The state legislature made some progress this session in advancing a plan to mitigate the economic affects of pending casino development in Massachusetts, but not much.

Early Friday, as the session moved towards a close and much of the legislature’s attention turned toward enactment of a budget, the House followed the Senate’s lead in approving a casino bill that is little more than a place keeper, leaving the toughest details still to be worked out and a final decision for the 2016 legislative session.

This may be for the better. Casino expansion is moving along more slowly than forecast in Massachusetts, including for the casino MGM will build in Springfield, which is expected to do the greatest economic damage to the Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun casinos by drawing from the Hartford market.

More time is necessary to address the many questions and problems surrounding the concept of building a third Connecticut casino north of Hartford to keep gamblers in that area placing their bets in this state, not up in Springfield.

Legislation calling for “defensive” casinos — the original bill referred to as many as three — arrived March 10, several weeks into the session. At the time, our editorial referred to it as “half-baked.” In retrospect, that depiction was generous. The proposal was nearly unbaked.

Attorney General George Jepsen and others have raised some sticky legal issues.

Can Connecticut legally give the tribes now operating the two existing casinos on their reservations — the Mohegans and Mashantucket Pequots — exclusive rights to jointly operate a third casino on non-reservation land without violating antitrust laws?

How will the state and tribe amend the existing compact with the tribe, which provides them exclusive gaming rights at their existing casinos in return for sending the state 25 percent of slot revenues, to accommodate a third, jointly operated casino? Could a casino built on non-tribal land undermine the validity of the compact?

And how can the state continue to oppose federal rule changes that would allow more state tribes to gain recognition — with part of its argument centered on concerns about casino expansion — while at the same time entertaining the idea of more tribal gambling?

It became clear that these issues were far too complex to address this session. Potentially, they could doom the idea entirely. But to keep some momentum going, the legislation passed by both chambers gives the tribes the authority to seek proposals and negotiate an agreement with a potential host community. Final approval, with details, would come from the General Assembly.

The proposed plan presents a mixed bag. The gambling industry has created thousands of jobs in Connecticut, both directly at the casinos and by way of the companies that supply and service them or operate at the casinos. It makes sense that an added casino north of Hartford will keep more of those jobs in Connecticut.

Regardless, however, Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods Resort will see job losses at their local operations when competition increases in neighboring states. Yet if a third satellite casino helps the Mohegan and Mashantucket operations stay stronger, it could at least mitigate the job losses locally.

Weighed against the advantages of expansion is the reality that more casinos create more problem gamblers. Critics of the plan also note that casino operations have reached a saturation point in the Northeast, making new construction nonsensical. That argument has merit.

To continue the discussion and give the tribes the chance to find a location and make their case, we urge Gov. Dannel P. Malloy to sign the bill. In this matter, however, ironing out the details will prove particularly devilish.