gnasher Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 To be honest, I'm not sure I understand the question.Well, you said "I don't want to get to the point of "interpreting" the laws in a way that completely changes their meaning, nor do I want to pretend they say something other than what they do say." Does that mean that you believe Law 74A2 should be applied as written? If so, that would make it illegal to double a contract that is going down, defeat a contract after an opponent's misplay, correctly guess the location of a queen, call the director after an opponent's infraction, or finish ahead of another contestant that was hoping to win an event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 Well, you said "I don't want to get to the point of "interpreting" the laws in a way that completely changes their meaning, nor do I want to pretend they say something other than what they do say." Does that mean that you believe Law 74A2 should be applied as written? If so, that would make it illegal to double a contract that is going down, defeat a contract after an opponent's misplay, correctly guess the location of a queen, call the director after an opponent's infraction, or finish ahead of another contestant that was hoping to win an event.Yes, Law 74A2 shall be applied exactly as written, and I (for one) consider Law 74 the most important law in the book. What about your argument then? "Action" and "remark" in Law 74A2 do not include such actions and remarks that are specifically permitted or implied in more specific laws, because when there is a possible conflict between laws the more specific law takes precedence over the more general law. Satisfied? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 Yes, Law 74A2 shall be applied exactly as written, and I (for one) consider Law 74 the most important law in the book. What about your argument then? "Action" and "remark" in Law 74A2 do not include such actions and remarks that are specifically permitted or implied in more specific laws, because when there is a possible conflict between laws the more specific law takes precedence over the more general law. Satisfied?Yes, I'm satisfied that what i wrote earlier in the thread is correct, because you've just demonstrated that it's true. If, as you say, "Action" and "remark" in Law 74A2 do not include such actions and remarks that are specifically permitted or implied in more specific laws, then it's untrue that Law 74A2 is applied exactly as written. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 Yes, Law 74A2 shall be applied exactly as written, and I (for one) consider Law 74 the most important law in the book. What about your argument then? "Action" and "remark" in Law 74A2 do not include such actions and remarks that are specifically permitted or implied in more specific laws, because when there is a possible conflict between laws the more specific law takes precedence over the more general law. Satisfied?Yes, I'm satisfied that what i wrote earlier in the thread is correct, because you've just demonstrated that it's true. If, as you say, "Action" and "remark" in Law 74A2 do not include such actions and remarks that are specifically permitted or implied in more specific laws, then it's untrue that Law 74A2 is applied exactly as written. And that is where you are wrong! Law 74A2 shall indeed apply exactly as written (when it applies), but being a general Law it does not apply when there is a more specific Law on the question. If you try to apply Law 74A2 the way you indicate then your problem is not that you apply Law 74A2 incorrectly, your problem is that Law 74A2 is not applicable at all. Or in other words: You apply the incorrect Law. One of the most important qualities for a Director is to know which Law is applicable in a particular situation, and this is where you seem to fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 Well, you said "I don't want to get to the point of "interpreting" the laws in a way that completely changes their meaning, nor do I want to pretend they say something other than what they do say." Does that mean that you believe Law 74A2 should be applied as written? If so, that would make it illegal to double a contract that is going down, defeat a contract after an opponent's misplay, correctly guess the location of a queen, call the director after an opponent's infraction, or finish ahead of another contestant that was hoping to win an event.I think that every application of law or regulation has to come with at least a modicum of good sense. Interpreting Law 74A2 literally in all cases as you suggest contains no good sense, so no, I don't believe 74A2 should be interpreted as written in all cases and at all times. It is a law that requires judgement — good judgement — on the part of the TD. Sven, take it easy. I'm sure Andy's just playing devil's advocate a bit. No need to shoot him for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 It seems Andy knows how to interpret the Law74A. Some people seem to have a problem interpreting the word, "interpret". Interpreting something includes the context. Part of interpretation is knowing when what you are interpreting applies to a given situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 Law 74A2 shall indeed apply exactly as written (when it applies), but being a general Law it does not apply when there is a more specific Law on the question.Which Law says that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 Which Law says that?Which law says that everything about the laws must be explicit in the law book? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 As always, I'm concerned with what the laws actually say, and here I don't think they actually say what most people think they say, nor do they say what the drafters intended.Which law says that everything about the laws must be explicit in the law book? