Re: ??

On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 12:15:27 -0500, Peter Eidt <[email protected]> wrote:

> Maybe this  sort of contributions is the main reason for such low traffic
> here ...
>

I thought I drove everyone away by pointing out the problems with the laws. Trying to remember how welcome my contributions were . . . everyone pretty much seemed annoyed. Constantly.

And Roger is right, I don't care. There was a problem with the previous laws that if a player displayed a care face up and unmoving but not touching the table, it was not yet a played card and a revoke on the previous trick could still be corrected. Some players I think could go the whole hand without playing a card. (Just checked -- the error in the laws on played card is still there.)

I hope the laws are now crystal clear. I saw that the revoke by each side law -- which never should have been in the laws and should have been removed -- was clarified. (It now follows the EBU interpretation, not the WBFL interpretation, right?) Now equity is restored -- which is difficult enough that we we have chapters of the laws designed to avoid that as much as possible.

Checking . . . 64B2 is much better too! Yay! I'm impressed and thankful. It's still has the same problem I pointed out -- we only want to forgive the second revoke when there is a penalty for the first revoke. But that's more a conceptual error, it would not come up at all.

Didn't you enjoy reading that?

And I was always sick of people being slandered over a discussion of bridge laws, of all things.

Bob

>
> Peter
>
>
> von Roger Pewick
>
>
>
> For two decades we have been told that there is nothing worth correcting in
> TFLB from which is concluded that the only thing now worth discussing are
> ambiguities.  And now it is pointed out that low traffic is a consequence of
> no ambiguities.  My assessment is different: low traffic is actually a
> consequence of too many ambiguities.so many that it is too overwhelming.
> Overwhelming?  How so?  Well, since there is no hope that discussing
> ambiguities will get them repaired the obvious answer is that thinking
> people have better things to do.
>
>
> Take 44C for example.  This law must be the most clear and concise in the
> book.  Not so.  Presumably you believe what it says hook, line, and
> sinker....  And I will point you to 63B and ask why it is there since 44C is
> so important?  And for those that can't let go, the big question makes me
> wonder why 64B exists.  But since 64B is there- I wonder why a COOT is
> penalized but the failure to perform the most important obligation is not.
> And since 64B conveys that it is justice to not penalize the failure to
> perform the most important obligation: there is merely the smallest utility
> from the presence of 64C- after all, since justice has already been done via
> 64B, there is no more justice to be had, is there?
>
>
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml