lamford Posted February 20, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2020 There is no bug in 68B2:Law 49 said:Except in the normal course of play or application of law (see for example Law 47E), when a defender’s card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but see Law 68 when a defender has made a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress, and see Law 68B2 when partner objects to a defender’s concession.so the term "exposed" here includes "naming" a card.No. Law 49 just tells us that both "exposed" cards and "named" cards are penalty cards. It does not say that "named" cards are "exposed" cards. 68B2 tells us that an exposed card after a concession is cancelled is not a penalty card. It does not say anything about named cards. It says: "cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards". It should say, "cards exposed or named by a defender do not become penalty cards". There is no need for both "exposed" and "revealed" but there is need for "named". And I agree that there are so many anomalies in the Laws that one just has to rule using what one thinks they should say! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 20, 2020 Report Share Posted February 20, 2020 Naming a card reveals it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 20, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2020 Naming a card reveals it.reveal v. To cause to be seen; show. This is the most frequent definition. How is that different in effect from "expose"? And pran's argument was that "exposed" cards include "named" cards. More importantly, why include "named" cards in Law 49 but omit them from 62B? And why change "named" to "revealed" if the intention is that they mean the same thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 20, 2020 Report Share Posted February 20, 2020 Well, I wasn't involved in the drafting of the laws, so I can't answer those questions. I think it's too fine a point anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 20, 2020 Report Share Posted February 20, 2020 reveal v. To cause to be seen; show. This is the most frequent definition. How is that different in effect from "expose"? And pran's argument was that "exposed" cards include "named" cards. More importantly, why include "named" cards in Law 49 but omit them from 62B? And why change "named" to "revealed" if the intention is that they mean the same thing?reveal verb [with object] make (previously unknown or secret information) known to others.Brenda was forced to reveal Robbie's whereabouts. Why different language? Because not that much attention was put into ensuring consistency across laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 21, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 reveal verb [with object] make (previously unknown or secret information) known to others.Brenda was forced to reveal Robbie's whereabouts.I agree it is a fine point. But the use of "reveal" about a card, I think, means show. If you name a card you reveal the possession of that card. But who knows what the WBFLC intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 I agree it is a fine point. But the use of "reveal" about a card, I think, means show. If you name a card you reveal the possession of that card. But who knows what the WBFLC intended.They obviously intend "getting premature information about a card" to be an irregularity which (on certain conditions) results in the card becoming a penalty card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 I agree it is a fine point. But the use of "reveal" about a card, I think, means show. If you name a card you reveal the possession of that card. But who knows what the WBFLC intended.It says "exposed or revealed". The definition of "reveal" you chose is essentially the same as "expose", and I don't think they intended to be redundant like that. They didn't say "named" because there may be other ways to reveal a card than exposing it or naming it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 24, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2020 It says "exposed or revealed". The definition of "reveal" you chose is essentially the same as "expose", and I don't think they intended to be redundant like that. They didn't say "named" because there may be other ways to reveal a card than exposing it or naming it.Indeed. One can get a member of the audience to "reveal" a card instead of exposing it or naming it. There are inconsistencies and ambiguities in the Laws, but if there had been an intention that a card named after a claim was not always a MPC, it should certainly say so in Law 49, and it does give situations where it is not (Laws 47E and 68B2), the latter where a defender objects to a concession. It went out of its way to only "exempt" that and when a defender makes a statement about an uncompleted trick. 1 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.