campboy, on 2015-March-11, 12:40, said:
I agree with Vampyr. This business about "dummy removing the card [...]" is not clear at all... declarer plays the card by dummy's action.
Quite. LOL thanks Campboy, for affirming my faith that at least a few people know how to read English!
blackshoe, on 2015-March-12, 09:09, said:
I think that one problem with the laws is that the command of first Edgar Kaplan and later Grattan Endicott of English grammar was/is far better than that of many people reading the laws as published.
![B-)](http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)
Well, no. Far too many examples of ambiguity and lack of clarity have been discussed on these forums, and in many cases a literal reading of a law turns out to be the opposite of what was presumably intended, or simply nonsense.
Kaplan and Endicott presumably had/has a good command of the English language, but lacked/lack either the skill or the desire to write a document in clear and unambiguous language, which is easy to understand and use. I think that the feeling now is that a Lawbook written in plain English, with short sentences and without eg convoluted constructions and vague wording, would seem less "grand" or "important".
For example, I don't think that the wording of the law in question would occur to most people. It is much more normal and clear to write: Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card. Dummy then places the card in a position to indicate it has been played.
Or something like that. It's not too hard, so it is probably the desire and not the ability that is lacking.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein