[blml] Law 12 A 1.

[David Burn]

[GE]

I agree with the first of these paragraphs. Concerning the second I defer to
the definition of 'rectification' in the 2007 Laws. It reads "the remedial
provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director's
attention'. This does not go as far as 'put right'; it measures short of the
dictionary meaning of the word.

[DALB]

The trouble is that it falls short of its own definition also. To "remedy"
is:

To cure (a disease, etc.); to put right, reform (a state of things); to
rectify, make good.

{Oxford English Dictionary}

It used also to be:

To grant (one) legal remedy; to right (one) in respect of a wrong suffered.

{ibid}

Now, if a "provision to be applied" still leaves some non-offending party
suffering a wrong, then it is not "remedial". It should be fairly clear that
the root of the word is the same as the root of words such as "medical" -
the Latin "mederi", to heal). It should also be fairly clear that reliance
on the definition in the Laws - "rectification" is "remedial", while to
"remedy" means to "rectify" - is circular and therefore useless.

Don't get me wrong. I am entirely and implacably opposed to the notion that
the rules of any game should have any basis in real-life notions of what is
"equitable". I think that the rules of a game should determine what is and
what is not legal while the game is being played, and that as long as people
operate within those rules while playing the game, no censure of their
morality or standards of ethical behaviour is appropriate in the least.
That's why people play games, for pity's sake - games are a momentary escape
from life, where we have to judge ourselves and be judged by others
according to vague and woolly notions of what is "right", or "fair", or
"just".

I am on record as saying that the penalty for a revoke should be death. I
didn't entirely mean it, but at least if it were so, the game would soon be
played only by people who could follow suit, and we would not need several
pages of revoke laws. Similarly, if you claim all the tricks when you
haven't got them, you should lose all the tricks you conceivably could, and
(a) that would teach you to claim properly next time; (b) we would not have
to listen to Herman blethering on about what is normal. It is obvious that
someone who claims the rest of the tricks when he hasn't got them is acting
abnormally, so why should anyone care what this lunatic was about to do?

I don't believe that umpires should be telepaths - I believe they should be
robots, who apply a set of rigid rules to any given set of circumstances,
with the same outcome in the same circumstances for Mrs Guggenheim and Mr
Helgemo. No one was more abashed than I was when that idiot Hallberg claimed
his contract on a double squeeze and was awarded his contract, even though
the outcome was extremely favourable as far as I was concerned (regular
readers will know what I am talking about; irregular readers need not care).

But there are enough benighted souls out there who think that the laws of
bridge, unlike the laws of any other game in the entire history of the
entire world, should somehow incorporate notions of "fairness", "justice",
"equity" and - may angels and ministers of grace defend us -
"sportsmanship", imported from real life. The 2007 Laws differ from
preceding versions largely to the extent that they attempt to embody these
vague ideas by using words such as "rectification" instead of "penalty".

So be it. I'm still going to play bridge, and I'm still going to worry about
what the rules say. Even if the rules, reflecting the opinion of the
majority of players and of those currently in charge of the game's
administration, are to be based on the principles of equity, they still have
my full support. I'll give equitable rulings, and I won't shoot anyone who
revokes. But in the name of all that is wonderful - can't the WBFLC use
words I can understand?

David Burn
London, England