Jeremy's clean-up

[jeremy69]

I'd change a single word in the next laws. Remove the word "should" and replace it with "must" when this is what is meant. "Should" means to me "It would be a good idea if" but there no penalty if not. In Law 7C for example I would state the law as you MUST shuffle your cards whe returning them to the board unless the director exempts you from so doing and he might do so in a local club because the person receiving the cards has a problem limiting their hand movement. There are other places in both laws and regulations where "should" appears when it is not IMO, what is meant.

[Trinidad]

I very much agree with Jeremy. The Laws need a 'clean up' for all the "should", "must", "could", etc. In particular the combination with negatives should be avoided since constructions like "must not" have different meanings on the different sides of the Atlantic.

 

And if people who have English as their native language assign different meanings to these constructions, what do you think will happen to people who don't have English as a native language?

 

Rik

[shintaro]

:(

 

This was one of mine at Brighton Jeremy where the WAG concerned said he would NOT shuffle the cards as the Law did not say he had to

 

So I merely instructed him to shuffle the his hand before he passed on the boards and as he cannot object to an instruction from a TD he complied

 

But yes it is a CRAP law saying Should !!! I spoke to David about it as well

 

:unsure:

[bluejak]

In general I think they got the level of instruction right: I think the shuffling of cards is an exception and agree it should say 'must'. Ok, ok, it must say 'must'. ;)

[iviehoff]

In particular the combination with negatives should be avoided since constructions like "must not" have different meanings on the different sides of the Atlantic.

I don't think there is much doubt about "must not". I think it was probably "may not" you had in mind as the confusing one.

 

Fortunately "must-not do X" means much the the same as "must not-do X". But "may-not do X" does not always mean "may not-do X". I would ban the use of "may not" for that reason.

[blackshoe]

Law 9 used to say, in part, that when someone has drawn attention to an irregularity, the director "must" be called. When I pointed out that the discussion in the Preface to the Laws regarding the usage of "must" implied that failure to call the TD in this circumstance should [sic] result in a PP "more often than not", the Drafting Subcommittee decided they didn't like that, which is why the current law says "should" instead of "must". I wish I hadn't said anything. :(

 

Whatever "should" means in the local vernacular, the Laws say that it denotes an action which is illegal, but which is not often penalized* (although it will jeopardize the player's rights).

 

*In the sense of awarding a procedural penalty - the lawful rectification will still apply.

[blackshoe]

In particular the combination with negatives should be avoided since constructions like "must not" have different meanings on the different sides of the Atlantic.

I don't think there is much doubt about "must not". I think it was probably "may not" you had in mind as the confusing one.

 

Fortunately "must-not do X" means much the the same as "must not-do X". But "may-not do X" does not always mean "may not-do X". I would ban the use of "may not" for that reason.

Well put.

 

I have suggested, kiddingly, that the laws should be written in Loglan. Maybe we should revisit that idea. :(

[helene_t]

Fortunately "must-not do X" means much the the same as "must not-do X".  But "may-not do X" does not always mean "may not-do X". I would ban the use of "may not" for that reason.

This is not universal:

 

German: "Du musst ... " means "you must". "Du musst nicht" means "you don't have to". Similar in Dutch, Danish and (I think) other non-English Germanic languages, and in Russian.

 

French: "Tu dois ..." means "you must". "Tu ne dois pas" means "you don't have to". As in German. But "Il faut ...." vs. "Il ne faut pas" follows the English logic.

 

So for some (most?) non-native speakers of English, the "must not" construct is strange. I would say that

"you must-not do X" means "do whatever you feel like", while

"you must not-do X" means "refrain from doing x!"

 

Think of it in logical terms: "It must be true" is an all-quantor, while "it may be true" is an existence-quantor. The negation of an existence-quantor "there is no case where it exists" is the all-quantor of a negation "it is always true that it doens't exist".

 

So I am sure LogLan is more like German than like English, at least in this respect.

[gwnn]

is there really controversy surrounding the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? I'm not a big linguist but it looks like a wtp intuitively to me (as I speak 3 languages)

[blackshoe]

It's a hypothesis, so it must be proven (or disproven). Loglan was devised in an attempt to do that. AFAIK, the experiment was not conclusive.

[helene_t]

is there really controversy surrounding the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? I'm not a big linguist but it looks like a wtp intuitively to me (as I speak 3 languages)

The controversy is probably about to what degree, and in what cases, it applies. I find it difficult to imagine someone seriously claiming that language has no impact whatsoever on concept forming.

[bluejak]

Law 9 used to say, in part, that when someone has drawn attention to an irregularity, the director "must" be called. When I pointed out that the discussion in the Preface to the Laws regarding the usage of "must" implied that failure to call the TD in this circumstance should [sic] result in a PP "more often than not", the Drafting Subcommittee decided they didn't like that, which is why the current law says "should" instead of "must". I wish I hadn't said anything. :rolleyes:

 

Whatever "should" means in the local vernacular, the Laws say that it denotes an action which is illegal, but which is not often penalized* (although it will jeopardize the player's rights).

 

*In the sense of awarding a procedural penalty - the lawful rectification will still apply.

I am not sure but I think 'should' might be right here. I am not sure that we need drastic action in this case against someone who does not follow it - as many do not.

[jeremy69]

In my opinion if you say "should" then there is no compulsion, merely a preference. If you say "must" then it implies a penalty if you do not. I think this is just English and whilst the lawmakers mostly do what they want I don't believe they can re-write English although sometimes one thinks they have a good go at it.

 

In respect of Law 7 what do they actually want to happen? If it is all must shuffle then they say "must" and add the TD exemption if wanted. If it is just a pious hope then "should" is fine. Whilst I would not refuse to shuffle (life is too short for this) I would take the greatest exception to anyone who sought to fine me for this. In my view as the law is written it is not an infraction not to shuffle.

 

In respect of Law 9 it is certainly a shame that a few hands are not summarily removed from those who will not call the TD and guess (frequently wrongly) at the solution. I've lost rrack of the number of emails I've received from players at clubs where an infraction has occured, no TD hasw been called and the local genius has told the table what the law is. This is invariably wrong and typically seems to benefit the person making the observation in the first place.

[aguahombre]

In my technical writing days, "shall" was used instead of "must"

 

"should" act according to, or in the spirit of, Policy.

"Shall" follow a proscribed procedure.

"May" choose from among proper alternatives.

 

Perhaps "shall" and "must" are close enough, but maybe not in all translations. I am not a linguist.

[blackshoe]

In my view as the law is written it is not an infraction not to shuffle.

If you're referring to

After play has finished, each player should shuffle his original 13 cards, after which he restores them to the pocket corresponding to his compass position

then I'm afraid you're mistaken.

Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized)

(The emphasis is mine).

 

In respect of Law 9 it is certainly a shame that a few hands are not summarily removed from those who will not call the TD and guess (frequently wrongly) at the solution. I've lost rrack of the number of emails I've received from players at clubs where an infraction has occured, no TD hasw been called and the local genius has told the table what the law is. This is invariably wrong and typically seems to benefit the person making the observation in the first place.

 

I agree with this. That many people do not call the TD when attention has been drawn to an irregularity is lamentable. It is not a reason to liberalize the requirement that they do so.

[NickRW]

As a total aside to the thread here, I am reminded of flying Deutsche BA out of London Gatwick to Hamburg. To exaggerate slightly, a British based carrier, during the safety announcement would say something like "we politely request that you keep your seat belt on while the captain has the fasten seat belts sign lit" - or words to that effect. The German based airline said "Ve vould order that you....", while a large German Frau flexed her muscles with the demonstration seat belt!

 

They meant the same thing though.

