[blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[John Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard.hills at immi.gov.au>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


>
> Updated 2006 edition of EBU White Book, 58.2:
>
> "When two cards are both visible the player
> designates the card he proposes to play.
> This does not need to be the card he
> originally intended.  If he is a defender the
> remaining card is a penalty card but it is
> only a minor penalty card if it is not the
> card he originally intended,and is not an
> honour."

Yeah, I spotted this one in a tournament about 1997, and we kicked it around 
for a while. At the time I ruled per Kojak's 1999 view as it is clear to me 
that a Probst cheat can take advantage.  After a while I got howled down, 
and the "intention not relevant" interpretation was handed down to EBU TDs 
at a training course. So I rule per the White book in EBU events and per the 
WBF in events where the sponsor is not the EBU. ... but then I'm always in 
trouble with the EBU :)

John

>
> Richard Hills:
>
> I suspect that the compiler of the EBU White
> Book may have used his well-known silver-
> tongued oratory to persuade the English
> Bridge Union to ignore the two "authoritative
> opinions" of 1999.
>
> A problem I noted was that the compiler did
> not admit that any alternative Law 58B2
> interpretation (which was contrary to his own
> 58B2 interpretation) could ever conceivably
> be arguable.
>
> When I quibbled about this new White Book
> clause during the proof-reading stage, this
> exchange of emails occurred ->
>
> Richard Hills quibble, August 2006:
>
> "The mere fact that you see the need to
> create a new interpretation in the second
> edition of the White Book, rather than let
> TDs read Laws 58B2 and 50B for themselves,
> suggests that that new interpretation is
> _not_ difficult to argue with.  :-)"
>
> Compiler obvious response, August 2006:
>
> "Not so.  Lots of things are obvious **once
> pointed out** which are not otherwise.
> Realising something that can be extracted
> from the Laws is a normal pitfall.  Try
> giving a non-director an opening lead out of
> turn and ask him to find it in the Laws.
>
> "So the fact that we have realised a problem
> and solved it does not mean the solution is
> arguable."
>
>
> Season's greetings
>
> Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
> National Training Branch
> 02 6225 6285
>
> Your Rights at Work
> worth voting for
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml