[Cascade]

NickRW, on Jul 18 2009, 12:18 AM, said:

So I agree with you in principle, the rule could stand being rewritten. In practice I agree with David.

This seems quite unworkable in practice when the two alternative meanings are very different.

How is one supposed to know whether the writer intended what is written or some other construction.

The document is intended to be precise in nature. It shows the boundary between what is allowed and what is not allowed.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jul 17 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

How is one supposed to know whether the writer intended what is written or some other construction.

Because the literal interpretation is ridiculous in this instance? And because the first part of the same paragraph used 'or' to make the same point about a different bid, so you even have a comparison point? We all know you either can't or choose not to interpret anything differently from exactly how it is written even when that is obviously incorrect or ridiculous or false or open to interpretation, but for most of the rest of us it doesn't seem to be a problem.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 18 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 17 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

How is one supposed to know whether the writer intended what is written or some other construction.

Because the literal interpretation is ridiculous in this instance? And because the first part of the same paragraph used 'or' to make the same point about a different bid, so you even have a comparison point? We all know you either can't or choose not to interpret anything differently from exactly how it is written even when that is obviously incorrect or ridiculous or false or open to interpretation, but for most of the rest of us it doesn't seem to be a problem.

i dispute that it is ridiculous. Or does ridiculous just mean something that you don't agree with?

[Lobowolf]

Cascade, on Jul 17 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 18 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 17 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

How is one supposed to know whether the writer intended what is written or some other construction.

Because the literal interpretation is ridiculous in this instance? And because the first part of the same paragraph used 'or' to make the same point about a different bid, so you even have a comparison point? We all know you either can't or choose not to interpret anything differently from exactly how it is written even when that is obviously incorrect or ridiculous or false or open to interpretation, but for most of the rest of us it doesn't seem to be a problem.

i dispute that it is ridiculous. Or does ridiculous just mean something that you don't agree with?

You don't think, given that the rule sets forth constraints for people using conventional weak 2 bids, that it would be ridiculous to permit them if the weak-2 bid shows 4-10 HCP but could be made on a void?

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jul 17 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 18 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 17 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

How is one supposed to know whether the writer intended what is written or some other construction.

Because the literal interpretation is ridiculous in this instance? And because the first part of the same paragraph used 'or' to make the same point about a different bid, so you even have a comparison point? We all know you either can't or choose not to interpret anything differently from exactly how it is written even when that is obviously incorrect or ridiculous or false or open to interpretation, but for most of the rest of us it doesn't seem to be a problem.

i dispute that it is ridiculous.

LOL

[barmar]

NickRW, on Jul 17 2009, 08:18 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 17 2009, 07:43 AM, said:

The regulation could mean what you suggest.  But that would require that they wrote something different than what they chose to write.  When they write the regulation differently it means something different.

Having been a programmer most of my adult life, I tend to be quite careful about the use of 'and' and 'or'. However, many people are quite sloppy about it, especially with respect to saying 'and' when they mean 'or'. I used to try to correct them, but I soon found I was beating my head against a brick wall - better to just understand what they really meant than what they actually said.

So I agree with you in principle, the rule could stand being rewritten. In practice I agree with David.

In this case, I think it's obvious that the person who was wording the regulation got confused by all the negations, and lost track of the grouping of the clauses. If you're not a logician, de Morgan's Theorem doesn't come naturally.

They'd have had a better chance of getting it right if they'd written it as a set of bullet points rather than a complex prose sentence.

What makes the strict reading "ridiculous" is that it's clearly inconsistent with the spirit of the other regulations.

[jnichols]

Read #7 under responses and rebids.

[Cascade]

Lobowolf, on Jul 18 2009, 08:36 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 17 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 18 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 17 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

How is one supposed to know whether the writer intended what is written or some other construction.

Because the literal interpretation is ridiculous in this instance? And because the first part of the same paragraph used 'or' to make the same point about a different bid, so you even have a comparison point? We all know you either can't or choose not to interpret anything differently from exactly how it is written even when that is obviously incorrect or ridiculous or false or open to interpretation, but for most of the rest of us it doesn't seem to be a problem.

i dispute that it is ridiculous. Or does ridiculous just mean something that you don't agree with?

You don't think, given that the rule sets forth constraints for people using conventional weak 2 bids, that it would be ridiculous to permit them if the weak-2 bid shows 4-10 HCP but could be made on a void?

As it happens I do not have the paranoia about such methods that some seem to have. If it is a good method then why not play it and if it is a bad method then most likely most will give it up quickly. And if not we will get good scores against them (on average).

However my understanding of the GCC is that there is an implicit licence given for 'natural' methods e.g. 5-card majors (natural) are not explicitly licenced in the same way that weak twos are not licenced. The method that you describe is not 'natural' and therefore there is no licence.

[Cascade]

barmar, on Jul 18 2009, 09:59 AM, said:

NickRW, on Jul 17 2009, 08:18 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 17 2009, 07:43 AM, said:

The regulation could mean what you suggest.  But that would require that they wrote something different than what they chose to write.  When they write the regulation differently it means something different.

Having been a programmer most of my adult life, I tend to be quite careful about the use of 'and' and 'or'. However, many people are quite sloppy about it, especially with respect to saying 'and' when they mean 'or'. I used to try to correct them, but I soon found I was beating my head against a brick wall - better to just understand what they really meant than what they actually said.

So I agree with you in principle, the rule could stand being rewritten. In practice I agree with David.

In this case, I think it's obvious that the person who was wording the regulation got confused by all the negations, and lost track of the grouping of the clauses. If you're not a logician, de Morgan's Theorem doesn't come naturally.

They'd have had a better chance of getting it right if they'd written it as a set of bullet points rather than a complex prose sentence.

What makes the strict reading "ridiculous" is that it's clearly inconsistent with the spirit of the other regulations.

Why is this obvious?

What happens when someone thinks it is obvious and someone else doesn't? In this case the laws of bridge actually require that the director abide by the announced regulation not someone's interpretation that it is supposed to mean something different.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 18 2009, 09:48 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 17 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 18 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 17 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

How is one supposed to know whether the writer intended what is written or some other construction.

Because the literal interpretation is ridiculous in this instance? And because the first part of the same paragraph used 'or' to make the same point about a different bid, so you even have a comparison point? We all know you either can't or choose not to interpret anything differently from exactly how it is written even when that is obviously incorrect or ridiculous or false or open to interpretation, but for most of the rest of us it doesn't seem to be a problem.

i dispute that it is ridiculous.

LOL

Yet another compelling argument - not!

How many other uses of the words "and" or "or" do you think we should not read literally in the regulations?

I really think this is a ridiculous interpretation that we should assume that the regulators were incompetent and meant something different than what they wrote and they have left the regulation unchanged for years.

[Cascade]

jnichols, on Jul 18 2009, 02:14 PM, said:

Read #7 under responses and rebids.

What is the relevance of this:

"7. ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder’s
second call."

[pdmunro]

2. ACBL General Convention Chart

DISALLOWED

7. ... "and weak two bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and or do not show at least five cards in the suit."

http://www.danaharborbridgecenter.org/Conv...Conventions.pdf

***************************************************************************

ACBL GENERAL CONVENTION CHART

DISALLOWED

7. ... "and weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit.

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...ntion-Chart.pdf

[Cascade]

He said "under responses and rebids".

I suppose it is fitting in this discussion that he doesn't mean what he said.

[TimG]

Cascade, on Jul 18 2009, 08:43 AM, said:

He said "under responses and rebids".

I suppose it is fitting in this discussion that he doesn't mean what he said.

From the GCC RESPONSES AND REBIDS section:

7. ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP),
forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher. (For
this classification, by partnership agreement, weak two-bids must be
within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must contain at least five cards – See
#7 under DISALLOWED.)

Seems to me that he meant just what he said.

[TimG]

pdmunro, on Jul 18 2009, 07:23 AM, said:

http://www.danaharborbridgecenter.org/Conv...Conventions.pdf

This link is not to a current ACBL General Convention Chart. In fact, it looks like a modified version of the GCC. Perhaps meant for use in the Dana Harbor Bridge Center?

[cherdanno]

When is the last time you played an ACBL tournament, Wayne?

[Jlall]

Is the general consensus that we think Wayne is serious in this thread (or the other ones like it)?

Adam, FWIW that is a ridiculous ruling and you should not tolerate being treated that way. I know from experience that you might get treated this way more than others based on your age.

[Cascade]

cherdanno, on Jul 19 2009, 03:32 AM, said:

When is the last time you played an ACBL tournament, Wayne?

Within the last year.

[Cascade]

Cascade, on Jul 18 2009, 08:41 PM, said:

jnichols, on Jul 18 2009, 02:14 PM, said:

Read #7 under responses and rebids.

What is the relevance of this:

"7. ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder’s
second call."

Is there an alternative version of the GCC where this is numbered 7. I know all I did last night was copy and paste this.

[Cascade]

Jlall, on Jul 19 2009, 09:00 AM, said:

Is the general consensus that we think Wayne is serious in this thread (or the other ones like it)?

Adam, FWIW that is a ridiculous ruling and you should not tolerate being treated that way. I know from experience that you might get treated this way more than others based on your age.

Justin are you serious?

I mean do you think rules should mean something different than what is written down?

If so then this truely is a LOL.