 

Nick

[jeremy69]

  “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized)

 

I understand that the lawmakers have inserted a sentence to define what they mean. I just have my doubts as to its validity. The practical effect is that I won't get fined unless I've upset the TD in another way. However if they require that cards are shuffled then they are using the wrong word and leaving it to TDs to interpret, be arbitrary etc. It's just lazy lawmaking IMO.

I've heard the argument before that we use "should" to be polite but I don't think there is anything especially polite about it. Just say what you mean and we can all get on!

[blackshoe]

I would agree that in making rules for a game, being polite should (!) take a back seat to being clear. ;)

 

I don't think the laws as written (including the bit I quoted) leave much about "should" to TD interpretation.

[Mbodell]

For those who may not be familiar with it, there is an online standard used in technical documentations that defines these MUST, MAY, SHOULD, MAY NOT, etc. phrases that is RFC 2119. It is probably one of the most cited RFC in existence since nearly all technical specifications use its definitions. Perhaps citing it and doing what clean up Jeremy suggests would help avoid controversy about must, may, should, shall, etc.

[campboy]

I don't see the problem. I would think it obvious that the meaning of "should" is different in the context of writing a set of rules than in the context of normal speech. Rules are not recommendations. Anyway, the thing at the front of the lawbook tells us what is meant.

 

I think it would be a bad idea for the laws to refer us to a document written by a third party, and a worse idea to use definitions that are not specifically defined for what is basically a form of technical writing. The distinction between "should", "shall" and "must" in the laws is an important one; the RFC 2119 gives us a meaning we do not need in exchange for two that we do.

[barmar]

Agree with campboy. RFC 2119 is written with respect to computer protocols, which require concise specification to permit them to work properly. While clear specifications of rules are also important, they govern behavior by people, not automatons, and different considerations apply.

[Mbodell]

When Jeremy had posted this thread I hadn't realized there were definitions in the preamble of the laws for all these terms. Having definitions is the important thing, and I agree the ones in the laws are more appropriate than the RFC ones.

 

I know from writing specifications, which are like a form of laws, that it is important to make very clear which words are words of law (MUST, MAY, etc.) and which words are just normal English.

[axman]

When Jeremy had posted this thread I hadn't realized there were definitions in the preamble of the laws for all these terms.  Having definitions is the important thing, and I agree the ones in the laws are more appropriate than the RFC ones.

 

I know from writing specifications, which are like a form of laws, that it is important to make very clear which words are words of law (MUST, MAY, etc.) and which words are just normal English.

I concur with the view that the words chosen need to reflect what is needed to be reflected. Though it ought not be restricted to what Jeremy has singled out.

 

As a matter of example review 2007L10C2

 

2. If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner.

 

I question just what is the purpose of commanding a player who has consulted partner on the selection of penalty, to not consult. And, as for a player that has not obeyed that which was decided important enough to require such a command, why is no specific punishment specified?

 

another example

 

LAW 30 - When a player has passed out of rotation and the call is cancelled, the option in Law 29A not having been exercised, **the following provisions apply** (if the pass is artificial see C):

 

 

30B. 2. (a) When, after any player has bid, the offender passes out of rotation at his partner’s turn to call, **the offender must pass whenever it is his turn to call**, and Law 23 may apply.

 

On board 1 Z passed at his partner's turn. The law thereby specifies, the specification of Z passing at his partner's turn being satisfied [being the sole condition] for demanding that Z pass for eternity, Z must pass for eternity without exception and without reprieve.

 

Elsewhere it has been pointed out that where a game is concerned the scope of rules is unlimited. hmmmm. So, here rests a rule that is cllear and emphatic irrespective of the likelihood it is of dubious construction.

 

If one presumes that the proper consequence is to last for the duration of the hand only, then it is necessary to specify a second condition to meet that need.

[blackshoe]

As a matter of example review 2007L10C2

 

2. If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner.

 

I question just what is the purpose of commanding a player who has consulted partner on the selection of penalty, to not consult.

