[blackshoe]

Okay, the headings are not part of the laws. Fine. The fact remains that Law 62 is about correction of an un-established revoke, and once a revoke has been established, Law 62 can no longer be applied. It is also true that some cards may be played to the trick following the revoke trick, yet the revoke is still not established. In such cases, Law 62 does still apply. The idea that a player can withdraw a card played after a revoke, when the revoke has been established, is nonsense, since Law 63 governs how a revoke is established, and what happens after that, and Law 63 does not allow such withdrawal.

[axman]

blackshoe, on Feb 26 2010, 11:42 AM, said:

Okay, the headings are not part of the laws. Fine. The fact remains that Law 62 is about correction of an un-established revoke, and once a revoke has been established, Law 62 can no longer be applied. It is also true that some cards may be played to the trick following the revoke trick, yet the revoke is still not established. In such cases, Law 62 does still apply. The idea that a player can withdraw a card played after a revoke, when the revoke has been established, is nonsense, since Law 63 governs how a revoke is established, and what happens after that, and Law 63 does not allow such withdrawal.

Things are not quite so easy-

To illustrate in part what L62C1 states consider that N revokes at T5. at T9 N states that he ‘has a Spade’. In addition to the information he has a spade [take note of L49] he also has acknowledged a revoke. Well, the revoke is established but L62C1 says EW may withdraw and return to hand any card played after the revoke til present, so long as EW has not yet infracted any law [during the hand?].

Take notice of the effect of EW taking advantage of this provision. It now is possible that they each withdraw 4 cards and restore them to hand. This is what is termed a mess. What perhaps is messier is that the only law that provides for fixing this mess is perhaps L67 because now there are tricks that only have two cards and there is no provision to take cards from the hand after putting them there except for play to future tricks.

However, things get more perplexing because L63 provides: Once a revoke is established, it may no longer be corrected (except as provided in Law 62D for a revoke on the twelfth trick), and the trick on which the revoke occurred stands as played.

Which is in direct conflict with the provision of L62C1/2.

Now, if you want to consider that 63B saves the day from preposterous monkeying with the cards then how are defective tricks containing established revokes to be remedied [L67]? Along with the defective tricks T6,T7,T8?**

** while 63B requires T5 to remain as it was, it does not ‘extend’ to those other tricks.

[blackshoe]

TL;DR

Look. We can play "the laws are wacko" all we like, but we're trying to play a game here - and to do so in a sensible way. Interpreting the laws in the way you seem to be suggesting will not let us do that. So let's not interpret them that way, okay?

[axman]

blackshoe, on Feb 26 2010, 02:30 PM, said:

TL;DR

Look. We can play "the laws are wacko" all we like, but we're trying to play a game here - and to do so in a sensible way. Interpreting the laws in the way you seem to be suggesting will not let us do that. So let's not interpret them that way, okay?

I watched a man named Barrack Obama on TV yesterday. He says that America’s biggest problem is that too many Americans don’t have health insurance. He spent the time twisting the arms of various powerful men. But what is plain to me is that he doesn’t have the faintest idea as to what his actual problem is; and should he achieve what he has set out to do, well, I’ll put it this way. The real problem is that too many have health insurance, and of they who do, too many of them have not paid enough for it.

The point is that it is all well and good to solve problems, but if you don’t know what the problem is then there is a significant likelihood that anything that is done will not merely be in the wrong direction but, in a bad direction.

For as long as the words are the rules it behooves all to know what they say. Because for as long as they are present any issue within them will continue. It is wrong headed to chastise someone who comes along and repeats them to mean as they say. Because it is they who expect the words to mean what they say- and they are right; and they who purport them to mean other than they say who are wrong irrespective of any good intentions they have by doing so.

I have tremendous problems with forcing a square peg into a round hole and then expecting someone else to believe that the two fit together. There is nothing so frustrating than confronting the same thing that is broken time and time again because everyone resists getting it right. The problem is that the law has some wrong words and the solution is to black them out and insert the correct words.

