[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2015-January-17, 03:25, said:

I don't think that should be your biggest concern in these forums. This is, as you have sometimes reminded us, not BLML. As I understand it, the purpose of these forums is to deal with the application of the Laws in practice. That necessarily means interpreting the intended meaning, resolving ambiguities in a way that makes the rules coherent and the game playable, and sometimes simply pretending that the Laws say something other than what they actually say.

It seems to me that in order to come to a practical application of this definition, or any law, we first have to understand what it actually says. Only then can we talk about things like (presumed) intended meaning, or ambiguities. That said, I think that the practical reading of this definition should just ignore the parenthetical, since it doesn't seem to help in any way. But 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.

I didn't want to get into how this definition should be changed to make more sense, either. Just to understand what it actually says. Still if "natural" and "artificial" are no longer appropriate terms, what terms are appropriate?

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2015-January-17, 10:37, said:

Still if "natural" and "artificial" are no longer appropriate terms, what terms are appropriate?

It depends on the purpose for which these definitions are needed.

Law 26?
Law 27B?
Law 40?
Other?

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2015-January-17, 10:37, said:

But 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.

How do you manage with 74A2 then?

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2015-January-17, 13:02, said:

How do you manage with 74A2 then?

I don't know what Ed is going to say, but I (for one) would definitely avoid the word "artificial".

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 74A2: A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

To be honest, I'm not sure I understand the question.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2015-January-17, 18:49, said:

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.

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2015-January-18, 02:04, said:

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?

[gnasher]

 pran, on 2015-January-18, 05:52, said:

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.

[pran]

 pran, on 2015-January-18, 05:52, said:

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?

 gnasher, on 2015-January-18, 09:52, said:

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.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2015-January-18, 02:04, said:

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.

[aguahombre]

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.

[gnasher]

 pran, on 2015-January-18, 11:17, said:

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?

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2015-January-18, 12:46, said:

Which Law says that?

Which law says that everything about the laws must be explicit in the law book?

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2015-January-15, 08:59, said:

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.

 blackshoe, on 2015-January-18, 13:21, said:

Which law says that everything about the laws must be explicit in the law book?

[pran]

 pran, on 2015-January-18, 11:17, said:

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.

 gnasher, on 2015-January-18, 12:46, said:

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.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2015-January-18, 12:46, said:

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 ...

[ArtK78]

 gnasher, on 2015-January-18, 12:46, said:

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.

[blackshoe]

I wonder... if the rules of our game were not called "laws" would all you lawyers still bring out "statutory interpretation" in discussing them?

[ArtK78]

 blackshoe, on 2015-January-19, 08:28, said:

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.

[barmar]

 ArtK78, on 2015-January-19, 10:01, said:

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.