[BLML] Misinformation and UI?

rfrick at rfrick.info rfrick at rfrick.info
Sat Aug 1 20:21:24 CEST 2009


>
> Grattan Endicott<grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk
> (also <gesta at tiscali.co.uk - temporarily or
>               perhaps permanently suspended)
> **********************************
> " A vacuum can only exist, I imagine,
>   by the things which enclose it."
>                   ~ Zelda Fitzgerald  (1932)
> **********************************
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
> To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 8:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and UI?
>
>
>> On Behalf Of Grattan
>> .................
>>> (WBFLC minute, 24th august 1998)
>>>   "The Secretary drew attention to those who
>>> argued that where an action was stated in the laws
>>> (or regulations) to be authorized, other actions if
>>> not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The
>>> Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the
>>> Laws states that the laws define correct procedure
>>> and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore,
>>> 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction
>>> of law if information deriving from it is used in the
>>> auction or play.".
>>> (Grattan)
>>
>> The way I understand this minute is that it addresses
>> actions not explicitly allowed in the laws and considers
>> any information derived from such actions extraneous
>> and unauthorized, but only for the offending side. I
>> cannot see that this minute denies a non-offending
>> side any rights they otherwise have, for instance from
>> Law 73D1?
>>
> +=+ The minute addressed the argument being made
> in 1998 that if something is not forbidden in the laws
> it is allowed. The WBFLC decision was of general
> application and established that for all players the use
> of such extraneous information is unlawful. It applied
> even before any other offence had occurred.  Positive
> authorization is required for a call or play to be lawfully
> based.
>       Law 16A1 applies generally, including before any
> offence has been committed, and Law 16A3 brings
> the 1998 decision into the law book in a specific
> statement.
>                                ~ Grattan ~   +=+

This opinion -- if it isn't in the laws, it isn't allowed -- assumes that
the laws attempt to describe proper procedure. But do they? It is clear
that the players can ask for an explanation. I don't see where it says
that the opponents are required to *answer*. Of course, it is to their
advantage to answer, which then raises the question if they are allowed to
answer.

Grattan's argument depends on the phrasing of this missing sentence. If it
was "Players should give a complete and correct explanation when asked",
that would support Grattan's position. If it was "Players then reply",
that would not support his position. So perhaps we are arguing over the
exact wording of a missing sentence.

RECOMMENDED: Or you can take "..replies should be given by the partner of
the player who made the call in question" as implying, directly or
indirectly that *replies* are proper procedure. Then, right or wrong,
replies are part of the proper procedure of the game.



More information about the Blml mailing list