[blackshoe]

Moved this from the "Simple Rulings" forum. As I said there, I think discussion of how the laws need to be fixed belongs here rather than there.

[bluejak]

Is this not simple? Law 62C merely needs a sentence before 1/2/3 saying 'When a revoke is corrected as in B above, then'

[blackshoe]

<sigh> You can please all of the people some of the time, you can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people none of the time. (Apologies to A. Lincoln).

Yes, it's a simple change to the law - but it's a change — and it seems to me that's the governing factor, so I moved it here.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Feb 26 2010, 07:35 PM, said:

<sigh> You can please all of the people some of the time, you can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people none of the time. (Apologies to A. Lincoln).

Yes, it's a simple change to the law - but it's a change — and it seems to me that's the governing factor, so I moved it here.

So what are you going cuckoo for? You moved it to the appropriate forum, and now people are discussing it there. Yay the forums work!

[barmar]

Does the WBFLC have a clarification process, so that they can explain that 62C was intended only to apply when correction is allowed, rather than having to wait for the next edition of the Laws? I think it's obvious how this was intended, and the editor just didn't realize that it fell through the cracks when the point about headings not being binding was added to the introduction. So we just need an official statement of this so we can stop bickering about it.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Feb 26 2010, 07:47 PM, said:

So what are you going cuckoo for? You moved it to the appropriate forum, and now people are discussing it there. Yay the forums work!

Going cuckoo?! I'll have you know I've been cuckoo for a long time!

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Feb 26 2010, 08:47 PM, said:

Does the WBFLC have a clarification process, so that they can explain that 62C was intended only to apply when correction is allowed, rather than having to wait for the next edition of the Laws? I think it's obvious how this was intended, and the editor just didn't realize that it fell through the cracks when the point about headings not being binding was added to the introduction. So we just need an official statement of this so we can stop bickering about it.

They do, sort of. They issue interpretations in their meeting minutes from time to time. I'm not sure how to get them to consider any particular point though. We might have to get an NBO to submit the question, I don't know.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Feb 27 2010, 04:40 AM, said:

barmar, on Feb 26 2010, 08:47 PM, said:

Does the WBFLC have a clarification process, so that they can explain that 62C was intended only to apply when correction is allowed, rather than having to wait for the next edition of the Laws?  I think it's obvious how this was intended, and the editor just didn't realize that it fell through the cracks when the point about headings not being binding was added to the introduction.  So we just need an official statement of this so we can stop bickering about it.

They do, sort of. They issue interpretations in their meeting minutes from time to time. I'm not sure how to get them to consider any particular point though. We might have to get an NBO to submit the question, I don't know.

I have seen questions brought to the attention of WBFLC members through BLML eventually been handled and commented in WBFLC minutes.

However, L62C has been unchanged and not causing any problem at all for so long time that I shall be surprised if they consider it worthwhile to spend any effort on this.

[barmar]

Isn't the change the line in the introduction that says that section headings no longer restrict applicability of the laws? In the past, 62C was presumably interpreted as only applying when correction is permitted, because the title of Law 62 is "Correcting a Revoke". But the new laws require us to ignore the section title, so the interpretation of 62C has implicitly been changed.

[bluejak]

Headings were not part of the Laws in the previous Law book.



I am a little surprised at you, Ed. It is not clear what you want. If you want us to agree that the actual wording of this Law is flawed, ok, we agree. If you want us to agree that since "everyone" knows what is really meant, we ignore the wording of the Law, ok, we do. If you want us to agree what needs to be done to correct it, I have made a suggestion, and no-one has disagreed. If you want us to tell you how to get the WBFLC to do something about it, let us have agreement on what the change should be, and I shall try my best and see what happens.

[blackshoe]

What I want is to discuss how to rule, practically, given the laws as they are, in the "Laws and Rulings" and "Simple Rulings" forums, and to discuss how the laws might be flawed, and might be changed, here.

As to the specifics of whether Law 62 is flawed, what needs to be done to fix it, and how to go about getting the WBFLC involved, I'm not much concerned over that at all.

[bluejak]

If you are just worried about these being in the correct place then of course I agree with you.