[nige1]

Recent discussions demonstrate that the rules of Bridge aren't just complex and sophisticated. They're incomprehensible, except, perhaps to a tiny clique of seers and oracles. It's futile to expect players to respect or to obey rules that are so hard to understand.

IMO, rule-makers could drastically simplify the rules of bridge, while preserving the essentials of the game. For players, the game would be fairer and more fun. The game would attract new players.

Some players have suggested simplifications: Rule-makers should

• Collate laws, regulations, and minutes into a single rule-book. (Most rules could have an opt-out clause, so that a bolshy local regulator could still exercise his chauvinism).
• Restructure the rule-book as decision-tables or flow-charts.
• Simplify vocabulary, define more terms accurately, eliminate elegant variation, eschew passive constructs, and shorten sentences,
• Avoid sacrificing simplicity and deterrence to the Equity principle (restoring the status quo).
• Drop many rules (e.g. Protect yourself, SEWOG, Player-options after infractions, Pro questions, Mechanical errors)
• Drastically simplify most other rules (e.g. Disclosure, Claims).

Although most suggestions barely scratch the surface and all need tighter definition, the WBFLC should urgently adopt simplicity and enjoyment as major policy aims.

[Vampyr]

Your 3 above is very worthy. Note that it does not actually simplify the rules of bridge, just makes them comprehensible in written form. Your 4 is similar, in that rule-based adjustments are simpler and fairer but the rules themselves are necessarily more complex than the simple "restore equity". Finally, while the system for the dissemination of minutes is nonexistent, and the minutes should certainly all be found in one place and included in the lawbook with each reprinting, this is not possible for regulations because these vary from place to place. And few people have encountered significant problems with international play. I realise that you have, and I think aquahombre, but should the vast majority not hold sway? Let alone the fact that a vaster majority never or almost never play bridge outside their own NBO.

You have some sensible ideas, Nigel, but you take things way too far.

[helene_t]

Simplicity, yes, we can all agree on that in principle. But it is usually difficult to agree on which simplifications would be worth it and even whether a particular change would consitute a simplification or not.

I agree that better language use would help but again, it is not easy to agree on this when it becomes concrete. For example, I would personally prefer the very foggy HUM and BSC definitions replaced by something concise enough to implement in computer code so that it would become 100% clear which agreement were allowed in a particular charter, but every time I have suggested this I have been ridiculed so apparently I am wrong.

So I abstain in this poll.

[blackshoe]

Clearly Nigel hasn't voted in this poll.

[sanst]

nige1, on 2015-May-10, 14:02, said:

Recent discussions demonstrate that the rules of Bridge aren't just complex and sophisticated. They're incomprehensible, except, perhaps to a tiny clique of seers and oracles. It's futile to expect players to respect or to obey rules that are so hard to understand.

IMO, rule-makers could drastically simplify the rules of bridge, while preserving the essentials of the game. For players, the game would be fairer and more fun. The game would attract new players.

Some players have suggested simplifications: Rule-makers should

• Collate laws, regulations, and minutes into a single rule-book. (Most rules could have an opt-out clause, so that a bolshy local regulator could still exercise his chauvinism).
• Restructure the rule-book as decision-tables or flow-charts.
• Simplify vocabulary, define more terms accurately, eliminate elegant variation, eschew passive constructs, and shorten sentences,
• Avoid sacrificing simplicity and deterrence to the Equity principle (restoring the status quo).
• Drop many rules (e.g. Protect yourself, SEWOG, Player-options after infractions, Pro questions, Mechanical errors)
• Drastically simplify most other rules (e.g. Disclosure, Claims).

Although most suggestions barely scratch the surface and all need tighter definition, the WBFLC should urgently adopt simplicity and enjoyment as major policy aims.

Your first point is a very sensible one. Now whe have to look in the law book, the national rules about alerting, HUMs and BSCs and some more, the WBFLC minutes and have to figure out which of these are still valid.
Your #2 has been done by a Dutch TD, but I find it easier to use the law book. Maybe because I'm used to it, but I've heard likewise from other TDs.
Nobody can disagree with the third point. And please, don't make silly, but obfuscating mistakes when translating the text.
Your fourth point is like asking for tax reform. Everybody thinks that a wise move, but is certain that some exceptions have to be maintained to prevent blatant inequity. But everybody also disagrees about what should be maintained. The same is true of the last two points.
OTOH, if your suggestions become reality, we would be faced with a most serious problem. The raison d'être of this forum would cease to exist. What are we going to discuss about? What are we going to do with all that extra time?

[nige1]

sanst, on 2015-May-11, 08:48, said:

Your first point is a very sensible one. Now whe have to look in the law book, the national rules about alerting, HUMs and BSCs and some more, the WBFLC minutes and have to figure out which of these are still valid.
Your #2 has been done by a Dutch TD, but I find it easier to use the law book. Maybe because I'm used to it, but I've heard likewise from other TDs.
Nobody can disagree with the third point. And please, don't make silly, but obfuscating mistakes when translating the text.
Your fourth point is like asking for tax reform. Everybody thinks that a wise move, but is certain that some exceptions have to be maintained to prevent blatant inequity. But everybody also disagrees about what should be maintained. The same is true of the last two points.
OTOH, if your suggestions become reality, we would be faced with a most serious problem. The raison d'être of this forum would cease to exist. What are we going to discuss about? What are we going to do with all that extra time?

Thank you Sanst
#2 I've seen several flow-chart versions of the laws and they seem to reduce the chance of director-error. Draw-backs are: they aren't the primary document; and they aren't official.
#4 I agree there's no consensus about deterrence. Much legislation rewards its own transgression.
#5 and #6. I'm afraid that players' interests differ from those of law-makers and directors

[barmar]

I voted "No" because I think "drastically" goes too far. Yes, the laws should be easier to understand, but most of the details are there for a reason. If they're simplified drastically, it's likely to go too far. The devil is really in the details.