[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-04, 11:57, said:

So how do you reconcile this with 66A?

Great point. You cannot reconcile "insta"-anything with "so long as", "until", and words to that effect as in 66A.

[axman]

aguahombre, on 2014-October-04, 13:28, said:

Great point. You cannot reconcile "insta"-anything with "so long as", "until", and words to that effect as in 66A.

I'm not inclined to reconcile. But, two things occur to me:

1] when four cards have been played to a trick and someone doesn't then quit his card- it is an infraction.

2] if a player wants to see the other cards once four cards have been played to a trick and he does not want to commit an infraction, well maybe [but it might well be an infraction] he would ask prior to [all] four cards being played.

Ok, I didn't write that law; but those things did occur to me.

[chrism]

To see that "when" does not necessarily imply "instantly after", compare Law 41A: After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in rotation, the defender on presumed declarer’s left makes the opening lead face down.

Would anyone seriously argue that it is an infraction of this law for a defender to think after the final pass before selecting a lead? Or is there a material difference between the "after" in this law and the "when" in 65A?

[Vampyr]

axman, on 2014-October-04, 15:12, said:

I'm not inclined to reconcile.

Quite so; it is a much better strategy to simply ignore the fact that there is a Law that directly contradicts what you are saying.

Please tell me where you direct so that I can avoid playing there.

[aguahombre]

axman, on 2014-October-04, 15:12, said:

I'm not inclined to reconcile. But, two things occur to me:

1] when four cards have been played to a trick and someone doesn't then quit his card- it is an infraction.

2] if a player wants to see the other cards once four cards have been played to a trick and he does not want to commit an infraction, well maybe [but it might well be an infraction] he would ask prior to [all] four cards being played.

Ok, I didn't write that law; but those things did occur to me.

Two fewer things should occur to you.

[barmar]

chrism, on 2014-October-04, 15:47, said:

Would anyone seriously argue that it is an infraction of this law for a defender to think after the final pass before selecting a lead? Or is there a material difference between the "after" in this law and the "when" in 65A?

The reason for this confusion is that "when" has a number of meanings. It can mean "at the same time as", as in "when it rains, it pours". Or it can mean "after", as in "return the book when you're done reading it." And in some contexts, the latter implies a short period, as in "he'd just fallen asleep when the phone rang."

I think this particular law should be viewed as merely codifying what everyone has always understood about the basic mechanics of the game: 4 cards are played, they're quitted, repeat 12 more times. It's not trying to add anything to this, it's not proscribing a special understanding of when the tricks are quitted that differs from tradition.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2014-October-04, 20:29, said:

The reason for this confusion is that "when" has a number of meanings. It can mean "at the same time as", as in "when it rains, it pours". Or it can mean "after", as in "return the book when you're done reading it." And in some contexts, the latter implies a short period, as in "he'd just fallen asleep when the phone rang."

I think this particular law should be viewed as merely codifying what everyone has always understood about the basic mechanics of the game: 4 cards are played, they're quitted, repeat 12 more times. It's not trying to add anything to this, it's not proscribing a special understanding of when the tricks are quitted that differs from tradition.

I find your post confusing; your meaning is that the law doesn't proscribe the traditional way, right? I think you have a spare negative in there somewhere.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2014-October-04, 12:53, said:

I don't think "when" is that specific.

I think it is. "When" specifies a time. It is synonymous with "at what time". The law specifies that time to be when four cards have been played to the trick.

[Trinidad]

Cascade, on 2014-October-05, 03:23, said:

blackshoe, on 2014-October-04, 12:53, said:

I don't think "when" is that specific.

I think it is. "When" specifies a time. It is synonymous with "at what time". The law specifies that time to be when four cards have been played to the trick.

Yes, it is specific. It specifies a semi-infinite time domain for quitting the trick. This time domain starts at the point where four cards have been played and ends ... never (ok, for relgious people: at the end of time).

In reality, law 65 does not intend to say anything about the time frame. It is a law that tells how tricks are supposed to be quitted (i.e. in the same way that tricks have been quitted since the days of duplicate whist).

Rik

[axman]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-04, 16:17, said:

Quite so; it is a much better strategy to simply ignore the fact that there is a Law that directly contradicts what you are saying.

Please tell me where you direct so that I can avoid playing there.

