Next version of the laws

[Vampyr]

I was thinking... when the next version of the Laws is published, perhaps English-speaking NBOs could, if they wanted, be involved in an effort to translate the Laws into English. After all, non-English-speaking NBOs are authorised to use a Lawbook translated into the local vernacular, so the rest presumably have the same right.

 

The translators would, ideally, be mindful of the fact that the Laws would be further translated into other languages, and could make sure their version was suitable for this. Then non-English-speaking NBOs could choose which version they wanted to translate from -- the "Official" version or the "English" one.

[FM75]

Ah - thought this was going to be about outlawing the belly putting stroke.

[iviehoff]

The reality of any set of laws is that it has to have defined terminology. You just can't obtain anything like the required precision without defined terminology. So you inevitably have to buy into the particular way in which words are being used in a set of laws.

 

What you are asking for is a paraphrase. People write such paraphrases, but they usually lack the precision and concision of the original, because you have to do a lot of explaining. Look at the White Book which attempts to describe the application of the laws in natural language. It's far longer than the original and only covers a selection of clauses.

[Vampyr]

The reality of any set of laws is that it has to have defined terminology. You just can't obtain anything like the required precision without defined terminology. So you inevitably have to buy into the particular way in which words are being used in a set of laws.

 

What you are asking for is a paraphrase. People write such paraphrases, but they usually lack the precision and concision of the original, because you have to do a lot of explaining. Look at the White Book which attempts to describe the application of the laws in natural language. It's far longer than the original and only covers a selection of clauses.

 

The most important goal is to make the Laws say what they mean, which wouldn't make them any less concise or precise. Half of the thread in the Laws forums concern applying Laws which need to be "interpreted".

 

In any case there is nothing wrong with the terminology. Making the language less convoluted might change or not change the length of the text. And tidying up the language might eliminate the margins where some cases slip through, as many threads have demonstrated. For example, much ambiguity has been created when it is not clear whether a modifier pertains to just one clause of the sentence to which it is attached, or several.

 

I do not want the Laws to be "paraphrased", and I think that the assumption that that is what I want is pretty idiotic.

[helene_t]

I think what needs to be done is to make the laws concise. It sounds like that is what Stefanie means by translating them into English, but it's a bit cryptic. The Dutch version of the law is no more or less concise than the original, so I don't see it as a translation issue.

 

However, it will be very difficult to write them up in a way that will satisfy both the lawyers, the mere mortal bridge players and the logicians, without making them very long and full of examples (like the orange book).

[RMB1]

..., without making them very long and full of examples (like the orange book).

 

See EBU Laws and Ethics news: Orange book to be shorter (half the length) and no longer orange (blue). But the examples are still there.

[mycroft]

I find that the laws are actually pretty concise; they're "all there", and they're reasonably easy (by and large) to understand in all but corner cases. Of course, I come from an Avalon Hill background, where their simple games have more rules than the Lawbook.

 

They don't have a specified way of handling multiple infractions; and the Laws are written in such a way as to fail badly in multiple infraction situations. It seems not to be an issue with the Law makers.

 

What the laws also are not are precise; capable of being unambiguously read. Making them precise very likely will make them less concise; elegant sesquipedalian constructions will be replaced by lots of little Saxon words that are, in fact, clearer (and probably easier to translate).

 

If the various LCs were to the standard of Golf (or even box Lacrosse, a law book I've been having some fun with recently), with regular "seasonal" rulings, case explanations, discussions of what is confusing, and so on, this would make it easier. But I note that said rulings come out every season, which means that their laws aren't unambiguous either. Of course, that would mean that those LCs would be full-time paid positions (or perhaps half-time paid positions with another job), where when they're not making those rules, they're answering calls from people about them, looking at "interesting cases" presented to them, and so on. Who's sponsoring that, guys? Any of you?

[Vampyr]

See EBU Laws and Ethics news: Orange book to be shorter (half the length) and no longer orange (blue). But the examples are still there.

 

I assume that the systems regulations will be framed in a more logical and efficient way, but I am curious as to what else will be shortened or removed to make it half the length.

[aguahombre]

In what language is the "official" version produced?

 

I thought this was directly from the official version.

 

If not, then I wonder how much of that is official, and how much of it is converted into some person's conception of English wording and syntax.

 

I also wonder whether any NBO outside the EBU is considered to be English-speaking by the British.

[Vampyr]

I thought this was directly from the official version.

 

What are you trying to link to? Can you quote the text instead?

[pran]

In what language is the "official" version produced?

 

I thought this was directly from the official version.

 

If not, then I wonder how much of that is official, and how much of it is converted into some person's conception of English wording and syntax.

 

I also wonder whether any NBO outside the EBU is considered to be English-speaking by the British.

It appears to me that what you are linking to is not in English, it is in American.

 

And AFAIK the WBF official laws are written in English. (Do ACBL translate the official laws into American or do they just use the original text?)

