Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search
David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF
bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings :: "Legitimising" a bid or a play

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union

To ask a question, click HERE and type in your message.
Please specify your country in your query where indicated.
Right click your mouse button for help on abbreviations.

Welcome, Register :: Log in 

View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ]

[ Get Email Advice of Replies ][ Print ][ Send ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ]

John_M,UK

Reply
"Legitimising" a bid or a play ( 12:48:24 ThuMar 6 2003 )

Country: England

On a more general note.

The principle of "legitimising" a bid or a play features prominently in bridge where there is parhaps a "clear cut" answer. For example leading out of turn, or insufficient bid.

These are 2 examples where an error can be accepted and legitimised even though a subsequent appeal could establish "beyond a doubt" that an error had occured.

Why then, do we have such situations as this were declarer makes an error but is allowed to "redeem" himself.

I believe in fair play. If I make a mistake I should pay for it ~ particularly if the mistake is due to my lack of attention ~ who would argue otherwise?

If the opposition make a mistake ~ due to lack of attention ~ I would expect them to have to pay for it as well.

It is my belief that were declarer or any player is able to avoid the consequences of their mistakes, then the game of Bridge is undermined. To not accept that mistakes are part of the game of bridge is to ignore the failings in man.

To be called to rule on ambiguous situations when clear-cut situations of mistakes are not rectified because the call or card was "legitimised" seems to be a mammoth contradiction in the application of the laws.

And therein lies my dilemma about the "fairness" of bridge and why I took an interest in this thread.

If my comments are out of place please tell me bluejak. And if you know that this/these issues have been covered perhaps you could relate the outcome of such discussions to me or point me in the direction where I can find my answers.

All the best,

John.

Post split from thread and new subject added by bluejak

  
bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host

Reply
Re: "Legitimising" a bid or a play ( 20:56:25 ThuMar 6 2003 )

The reasoning behind why the Laws are why they are is very complex and comes from much arguing. You see the position of not noticing partner has put the wrong card out as similar to a call out of turn - I don't, and judging by what the law-makers have done, nor do they.

As to the suitability of this forum for this type of post I do not mind it, but please put posts about what the Laws should be in a separate thread [which is why I have split your post off]. Most people come to this forum to find out what the Laws are, not what they should be.

In fact, while we shall not stop anyone starting such a thread, it probably is not the best place for it. I would advise that if you want to discuss why the Laws are as they are you should pick a newsgroup, typically rec.games.bridge, or the bridge-laws mailing list. Details of how to find these and other newsgroups are at

Bridge newsgroups and mailing lists



---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm
 
 
Guest

Reply
Re: "Legitimising" a bid or a play ( 22:54:58 ThuMar 6 2003 )

Quote: bluejak at 20:56:25 Thu Mar 6 2003

You see the position of not noticing partner has put the wrong card out as similar to a call out of turn - I don't


Ah, not quite. :frown:

I see "not noticing partner has put the wrong card out" as declarers failure to observe what has been played (and clouded with uncertainty, see previous example).

I see "a call out of turn" as a procedural error (with no uncertainty).

Your over-simplification of my post does not do you or me any justice.

Kind regards,

John.

  

View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ]

[ Get Email Advice of Replies ][ Print ][ Send ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ]

9 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 8 guest(s).
(The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003)
bluejak

 Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

Register :: Log in

The time is now 00:36:49 Wed Aug 27 2003

Powered By BbBoard V1.4.2
© 2001-2003 BbBoy.net
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search
David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF

Legend :: Read Topic :: Unread Topic

Email Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status