[bluejak]

I tend to use an American Law book for reference because (a) it lies flat, being made on ring binder principles, and (b) it has a Contents. The prefaces are somewhat different, and ACBL footnotes and elections musy be ignored, but I understood the text was identical to the English edition except for some words in Law 12C1E, which we do not use.

So today I made a fool of myself by quoting from Law 26A2 - and discovered serious differences in the first couple of lines!

So my question is simple: are there any other differences in the text?

[blackshoe]

12C2{c}: the ACBL version has a footnote that does not exist in the WBF version. It specifies that when an ArtAS is awarded, the OS receives the complement of the NOS's score, regardless of their score on the other boards of the session.

There may be others.

[paua]

"Honour" is spelt incorrectly.

[blackshoe]

 paua, on 2013-January-30, 19:57, said:

"Honour" is spelt incorrectly.

In the WBF version, yes.

[barmar]

There was a thread a few months ago where someone noticed that there's a law whose subpoints are numbered in one version, lettered in the other. Don't remember which law it is.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2013-January-31, 03:31, said:

There was a thread a few months ago where someone noticed that there's a law whose subpoints are numbered in one version, lettered in the other. Don't remember which law it is.

Law 35. Letters in the ACBL version, numbers in the WBF version. Law 71 has numbers in both versions.

[gordontd]

 bluejak, on 2013-January-30, 16:27, said:

The prefaces are somewhat different,

Yes - the preface in the American version deleted the bit in the Preface that starts: "Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and experience of Directors..." Nice vote of confidence from the ACBL for their directors!

[gnasher]

Both: if the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits ...

WBF: if any suit specified in the withdrawn call was not specified by the same player in the legal auction ...
ACBL: if each such suit was not specified in the legal auction by the same player ...

Are these meant to have different meanings?

Both: ... require the offender's partner to lead such a suit

In the ACBL, does "such a suit" mean "any suit specified in the withdrawn call", or "any suit specified in the withdrawn call and not specified in the substituted call"?

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2013-February-01, 09:38, said:

Both: if the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits ...

WBF: if any suit specified in the withdrawn call was not specified by the same player in the legal auction ...
ACBL: if each such suit was not specified in the legal auction by the same player ...

Are these meant to have different meanings?

Both: ... require the offender's partner to lead such a suit

In the ACBL, does "such a suit" mean "any suit specified in the withdrawn call", or "any suit specified in the withdrawn call and not specified in the substituted call"?

I have no idea on how ACBL intends Law 26, but the WBF intention and the laws are clear:

The lead restrictions in Law 26A apply to such suit(s) to which the withdrawn call relates, that was not specified in the legal auction by the same player.

Example: A withdrawn call related to both minor suits.

If both minor suits are specified by the same player in the legal auction then there is no lead restriction.
If one, but not the other minor suit is so specified then lead restrictions apply on the suit not so specified.
If neither minor suit is so specified then lead restrictions apply on both minor suits.

[barmar]

The logic is pretty obvious: withdrawn bids are UI to partner, and normally subject to lead restrictions. But if the suit was also specified legally, that lead restriction is removed. So the lead restrictions apply to any suits that were specified in withdrawn calls, but not in legal calls.

I think the two wordings are intended to be equivalent. 26A1 and 26A2 are supposed to be mutually-exclusive cases that should encompass all possibilities.

[suprgrover]

12C1eii:

WBF: For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable.

ACBL: For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred.

This discrepancy is quite puzzling, because 12C1eii is in place to meet the desires of the ACBL, so one would think that the ACBL members of the drafting committees would have gotten this one right.

[barmar]

In the 1997 laws, those clauses were all part of one long sentence, and the wording suggested that "had the irregularity not occurred" applied to both: When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable.

The 2007 laws split these into separate subclauses. It seems like the WBF drafters made a mistake in not copying that qualifier into each of them, to reflect the original parallelism.

Since ACBL is one of the few places where 12C1e is used instead of 12C1c, it looks like they took care to make it say what was intended.

[jallerton]

 barmar, on 2013-February-13, 11:17, said:

In the 1997 laws, those clauses were all part of one long sentence, and the wording suggested that "had the irregularity not occurred" applied to both: When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable.

The 2007 laws split these into separate subclauses. It seems like the WBF drafters made a mistake in not copying that qualifier into each of them, to reflect the original parallelism.

Since ACBL is one of the few places where 12C1e is used instead of 12C1c, it looks like they took care to make it say what was intended.

Whilst I would have agreed with your interpretation of what the wording of the 1997 Law 12C2 appeared to say, the WBFLC had different ideas:

WBFLC Minutes Montreal 2002 said:

2. The interpretation of Law12C2 was discussed. Mr. Wildavsky put his view that this law should be interpreted as though it read “for a non-offending side the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred”. It was drawn to the attention of the Committee that on a previous occasion the subject had been discussed and the Committee had agreed that the law does not attach this limitation to the adjustment for the offending side. The Committee found no reason to reconsider that decision.

So I would suggest that when the 2007 Laws were written, this Law was rephrased to clarify what the WBFLC had intended all along.

[barmar]

So ACBL ignored the committee discussion and used the Wildavsky interpretation? Wouldn't be the first time we ignored the international laws.

[Zelandakh]

Talking about the international (WBF) Laws, does anyone know where they moved their online hyperlinked copy to? I can only find the PDF on the "improved" site and that is a PITA to use.

[Siegmund]

Quote

Since ACBL is one of the few places where 12C1e is used instead of 12C1c, it looks like they took care to make it say what was intended.

Quote

So I would suggest that when the 2007 Laws were written, this Law was rephrased to clarify what the WBFLC had intended all along.

Quote

So ACBL ignored the committee discussion and used the Wildavsky interpretation?

The odd thing about this is that, in 2002, we (well, many of us) in the ACBL started doing it in accordance with the Montreal minute, even though a lot of us thought Wildavsky's reading was correct --- and nobody told me in 2007 I was supposed to go back to doing it the way I was before 2002. In fact I just explained this rule to someone last weekend, on the drive back home from a tournament, including the significance of applying "had the irregularity not occurred" to only one partnership.

As far as I knew, the new wording to reflect the WBF interpretation was in everybody's 2007 book. I am surprised to find out otherwise. I don't recall the ACBL ever deliberately rejecting that interpretation.

[barmar]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-March-01, 05:40, said:

Talking about the international (WBF) Laws, does anyone know where they moved their online hyperlinked copy to? I can only find the PDF on the "improved" site and that is a PITA to use.

I sent mail to the webmaster complaining about the removal. I haven't received a reply yet. I encourage everyone else to write as well.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2013-March-01, 17:00, said:

I sent mail to the webmaster complaining about the removal. I haven't received a reply yet. I encourage everyone else to write as well.

No need. You can get a Word version here.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2013-March-01, 22:55, said:

No need. You can get a Word version here.

That's no better, it doesn't have hyperlinks either.

[Vampyr]

Um. What are hyperlinks?