[blml] 2007 Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

2007 Law Number Zero:

[snip]

Established usage has been retained in regard to "may" do (failure to
do it is not wrong), "does" (establishes correct procedure without
suggesting that violation be penalized) "should" do (failure to do it
is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor's rights but not often
penalized), "shall" do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty
more often than not), "must" do (the strongest word, a serious matter
indeed). Again, "must not" is the strongest prohibition, "shall not"
is strong but "may not" is stronger - just short of "must not".

[snip]

David Grabiner:

[snip]

>And L9B1 has also been corrected, so that the general obligation to
>call the Director is downgraded to "should" (otherwise, it would
>override L75, since attention has been drawn to an irregularity):
>
>  The Director should be summoned at once when
>  attention is drawn to an irregularity.

[snip]

>More of a problem is that L20F5 has not been corrected to agree
>with the new L75; calling the Director is still a "must" here

[snip]

Richard Hills:

This is not an inconsistency; the 1997 Law 9B1(a) "must" has been
changed to the 2007 Law 9B1(a) "should" for reasons which have
nothing to do with the 2007 Law 75.

David Grabiner (and Steve Willner) have forgotten Laws 9A1 and 9A2:

1. **Unless prohibited by Law**, any player may draw attention to an
irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn
to call.

2. **Unless prohibited by Law**, declarer or either defender may draw
attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period. For
incorrectly pointed card see Law 65B3.

Richard Hills:

And Law 75 **prohibits by law** a premature drawing of attention to a
specific type of irregularity.

While it is true that the general obligation to summon the Director
after an irregularity has been downgraded to "should", it is entirely
possible (and perhaps desirable) that for a specific infraction there
is a specific over-riding obligation of "must".

Admittedly some "but see" cross-references from the "should" Law
9B1(a) to such specific "must" Laws would be desirable.  However ->

2007 Law Number Zero:

[snip]

Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law,
nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference.

[snip]

Richard Hills:

But David Grabiner does have one valid point.  The "musts" appearing
in the 1997 Law 75D were inconsistent with the "should" appearing in
the 1997 Law 75 footnote.  Unfortunately this inconsistency was
carried forward when the 1997 Law 75D was transmogrified into the
2007 Law 20F5, and that part of the 1997 Law 75 footnote was
transmogrified into the 2007 Law 75B.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm