broze, on 2013-December-03, 10:03, said:
That's not in the slightest what I was trying to suggest. I wasn't aware I was introducing a "concept" - I don't even understand why you've quoted that sentence of mine and then made that reply. Not only am I not saying that "I can't find a specific rule against it", I'm saying it is illegal under
two laws in my opinion (73D2, which the OP thinks is not the case, and 73D1). What on earth is wrong about that?
I'm certainly not trying to suggest that something can be illegal without contravening any laws.
One meaning of
prima facie is "accepted as correct until proven otherwise". In effect, then, you said that a TD should rule against someone who did this unless he (or someone) can prove there's no law against it. So it seemed to me you
were trying to suggest something can be illegal without contravening any laws.
broze, on 2013-December-03, 10:03, said:
73D1, the law which, barmar and Andy were discussing. I thought that was clear. If you would have used 73D2, then you would have to explain to the OP why you think that by "showing" the ace by his hesitation, he is misleading the opponent. (See my last post why I think this is the case)
It wasn't clear to me at the time.
Generally, in making rulings, I try to explain to the players involved why I'm ruling as I do. This in spite of the fact that most TDs (in the ACBL anyway) don't do that, and many players think it's a waste of time. IAC, I would have no problem explaining why I think 73D2 has been breached in this case.
broze, on 2013-December-03, 10:03, said:
The semantic point about 'rule' vs 'law' notwithstanding, what is your point? Are you saying that 73D1 is not a good law? I was stating that I think it is a very good law despite the fact that it is, as barmar said, very subjective. I can't work out whether you disagree or not. From your post it seems like you haven't read the whole thread.
You seemed to want to grant "Law" some higher status that "rule", or at least you differentiated between "Law book" and "rule book". All I'm saying is that I don't think there's any difference where a game is concerned (well, "rule" can include "regulation" which in bridge is a different thing from a "law", although having the same force). As a matter of fact, I think it's kind of pretentious for the powers that be in our game to call them "laws" rather than "rules".
I do not think 73D1 is a bad law. Nor is 73D2. If this situation occurred where I was directing, I'd want to investigate a bit. I'm inclined to rule a violation of 73D2, but that depends on intent, and if the transgressor insists (and I believe him) that he was not attempting to deceive, but rather to clarify, and does not accept my view that he didn't think about the impact of what he was doing deeply enough, I may have to find another law. There's also the question of what to do if declarer says "I was not deceived; I simply ignored his tempo." Of course, the law doesn't say that an attempt to deceive must be successful.
I read every post in these forums, including those from the very few players I've ignored because of their posts in other areas. I may lose track of a long thread, though, in which case I'll usually, but I admit not always, go back and skim it, particularly if something doesn't make sense. In this case though I didn't lose track of anything. I may not have explained myself very well. If so, I apologize, and I hope this post clears things up.
Help