That's not what the law says. It says he is not permitted to consult. If he has already done so, that's an infraction.

 

  And, as for a player that has not obeyed that which was decided important enough to require such a command, why is no specific punishment specified?

 

I think you mean "why is no specific punishment specified right here in this law." We do have the discussion elsewhere in the laws as to the meanings of words like "must" and the impact of an infraction of what one "must" (or "must not") do on rulings.

 

It sounds like you want every law to be of the form "if a player does X, the TD shall do Y", with never a place for TD judgement or discretion. I'm not so sure that's a good idea.

 

 

another example

 

LAW 30 - When a player has passed out of rotation and the call is cancelled, the option in Law 29A not having been exercised, **the following provisions apply** (if the pass is artificial see C):

 

 

30B. 2. (a) When, after any player has bid, the offender passes out of rotation at his partner’s turn to call, **the offender must pass whenever it is his turn to call**, and Law 23 may apply.

 

On board 1 Z passed at his partner's turn.  The law thereby specifies, the specification of Z passing at his partner's turn being satisfied [being the sole condition] for demanding that Z pass for eternity, Z must pass for eternity without exception and without reprieve.

 

Elsewhere it has been pointed out that where a game is concerned the scope of rules is unlimited.  hmmmm.  So, here rests a rule that is cllear and emphatic irrespective of the likelihood it is of dubious construction.

 

If one presumes that the proper consequence is to last for the duration of the hand only, then it is necessary to specify a second condition to meet that need.

 

A little common sense might be nice - it is ridiculous to claim that an infraction on one board requires a player to pass for the rest of the session!

[axman]

As a matter of example review 2007L10C2

 

2. If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner.

 

I question just what is the purpose of commanding a player who has consulted partner on the selection of penalty, to not consult.

That's not what the law says. It says he is not permitted to consult. If he has already done so, that's an infraction.

 

  And, as for a player that has not obeyed that which was decided important enough to require such a command, why is no specific punishment specified?

 

I think you mean "why is no specific punishment specified right here in this law." We do have the discussion elsewhere in the laws as to the meanings of words like "must" and the impact of an infraction of what one "must" (or "must not") do on rulings.

 

It sounds like you want every law to be of the form "if a player does X, the TD shall do Y", with never a place for TD judgement or discretion. I'm not so sure that's a good idea.

 

 

another example

 

LAW 30 - When a player has passed out of rotation and the call is cancelled, the option in Law 29A not having been exercised, **the following provisions apply** (if the pass is artificial see C):

 

 

30B. 2. (a) When, after any player has bid, the offender passes out of rotation at his partner’s turn to call, **the offender must pass whenever it is his turn to call**, and Law 23 may apply.

 

On board 1 Z passed at his partner's turn.  The law thereby specifies, the specification of Z passing at his partner's turn being satisfied [being the sole condition] for demanding that Z pass for eternity, Z must pass for eternity without exception and without reprieve.

 

Elsewhere it has been pointed out that where a game is concerned the scope of rules is unlimited.  hmmmm.  So, here rests a rule that is cllear and emphatic irrespective of the likelihood it is of dubious construction.

 

If one presumes that the proper consequence is to last for the duration of the hand only, then it is necessary to specify a second condition to meet that need.

 

A little common sense might be nice - it is ridiculous to claim that an infraction on one board requires a player to pass for the rest of the session!

Suppsoedly, the thread was addressing the need to say things in the correct [and understandable to the reader] manner. Personally, what I want is for correct things to be said. I was pointing out that the scope encompassed by Jeremy's view ought to be much larger than than it appears.

 

 

<

A little common sense might be nice - it is ridiculous to claim that an infraction on one board requires a player to pass for the rest of the session!

<

 

Well. it is what the law spells out. But, not exactly.

 

2007L72A Common Sense

Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws.

 

 

2007L81B2. Common Sense

The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws.