[ArtK78]

The following notice is posted on the ACBL website:

The ACBL Laws Commission has formed a committee to review the current Laws of Duplicate Bridge to start developing the next revision (likely in 2017). Should you have cogent suggestions for incremental improvements in the current version, please email your suggestions for the committee's review at lawsdraft@acbl.org. All suggestions will be read with interest, but given the expected volume, most will not receive an individual reply.

[kenrexford]

An idea...

Maybe we at BBF should create a running discussion of suggested Laws changes. The same could then be forwarded to the committee and might carry a little bit more weight.

Perhaps an ideal might be to have a post that solicits ideas. Then, all of the ideas listed could be put together in a poll for people to say up or down on each suggestion? Or, maybe people just up-vote or down-vote ideas as they come up. That might work well, too.

Any takers? (I'm too busy to organize that.)

[aguahombre]

Certainly a lot of input from forum members could be productive. Perhaps, something simpler might work.

Say, over the next couple years, members post a single-purpose thread for each Law or related combination they would like changed. Then after a thorough hashing, the OP or someone in the mood could compact each thread which has produced something meaningful and submit it as a separate suggestion.

[blackshoe]

I note "incremental changes". Clearly the ACBL is not interested in major changes, such as a reorganization.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-13, 22:11, said:

I note "incremental changes". Clearly the ACBL is not interested in major changes, such as a reorganization.

Well, the ACBL is not officially in sole charge.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-14, 00:29, said:

Well, the ACBL is not officially in sole charge.

Oh, I agree completely. Try telling the ACBL that.

I believe the assertion is that the ACBL holds the copyright for the law book in "the Western Hemisphere". This is backed by the statement on the title page of the current ACBL Laws: "As Promulgated in the Western Hemisphere by the American Contract Bridge League". The WBF's version doesn't seem to have a copyright notice, or any indication that it doesn't apply "everywhere". I had thought that the ACBL Lawbook only applies in North America, but now I wonder what the story is in the rest of the Western Hemisphere — and if they go with the WBF version, what will happen if (when?) the two versions diverge, and the ACBL tries to assert its copyright outside of North America.

[mycroft]

Having said that, Grattan from the WBFLC said the same thing last year (about incremental changes only). I strongly encourage a subforum, if we can get one, or a brainstorming thread and throwoff discussions. I know I'm trying to think of things to suggest, but having trouble (regulations seem to be my bugbear these days), but others' discussions will I'm sure trigger mine.

[barmar]

It sure seems like we should be able to go through threads in these forum to find all times where we've had long debates because the language in the Laws was ambiguous. Collecting and forwarding them to either or both the ACBL and WBFLC would be a good step.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-13, 22:11, said:

I note "incremental changes". Clearly the ACBL is not interested in major changes, such as a reorganization.

mycroft, on 2012-February-14, 10:23, said:

Grattan from the WBFLC said the same thing last year (about incremental changes only).

Yes, that is what we have been told. I can somewhat understand their reluctance to trash the whole LAWS format and start over. It isn't that poorly organized.

However, it will be truly unfortunate if, in the five years they have to work on it, they are really too lazy or too complacent to move some things around.

What comes to mind for example is the Law about use of external aids for "memory" or for "technique", which are mired in the rules about the play of the hand and should apply to the entire period from beginning of the auction to the end of play.

There could be a meaningful clarification of when, for instance, the CC or a part of it can be used by the owners of same.

[barmar]

I assume they just mean they're not going to do major reorg, not that minor rearrangements are dismissed out of hand.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2012-February-15, 17:05, said:

I can somewhat understand their reluctance to trash the whole LAWS format and start over.

I can understand it too. If you've devoted a lot of time and effort to making something it's hard to be objective about the end result.

[blackshoe]

My concern is not that they may be unwilling to make radical changes to the format of the laws, but that their idea of "incremental" change will turn out to be (at least in my opinion) too limited. I suppose though that the only thing to do is to wait and see what happens.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-16, 02:42, said:

My concern is not that they may be unwilling to make radical changes to the format of the laws, but that their idea of "incremental" change will turn out to be (at least in my opinion) too limited. I suppose though that the only thing to do is to wait and see what happens.

It seems to me that this isn't either the only thing to do or the best thing to do. If there are changes that you want to see, you should write to both the WBF and the ACBL, explaining what you think needs changing and why, and giving real-life examples of situations where the current laws fell short. Then you should encourage all your friends to do the same.