[blml] seven arguments for dws

[Hirsch Davis]

Herman De Wael wrote:

[snip]
>>>
>>> I have stated, a few times already, that if there are more than one
>>> "non-suggested" actions, then it would be wrong for the player to
>>> select the one which most clearly clarifies the misunderstanding to
>>> partner. It is Law 16 that supersedes Law 20F5. If there are no L16
>>> restrictions on a bid, then I do believe that L20F5 restricts other,
>>> non-suggested bids.
>>>       
[snip]
> Who says it's arbitrary? My hierarchy is well-founded in logic and 
> consistent.
>
> You also work off a hierarchy. You keep saying that "not lying about 
> agreements is fundamental to the game".
> So YOU are the one that ranks L73 above L20F5.
> I rank L73 below L20F5.
> I rank L16 above L20F5.
>
> What do you do? And why should we call either of these arbitrary?
>   
[snip]
>
> Don't you believe that L16 ranks higher than L20F5?
> If no question is asked, you are bound by L20F5. You say you would 
> remain quiet. Are you going to pass 3Di because bidding 3He would 
> "reveal that a mistake is being made". No you are not. You will also 
> rank L16 above L20F5.
>
> So why do you criticize me for making a ranking of the laws?
>
>   

The only "hierarchy" of Laws that actually means anything is the 
Introduction to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. In the Introduction, 
the wording used in the Laws is explained, so that TD's and players may 
have some idea of the "strength" of a Law.  For example, a Law using the 
word "may" is actually optional.  It describes an action that the player 
can choose to take, or not.  The word "should" is stronger, etc. Any Law 
using "must" is a very strong imperative, subject to major penalties if 
violated.

To summarize what is said in that paragraph of the Introduction, in 
order of increasing severity of a violation, the Laws are written with 
the words "may", "does", "should", "shall" and "must".  In the negative, 
the Laws are written with the words "does not", "should not", "shall 
not", "may not", and "must not", again in order of increasing severity 
of a violation.

L73C uses the word "must", while L20F5a uses the language "may not".  
Violation of 73C is to be considered more severe than violation of 
20F5a, regardless of your own ranking. Since your ranking is not in 
agreement with the language written into the Introduction, it can only 
be considered arbitrary.

L16B1a and L20F5a both use the "may not" language, which would indicate 
that in terms of severity of a violation, the Lawmakers rated them 
roughly equal.  Saying that one "supercedes" the other  is simply 
creating a fictional set of Laws, rather than understanding the ones 
we've got.

So, you get criticized because whatever "hierarchy" the Lawmakers 
intended is already there, and spelled out in the Introduction. There is 
no need to introduce your own, and arbitrarily overriding the language 
written into the Laws is going to get you criticized, as it should.

Hirsch