[BLML] And I expect you'll all agree (was Delayed...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Richard HILLS richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Tue Nov 12 23:02:42 CET 2013


UNOFFICIAL

W.S. Gilbert, The Mikado (1885):

To sit in solemn silence in a dull, dark dock,
In a pestilential prison, with a life-long lock,
Awaiting the sensation of a short, sharp shock,
From a cheap and chippy chopper on a big black block!

Nigel Guthrie:

>The intentions of the law may be crystal-clear to law-makers. The actual
>English meaning of the law may seem glaringly obvious to senior directors.
>The unfortunate fact remains that the law is so sophisticated, that the
>meaning is ambiguous to many ordinary directors

Richard Hills:

The very senior and extraordinary Director Sean Mullamphy, Chief Director
of Australia, believes that Law 69A is written in poor English - Sean dislikes
lengthy sentences with many subordinate clauses and commas, preferring a
series of short, sharp shocks with succinct sentences.

Note that my preceding paragraph was a lengthy sentence, with many
subordinate clauses and commas. :) :)

Nigel Guthrie:

>.....
>Unfortunately it appears that only a tiny minority of rule-makers and
>directors believe that rules should be made simple enough for most players
>and directors to understand them.

Richard Hills:

Fortunately that tiny minority includes the WBF Laws Committee, and the
WBF LC is an ++authoritative++ tiny minority.

http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/Documents/laws_appeals/invitation.asp
The 2017 Laws of Bridge - An Open Invitation
Grattan Endicott, on behalf of the WBF Laws Committee

>>.....
>>I intend to divide suggestions received into two categories:
>>
>>a) those which propose a change in the effect of the law; and
>>
>>b) those which retain the current effect of the law but target an
>>improvement in the wording and/or layout of a Law.
>>
>>The broad inclination of the committee as it commences the task is to
>>institute very few category (a) changes but to concentrate mainly on
>>proposals in category (b).

Richard Hills:

The Revoke Laws draw a distinction between a non-established revoke and a
later established revoke.

My modest proposal for the 2017 Claim Laws is that they should draw a
distinction between a non-established agreement of tricks (Law 79A1) and a
later established agreement of tricks (Law 69A).

Kind regards,

Richard "category (c)" Hills

UNOFFICIAL




--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.  DIBP respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988.  The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au.  See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131112/31e41a54/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list