[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2012-May-28, 02:14, said:

*A very curious fact about 20F4 is that everyone seems to assume that the procedure under 20F4 case includes a corrected explanation following the attendance of the director, but actually the law does not say so. It instructs the player only to call the director, not to correct the explanation, even after calling the director. The director is instructed to apply certain laws, but they do not mention getting a corrected explanation out of the player. This omission might be thought significant because in the other case, correcting your partner's (never corrected) misexplanation, the law does instruct you to give a corrected explanation, and when to give it.

This is just silly. The first thing the director is going to do at the table is to ask "how can I help?" or the like. If this doesn't trigger a corrected explanation, the next thing the director is going to do is to ask what the correct explanation is, or, if the player just sits there with his mouth shut, the director will ask, probably a bit testily, "why was I called?"

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-28, 06:47, said:

This is just silly. The first thing the director is going to do at the table is to ask "how can I help?" or the like. If this doesn't trigger a corrected explanation, the next thing the director is going to do is to ask what the correct explanation is, or, if the player just sits there with his mouth shut, the director will ask, probably a bit testily, "why was I called?"

I don't think it is silly as you think. What the player should do when called is explain why, probably using the following words: "I failed to alert at the proper time" or "I didn't explain it properly when previously asked". In the case of failing to alert, it would clearly be improper to blurt out a full explanation without being asked for it, and I doubt this would happen. I can understand taht a player having previously misexplained may blurt out the correction, but a sensible player will wait upon instruction before correcting it: after all the law tells him to call the director, explain the problem that he previously misexplained and await instruction to correct it at the proper time.

OK, so what next? The Director applies the law as set out. Assuming he is called just before West's turn to call, he will rule that East may change his call, provided it is based upon the corrected explanation. Nowhere does it tell him to instruct South to explain anything. East now knows South failed to alert or gave a wrong explanation. May he now ask for an explanation or a corrected explanation? The law tells us only if it is his "turn to call". But it isn't his turn to call, it is West's turn to call, East just has an opportunity to change his call. So in fact the law gives no power to East to ask for the revised explanation whihc would tell him whether he wants to change his call.

The obvious thing to do is let East ask, and any sensible director will do so. But it isn't actually based upon the law. I don't see what is so silly about wanting the law to actually say what everyone actually does, when in fact at the moment the law doesn't say it.

[blackshoe]

When East is given an opportunity to change his call, it is his turn to call, not West's. The turn to call may or may not revert to West (South having already called). It will do so if East declines to change his call. If East does change his call, it is now South's turn to call. After that, it will be West's turn.

Perhaps you and Nigel and all the other "dot every i and cross every t" folks should get together and rewrite to the law book to your satisfaction, then submit it to the WBFLC as the proposed 2017 laws. Try to keep it under 1000 pages.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-29, 06:43, said:

When East is given an opportunity to change his call, it is his turn to call, not West's.

I agree, but we have argued this point before and sensible people have argued against this interpretation because the law doesn't say so. That was in relation to a different more complicated scenario where it was less obvious that this ought to be true.

So actually, it does help if the law makes these statements. If it is so obvious we think it must be true, at least in relation to some scenarios, it really ought to say it.

It suffices as a fix to the problem we are discussing if the law would state that it counts as being a player's turn to call when the law gives him an opportunity to change his call. The player who gave a wrong explanation does not blurt out the corrected explanation at the point of notifying the director, rather it is for players who require amended explanations to ask for them at their proper turn, having been alerted to their existence. This is probably the point someone once had in mind. But for that to work, it needs to be officially their turn to call when they have an opportunity to change their call.

If East changes his call, South can also. Perhaps South now needs some information she didn't ask for previously. She is an offender. Does she have a right to ask for information also at this point? Some might argue not. This is slippery ground and it would be nice if the law were clarified.

I do actually have a little list of what I think the worst gaps/contradictions in the laws are, and it only amounts to a handful of items, and fixing them would only be a couple of lines here and there, it wouldn't even add half a page to the laws. The law on defective trick is probably the hardest to fix, because people don't even agree what it means, but even there just a few words here and there would add a lot of certainty.

My general position on this is quite different from Nigel's. I just want to fix some gaps that seem to matter in cases that come up from time to time here, not, like him, make a major overhaul in the operation of the law.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2012-May-30, 01:54, said:

I agree, but we have argued this point before and sensible people have argued against this interpretation because the law doesn't say so. That was in relation to a different more complicated scenario where it was less obvious that this ought to be true.

So actually, it does help if the law makes these statements. If it is so obvious we think it must be true, at least in relation to some scenarios, it really ought to say it.

It suffices as a fix to the problem we are discussing if the law would state that it counts as being a player's turn to call when the law gives him an opportunity to change his call. The player who gave a wrong explanation does not blurt out the corrected explanation at the point of notifying the director, rather it is for players who require amended explanations to ask for them at their proper turn, having been alerted to their existence. This is probably the point someone once had in mind. But for that to work, it needs to be officially their turn to call when they have an opportunity to change their call.

If East changes his call, South can also. Perhaps South now needs some information she didn't ask for previously. She is an offender. Does she have a right to ask for information also at this point? Some might argue not. This is slippery ground and it would be nice if the law were clarified.

I do actually have a little list of what I think the worst gaps/contradictions in the laws are, and it only amounts to a handful of items, and fixing them would only be a couple of lines here and there, it wouldn't even add half a page to the laws. The law on defective trick is probably the hardest to fix, because people don't even agree what it means, but even there just a few words here and there would add a lot of certainty.

My general position on this is quite different from Nigel's. I just want to fix some gaps that seem to matter in cases that come up from time to time here, not, like him, make a major overhaul in the operation of the law.

Why don't you just read "An invitation from WBFLC" (in this forum) and send in your notes as invited?

Or have you already done so?

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-29, 06:43, said:

Perhaps you and Nigel and all the other "dot every i and cross every t" folks should get together and rewrite to the law book to your satisfaction, then submit it to the WBFLC as the proposed 2017 laws. Try to keep it under 1000 pages.

It takes somewhat more than 33000 words.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2012-May-30, 04:13, said:

Why don't you just read "An invitation from WBFLC" (in this forum) and send in your notes as invited?

Perhaps because I thought that to communicate with someone of influence and make them realise that there is an issue might be a more effective way of achieving something than some unknown sending in a note that might be lost in a tall pile.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2012-May-31, 01:29, said:

Perhaps because I thought that to communicate with someone of influence and make them realise that there is an issue might be a more effective way of achieving something than some unknown sending in a note that might be lost in a tall pile.

So you have no faith in Grattan? Shame on you!

Provided you use the correct form when specifying "subject" I feel pretty sure your submission will not be "lost", and that he considers everything he receives in response to the WBFLC invitation on matter rather than on sender.