[blml] ...law 24 and law 49... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
***********************
"Faith, that's as well said 
as if I had said it myself."
     ['Polite Conversation']

+++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard.hills at immi.gov.au>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] ...law 24 and law 49... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> Hans van Staveren:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>Again, if the laws are worded different there is probably
>>an intention that director should rule more strict in the
>>49 case than the 24 case, but is that really meant to be?
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> "Probably an intention"?  I prefer possibly an intention.
> Another possibility is a failure of comparative proof-
> reading between two Laws widely differing in Law numbers.
> 
> In the 1997 Lawbook there was a difference in wording
> between the strict Law 73C "carefully avoid taking any
> advantage that" and the loose Law 75 footnote "careful not
> to base subsequent actions on".
> 
> Players who claimed, "I was always going to choose logical
> alternative P," could point to the 1997 Law 75 footnote as
> justification, despite Law 73C requiring them to choose
> the less successful logical alternative Q.
> 
> But in the 2007 Lawbook the new Law 75 (successor to the
> 1997 Law 75 footnote) has been harmonised in wording with
> Law 73C - including addition of a cross-reference - thanks
> to one of the 2007 successes in comparative proof-reading.
> 
> 
+=+ Spoken like a true comparative proof reader 
                                    ~ G ~   +=+