[bluejak]

Quote

LAW 64: PROCEDURE AFTER ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE

B. No Rectification

There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke:

7. when both sides have revoked on the same board.

Have I missed something? Is this not a matter of complete clarity, unlike many laws? There is no rectification for an established revoke as in A - ie penalty tricks - if the other side revoke, whether established or not. I am not convinced that is what they meant, but how can it mean anything else?

pran, on 2011-July-20, 03:10, said:

Law 64A is a general law appliccable to established revokes.
Law 62D is a spesific law that applies to revokes in trick 12 (and explicitly whether or not the revoke is established).

We have a firm rule that specific laws take precedence over general laws.

Oh yes: which Law says this?

jhenrikj, on 2011-July-20, 00:52, said:

The main thing here is to understand that all revokes mentioned under law64 are established revokes. The word "revoke" in law 64 is the equivalent to "established revoke" since law 64 exclusively deals with established revokes.

Not at all. Headings are not part of the Laws. If they meant established revokes they would says so, as they do in

Quote

There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: ...

[blackshoe]

jhenrikj, on 2011-July-20, 00:52, said:

The main thing here is to understand that all revokes mentioned under law64 are established revokes. The word "revoke" in law 64 is the equivalent to "established revoke" since law 64 exclusively deals with established revokes.

No. The word "revoke" means "revoke". In much of Law 64, the phrase "established revoke" is followed by "the revoke" [my emphasis] which clearly refers to a revoke that has been established, but there are two ambiguous cases in Law 64B: "if it is a subsequent revoke…" in 64B2 and "when both sides have revoked…" in 64B7. In both cases it is unclear whether the reference to the other revoke implies that it must have been established.

I do like the argument that once a player has corrected an unestablished revoke, it is as if that revoke never happened. That argument certainly clarifies both cases above. But the argument that all references to "revoke" in Law 64 are by necessity references to "established revokes" is just wrong.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-July-20, 09:55, said:

pran said:

[...]
We have a firm rule that specific laws take precedence over general laws.

Oh yes: which Law says this?

No law at all and I didn't say that either.

But I am quite confident that you are at least as familiar with WBFLC minutes etc. as I am, and on that basis I find your question extremely surprising.

Are you just looking for another quarrel?

Well, I shall not be participating.

[blackshoe]

Items 2 and 3 of the minutes of 8 September 2009, in São Paolo.

There was apparently some discussion about this, at least one member being of a different opinion.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2011-July-20, 11:50, said:

No law at all and I didn't say that either.

But I am quite confident that you are at least as familiar with WBFLC minutes etc. as I am, and on that basis I find your question extremely surprising.

Are you just looking for another quarrel?

Well, I shall not be participating.

I am merely tired of assertions that you make which are incorrect. It is true that in many situations the normal approach is as you say. But yet again you produce a didactic and incorrect rule and mislead many of our readers. There are certainly situations where it is quite clear from the actual wording that this "rule" is not correct and should not be followed.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-July-20, 17:28, said:

I am merely tired of assertions that you make which are incorrect. It is true that in many situations the normal approach is as you say. But yet again you produce a didactic and incorrect rule and mislead many of our readers. There are certainly situations where it is quite clear from the actual wording that this "rule" is not correct and should not be followed.

Look at yourself.
You have on several occations insulted me, and indeed the entire Norwegian set of directors, with (as it turned out unfounded) assertions that we rule contrary to the laws etc.

I cannot remember seeing you admitting anything.

I am tired too.

End.

PS.: Do you still maintain that specific laws do not take precedence over general laws?

[blackshoe]

Enough. Don't make me start deleting messages.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-20, 13:34, said:

Items 2 and 3 of the minutes of 8 September 2009, in São Paolo.

That's items 2 and 3 of the second part of the meeting. http://www.ecatsbrid...009-2Brazil.pdf

What it actually says is:

2. The committee discussed the interval between the
commencement of the auction period (Law 17A) and the
commencement of the auction (see Definitions) and exposure of a
card in this interval. Law 24 is a specific law and, where it applies
(the card may be visible to partner) it overrides the generality of
Law 16.
3. The committee was told of experience of a situation where a
player discovered at trick ten that he had held 14 cards originally.
The Director would have liked to redeal the board. Referring again
to the principle that a specific law overrides a general law, the
committee agreed that Law 13 must be applied and, if the board
cannot be corrected and played normally, an adjusted score
awarded.

I'm not convinced that quite adds up to making "the specific always overrides the general" an official interpretation of the laws, or at least not a substitute for looking at what the laws actually say. Bluejak argued that there are cases where individual specific laws are written in a way that is not intended to override more general law, in which case it would seem appropriate to read them that way. In other words, although in general we might say that the specific overrides the general, there can be specific cases where it does not!

[blackshoe]

Precisely.

[pran]

I'd like to be shown examples with the theory.