Vampyr Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 Blackshoe: How can you possibly disagree with Vampire on that point? Well, we cannot say that Blackshoe's preferred solution to the problem is not superior until we know what it is. What is it, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 Well, we cannot say that Blackshoe's preferred solution to the problem is not superior until we know what it is. What is it, then?I will take a guess. Your point was that the two situations are different; he disagrees. I will naively infer he believes the two situations are not different; I agree with you and wonder who should be calling on an irregularity if not the only person at the table who knows there has been one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 I will take a guess. Your point was that the two situations are different; he disagrees. I will naively infer he believes the two situations are not different; I agree with you and wonder who should be calling on an irregularity if not the only person at the table who knows there has been one? Yes, I realise this; what I wonder is what he thinks is the alternative to calling the director when you realise you have given an incorrect explanation. If the law covering the matter is an error, there must be another way. Obviously saying and doing nothing is a possibility, but I think (hope?) that Blackshoe knows a bit more about the disclosure requirements of this game, because if I am not mistaken he directs games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 Law 9A4: There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F5 for correction of partner’s apparently mistaken explanation).My point is this: if a player provides a mistaken explanation, and later realizes he has done so, he has an obligation to draw attention to that irregularity* (Law 20F4). Law 9A4 doesn't mention this obligation to draw attention to an irregularity committed by one's own side. It should, for completeness if nothing else. OTOH…Law 20F4: If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4.This law is poorly worded, but I don't think that means that Law 9A4 need not say anything about it. Apparently others do think so. :huh: *The act of calling the director, and explaining to him why he was called, certainly calls attention to an irregularity (if an irregularity is the reason the director was called). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 I see. So the error is that this is not mentioned in Law 9. Yes, I agree that it should be. Otherwise there is an apparent contradiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 I see. So the error is that this is not mentioned in Law 9. Yes, I agree that it should be. Otherwise there is an apparent contradiction.Don't we usually resolve this by the "more specific law trumps more general law" rule? It would be nice if 9A4 said that the 20F5 exception was just an example -- it does seem like it's intended to be the only exception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Don't we usually resolve this by the "more specific law trumps more general law" rule? We do but... It would be nice if 9A4 said that the 20F5 exception was just an example -- it does seem like it's intended to be the only exception. This is also true. The next version of the Laws should be thoroughly checked for cross references and the lack thereof -- so that this, Lamford's various inconsistencies, and the dWS (which is still maintained by at least one person) no longer exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevperk Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 My point is this: if a player provides a mistaken explanation, and later realizes he has done so, he has an obligation to draw attention to that irregularity* (Law 20F4). Law 9A4 doesn't mention this obligation to draw attention to an irregularity committed by one's own side. It should, for completeness if nothing else. OTOH… This law is poorly worded, but I don't think that means that Law 9A4 need not say anything about it. Apparently others do think so. :huh: *The act of calling the director, and explaining to him why he was called, certainly calls attention to an irregularity (if an irregularity is the reason the director was called). The laws say you have an obligation to give your opponents the correct information of your bids, through the alert procedure and answering of any questions. That obligation does not cease just because you didn't do it in a timely manner, or correctly. The moment you realize, you must fulfill your obligation. The laws require you to call the director, not to point out the irregularity, but to deal with the MI and UI issues arising for the lack of promptness, or incorrectness. The fact that this calls attention to the irregularity is not the same as calling just to call attention to the irregularity. I know I am not alone in not needing Law 9A4 to point this out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 Another who misses my point. :( You may not need Law 9A4 to know that Law 20F4 exists and requires you to call the director, etc. I don't need it for that purpose either. But Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice aren't as familiar with the laws as we are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevperk Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 Another who misses my point. :( You may not need Law 9A4 to know that Law 20F4 exists and requires you to call the director, etc. I don't need it for that purpose either. But Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice aren't as familiar with the laws as we are.Sorry, you missed my point. I thought you were saying there was a contradiction in the laws about calling attention to your own irregularity. I was saying there was no contradiction. And I was saying that I don't need Law 9A4 to be changed to point that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 Well, since you were wrong about what I was saying, it's no surprise I missed your point. Nor, I suppose, that you missed mine. B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.