[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]

Mbodell, on Sep 8 2009, 12:26 AM, said:

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]

axman, on Sep 8 2009, 09:57 AM, said:

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.

Quote

  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.

Quote

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]

blackshoe, on Sep 8 2009, 10:17 AM, said:

axman, on Sep 8 2009, 09:57 AM, said:

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.

Quote

  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.

Quote

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.

[shintaro]

blackshoe, on Sep 2 2009, 11:25 AM, said:

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.

so tis all your fault then

[blackshoe]

Yup. Well, not all — the WBF didn't have to change the law.