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 Law 74A2 shall indeed apply exactly as written (when it applies), but being a general Law it does not apply when there is a more specific Law on the question.Which Law says that?In case you didn't know: We have a WBFLC minute to that effect. And in case you are just playing devil's advocate a bit (Ed's suggestion) I really think you are overdoing it. I rest my case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 Which Law says that?There is indeed a WBFLC minute that a more specific law takes preference over a more general law. For example, Law 75 is deemed to correct the error in Law 16B1b, in that "the methods of the partnership" are sometimes irrelevant. And, before you protest, you should have photocopied all WBFLC minutes, cut them up, and pasted them into the relevant place in the Law book, before signing up to this forum ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 Which Law says that?I am glad to see that there is a statement from the WBFLC that a more specific law takes precedence over a more general law. But that would be true in any event. It is a basic principal of statutory interpretation that the specific takes precedence over the general. So, if someone is injured by being hit by a car, and two statutes apply, one of which requires that a motor vehicle driver yield to a pedestrian in a road, and another which requires that a motor vehicle driver yield to a pedestrian in a cross walk, the latter would apply if the pedestrian was in a cross walk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 I wonder... if the rules of our game were not called "laws" would all you lawyers still bring out "statutory interpretation" in discussing them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 I wonder... if the rules of our game were not called "laws" would all you lawyers still bring out "statutory interpretation" in discussing them?They are laws, and they are interpreted as laws in the same way that the laws enacted by governments are interpreted as laws. I don't believe you are disagreeing with my statement. If a bridge law specifically applies to a particular situation, it should override any law that applies to more general situations when the particular situation arises. To cite a specific example, suppose a player revokes. Then the laws relating to revokes apply. One would not go to the TD's general authority to restore equity in dealing with a revoke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 They are laws, and they are interpreted as laws in the same way that the laws enacted by governments are interpreted as laws.I think he was suggesting that we tend to discuss them differently because we call them "laws" rather than "rules". If I open the box of a board game, there will usually be a few sheets of paper called "Rules of the game" that explain how to play it. Replacing the word with "Laws" seems to suggest more rigidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 I think he was suggesting that we tend to discuss them differently because we call them "laws" rather than "rules". If I open the box of a board game, there will usually be a few sheets of paper called "Rules of the game" that explain how to play it. Replacing the word with "Laws" seems to suggest more rigidity.Yes. Although I'm not sure "rigidity" is the right word. I can't think of a better one, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 I think he was suggesting that we tend to discuss them differently because we call them "laws" rather than "rules". If I open the box of a board game, there will usually be a few sheets of paper called "Rules of the game" that explain how to play it. Replacing the word with "Laws" seems to suggest more rigidity.I think it also means that the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge should be treated in the same manner as laws enacted by governmental bodies are treated (whether they are referred to as "ordinances," "statutes" or "laws"), and the same rules of statutory interpretaion used to interpret laws enacted by governmental bodies should be applied to interpreting the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Quite frankly, there really is no difference between "rules" for a board game and "laws" for duplicate contract bridge. Both the "rules" and the "laws" are intended to be followed without deviation. The fact that players of a board game might choose to relax the application of some of the rules of the board game doesn't mean that it is "right" to do so (insofar as "right" means the way the board game was intended to be played by the person who created it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 I think it also means that the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge should be treated in the same manner as laws enacted by governmental bodies are treated (whether they are referred to as "ordinances," "statutes" or "laws"), and the same rules of statutory interpretaion used to interpret laws enacted by governmental bodies should be applied to interpreting the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge.So only graduates of an accredited law school can be tournament directors? ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 So only graduates of an accredited law school can be tournament directors? ;)No, that would ruin Bridge in the same way lawyers have ruined law. I recommend only those who can read, write, interpret, and maintain objectivity be TD's. Then, having been a TD should be a requirement to enter law school. I am willing to let Andy be the one who decides which people qualify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 Yes. Although I'm not sure "rigidity" is the right word. I can't think of a better one, though.I struggled with the word when I was writing it, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 In case you didn't know: We have a WBFLC minute to that effect.Yes, that's exactly my point. If you allow the WBFLC minutes to override the actual wording of the Laws, you are no longer applying the laws as written. And in case you are just playing devil's advocate a bit (Ed's suggestion) I really think you are overdoing it.I'm not playing devil's advocate. I'm merely pointing out what bridge administrators actually do, whether they recognise it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Yes, that's exactly my point. If you allow the WBFLC minutes to override the actual wording of the Laws, you are no longer applying the laws as written.The minutes are implicitly included in the Laws, just as an RA's regulations are included by reference. So "as written" includes them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 What is it that implies the minutes are included in the laws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 The minutes are implicitly included in the Laws, ... If the WBFLC minutes are included in the Laws why is it necessary for those minutes to include explicitly adding a footnote to the laws (for example, the footnote to Law 25A)? If the minutes are implicit included, explicitly adding a footnote would be unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 If the WBFLC minutes are included in the Laws why is it necessary for those minutes to include explicitly adding a footnote to the laws (for example, the footnote to Law 25A)? If the minutes are implicit included, explicitly adding a footnote would be unnecessary.A WBFL Minute is (usually) a clarification of something in the laws, and so was the minute that simply added a footnote in Law 25. WBFLC minutes, once issued, have the force of Law. 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.