laws of nature."

Richard Hills:

The tribe of bridge players on the island of Great Britain universally use
bidding boxes. But for most Aussie national championships (for example, the
recent Victor Champion Cup) written bidding is used.

Hence I agree with Gordon Rainsford's support of geographical diversity of
bridge regulation in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

PS The Canberra Bridge Club has a compromise regulation on whether or not
bidding boxes are used. They are required for the major tournaments on
Tuesday and Thursday evenings. But for all other sessions the stationary
North-Souths decide between using either bidding boxes or written bidding.


On Tuesday, July 19, 2016, Nigel Guthrie <[email protected]> wrote:

> {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
> <http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/articles/notes-on-polling-&-consulting.pdf>)
> 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