This thread started with a player insta-quitting his card and then displayed reluctance to have it inspected. I pointed out that L65A required all players to insta-quit. And if that all had satisfied the law then the question about inspecting the trick would have been mute. So, a player that satisfies the law won't be able to invoke the conditional permission of L66A to inspect while a player that didn't satisfy the law might.

I can imagine there are many that would be distressed with such a state of affairs. Some ponder that reconciliation is needed and others say that it can't be reconciled.

Fifteen years ago I had a chicken or egg discussion with Kooijman [TK]. He asserted that bridge is the result of the law while I held that the law properly and necessarily derived from bridge. Further, perhaps a decade ago the topic arose again with Endicott [GE] where GE reiterated TK's view. Perhaps it is pertinent that TK has been the WBF CTD and an important member of the law drafting committee; and that GE has been the WBFLC secretary and physically wrote the law.


And that leaves us in a very important place- when the law changes then bridge changes. And that means some very profound things- for instance L65A is a command to insta-quit and L66A is superfluous [the passage could be discarded with the only effect being the lawbreaker doesn't get the benefit either] except when there is an infraction. Some might opine that inspecting tricks is a benefit- and then be confused that someone who follows the rules is denied the benefit while someone that breaks the rules is allowed the benefit. They might even say that it is unfair.

However, the question is whether such a state of affairs can exist logically. And indeed, the answer is yes....when the lawmakers power is unlimited there is nothing to prevent them creating a benefit for lawbreakers but not the righteous- the problem is that it doesn't sit well. It does not matter that you dislike it- it's the law that has been reviewed and affirmed many times. And yes, there is nothing like disrespect of the law to get the blood boiling.

[aguahombre]

Finding anything in those two sections which is confusiog as to intent, or needs to be changed, or even contradictory, is egregious lawyering. One defines how we play to a trick, and where the cards go afterward; the other defines how/when a player may give himself time to see the completed trick --and requires the other players to let him see the trick.

We can bitch about confusion in the laws if we like, rather than try to work with them in the spirit of the game. But, these two Laws shouldn't be part of that.

[blackshoe]

Axman is playing devil's advocate, I think. Either that, or he should suggest penalizing every bridge player who doesn't "insta-quit" every trick. That would be, let's see, about 4x13=52 penalties per board, x27 boards per session is... 1404 penalties per session, 702 per pair. At 1/4 board each, that's 174 full boards in penalties in a 27 board session. Cool. That'll even the field - everyone will get a zero!

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-October-05, 16:58, said:

Axman is playing devil's advocate, I think.

Perhaps, but he hasn't uncovered anything that is a real contradiction or is illogical. He is just imposing his own definition on a word which is used in a much broader sense than he wishes to acknowledge. Pretty boring, and if he continues may I suggest that no one engage further.

[aguahombre]

The established procedure is: WHEN a forum member no longer wishes to see the same argument from the same person, he simply blocks. Since I failed to do so the instant I felt that way, I committed an infraction.

The penalty will be seeing the same argument again, unless I block now...long after the point of boredom and, thus, another infraction.

[Jinksy]

You can block people on this forum? How?

[aguahombre]

Jinksy, on 2014-October-06, 00:57, said:

You can block people on this forum? How?

Dunno about all OS and versions, but I can click on my username up top of this page, then go to "manage ignored users".

But, don't forget to use it WHEN you want to, and not a minute later.

[aguahombre]

My childish chidings above are just that. However,

THIS might actually be useful.

It seems "when" in L65 is being used instead of "whenever", which is acceptable to do ---and thus not necessarily imply an exact moment in time. The reverse is not true; whenever cannot be substituted for when if a precise period is being discussed.

Perhaps a technical writer should not have taken that license, anticipating lawyers would jump all over it.

[Trinidad]

whatever...



Rik

[barmar]

I think one of the pitfalls we have here is assuming that when the Laws were drafted, they painstakingly considered every word to try to get their intent across perfectly.

Even in real governments, legislators rarely get all the nuances perfect, and lawyers manage to find loopholes and workarounds. Is it any surprise that the authors of the rule book for a card game have the same problem?

[mgoetze]

barmar, on 2014-October-06, 12:27, said:

Even in real governments, legislators rarely get all the nuances perfect,

Barry, in real governments, legislators don't write laws. That's what lobbyists are for.