[blackshoe]

"American" is a dialect of English, and is more commonly (and correctly) called "American English". And the answer to your last question, Sven, is "neither".

[Vampyr]

It appears to me that what you are linking to is not in English, it is in American.

 

When I click on the link I just get a USBF page that doesn't really have any text on it -- just links to results.

[aguahombre]

Sorry, wrong paste. This

 

It is WBF and written in a type of English I believe even Americans can comprehend. If the new version is posted in the same manner, perhaps the British can adapt it into real English and publish their results for fellow countrymen.

[pran]

Sorry, wrong paste. This

 

It is WBF and written in a type of English I believe even Americans can comprehend. If the new version is posted in the same manner, perhaps the British can adapt it into real English and publish their results for fellow countrymen.

That appears to be the official WBF laws.

I haven't scrutinized the text but would be most surprised if it differs in any way from the text originally published as the official WBF laws of 2007 except for amendments made and published by WBFLC. (I remember one such amendment to Law 27B1{b} caused by the original text being rather unfortunate.)

[aguahombre]

Yes. I guess I should have tried a less subtle approach and just asked why it needs to be translated.

[pran]

Yes. I guess I should have tried a less subtle approach and just asked why it needs to be translated.

I am quite confident that Americans who can read American (English) are quite competent to also read English.

[Vampyr]

Yes. I guess I should have tried a less subtle approach and just asked why it needs to be translated.

 

For most people who read these forums, the answer is obvious.

[gnasher]

That appears to be the official WBF laws.

I haven't scrutinized the text but would be most surprised if it differs in any way from the text originally published as the official WBF laws of 2007 except for amendments made and published by WBFLC.

 

I don't think you should be surprised, since you recently participated in a discussion of how the ACBL version of the laws differs from the WBF one:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/58257-american-law-book/

[gnasher]

Yes. I guess I should have tried a less subtle approach and just asked why it needs to be translated.

 

Here's an example, taken at random from the current Laws:

 

If it is a single card of honour rank or is any card prematurely led offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when a pass damages the non-offending side).

And here is a translation into English:

 

If the offender has only one exposed card and it is an honour, or the offender exposed the card by leading it, the offender's partner must pass at his next turn to call. If this enforced pass damages the non-offending side, Law 23 is applied.

Edited June 7, 2013 by gnasher

[pran]

I don't think you should be surprised, since you recently participated in a discussion of how the ACBL version of the laws differs from the WBF one:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/58257-american-law-book/

You should be more careful With Your References:

 

The discussion to which you refer was about discrepancies between ACBL and WBF versions of the laws.

 

I wrote:

That appears to be the official WBF laws.

I haven't scrutinized the text but would be most surprised if it differs in any way from the text originally published as the official WBF laws of 2007 except for amendments made and published by WBFLC.

and thus concerned two different copies of the laws, both issued by WBF.

(And I found the particular law referred to in the original discussion to be identical in both WBF issues)

[pran]

Here's an example, taken at random from the current Laws:

 

If it is a single card of honour rank or is any card prematurely led offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when a pass damages the non-offending side).

Should anyone with a minimum knowledge on how bridge is played and capable of reading ordinary English have any problem with this Law?

 

 

 

And here is a translation into English:

 

If the offender has only one exposed card and it is an honour, or the offender exposed the card by leading it, the offender's partner must pass at his next turn to call. If this enforced pass damages the non-offending side, Law 23 is applied.

And what, if any is the alleged advantage of this so-called translation into English? The only difference I can see is that it is twice as long without adding any clarity at all.

[gnasher]

You should be more careful With Your References:

 

The discussion to which you refer was about discrepancies between ACBL and WBF versions of the laws.

 

I wrote:

That appears to be the official WBF laws.

I haven't scrutinized the text but would be most surprised if it differs in any way from the text originally published as the official WBF laws of 2007 except for amendments made and published by WBFLC.

and thus concerned two different copies of the laws, both issued by WBF.

(And I found the particular law referred to in the original discussion to be identical in both WBF issues)

Sorry. As aguahombre's first link was to the USBF site, I assumed his second one was too, but I should have checked.

 

The rules linked to by aguahombre *are* the WBF rules. That web page is owned by the WBF. It's from the old WBF website, before the recent redesign.

[Vampyr]

And what, if any is the alleged advantage of this so-called translation into English? The only difference I can see is that it is twice as long without adding any clarity at all.

 

The advantage is that the current version is not immediately intelligible to someone who has never seen it before, especially if they are an inexperienced volunteer feeling under pressure to make a ruling. At least this is a Law that does not require "interpretation" to divine what it really means.

[jeffford76]

And what, if any is the alleged advantage of this so-called translation into English? The only difference I can see is that it is twice as long without adding any clarity at all.

 

I understood the original, but I think the second one is much simpler. Much of the problem with the wording of the laws is that the people wording them know what they're supposed to say, so they read them, and they're close to that, and they assume they say the right thing. Laws would be more clear if people with less directing knowledge proofread them.