[blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll)

[Sven Pran]

I believe the difference between "board" and "deal" becomes clearer if you
consider tournaments where at the same time several copies of the same board
are in use. "Deal" then refers to how the 52 cards are split between the
four hands as the result of a dealing process while "board" refers to each
individual physical implementation of this deal.

Thus you can have only one deal with a particular number while you can have
several boards with the same number. In fact the board number need not even
match the deal number; for instance the board number for deal 33 in an event
is frequently 1 (and so on). 

Regards Sven

> -----Original Message-----
> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]
> On Behalf Of Robert Geller
> Sent: 3. mars 2008 10:01
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll)
> 
> March 3, 2008
> 
> Dear BLMLers (especially DSC members or people
> involved in translating the Laws),
> 
> I'm hoping you can help me out.  As you know I'm one
> of several people working on checking and editing the
> Japanese version of the 2007 Laws.
> 
> First, a general philosophical question.  I'm sure that in
> principle everyone agrees that the translators of the Laws
> ought to respect the original English version and not make
> arbitrary changes to the meaning. But in many cases the
> 2007 Laws (like earlier versions) have various minor flaws.
> 
> Q1.When it appears clear to the translators that
> there are minor flaws in the laws, should they:
> A.	Nonetheless strive to translate the
> 	 Laws as closely as possible.
> B.	Aim at a reasonable translation, but use
> 	 commonsense to make minor changes as needed.
> C.	Other (please specify)
> 
> Next let's look a concrete example.   This is not really
> important one way or the other in itself, but serves as
> a litmus test.   Let's consider the case of "board"
> and "deal."  As I'm sure most BLMLers know (see
> definitions, excerpt in attached file), the "definitions"
> section of the 2007 Laws allows either to be used
> interchangeably as the unit of the bidding and play
> of a board.   In looking at the English version of the
>  2007 Laws it seems that most of the time "board"
> is used as the unit of play, but once in a while "deal"
> is also used (I suspect the latter is mostly a holdover
> from the rubber bridge laws, but some may result from
> a reluctance to use the word "board" twice in one sentence.)
> 
> Anyway in the cases where "deal" and "board" are used
> in an interchangeable sense I'd like to use one term only in
> the Japanese edition.  Since "board" is used more often by
> far in the present edition, and also because "board" is more
> familiar to ordinary Japanese players and directors than "deal,"
> I'd like to use "board" in all such cases.   (Needless to say,
> in the cases where "deal" is use to indicate the distribution
> of the cards I'd leave this as is.)  To assist you in understanding
> what I mean I've gone through the English edition (see next two
> pages) and indicated each place where I'm proposing to replace
> "deal" by "board" in the Japanese edition.
> 
> Q2. What is your opinion of the proposed change?
> A.	Strictly forbidden.  "Deal" may not be replaced by "board"
> 	even where the meaning is unchanged.
> B.	No problem.  Such minor commonsense alterations are OK.
> C.	Other (please specify.
> 
> Thanks for your help.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bob
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Robert (Bob) Geller,     Tokyo, Japan        geller at nifty.com