[bluejak]

campboy, on Apr 27 2010, 01:30 AM, said:

The clause to confirm the blindingly obvious is present in Law 7B2: "each player counts his cards face down". Thus, by your own argument, the fact that the same clause is not to be found in 7C means that there is no requirement for the cards to be returned face down. The two laws, as you say, should be consistent.

Not according to the EBU L&EC. I put to them the possibility of a regulation to cover this. The L&EC's view is that the vital word is "restore": the cards are restored to the board if they are replaced in the same condition, so the word face down are unnecessary.

[campboy]

bluejak, on Jul 27 2010, 03:28 PM, said:

campboy, on Apr 27 2010, 01:30 AM, said:

The clause to confirm the blindingly obvious is present in Law 7B2: "each player counts his cards face down". Thus, by your own argument, the fact that the same clause is not to be found in 7C means that there is no requirement for the cards to be returned face down. The two laws, as you say, should be consistent.

Not according to the EBU L&EC. I put to them the possibility of a regulation to cover this. The L&EC's view is that the vital word is "restore": the cards are restored to the board if they are replaced in the same condition, so the word face down are unnecessary.

Great, thanks. So long as there is official guidance from the L&EC that the law is to be interpreted in that way, that seems to be all we need (within England, at least).

[axman]

campboy, on Jul 27 2010, 11:56 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 27 2010, 03:28 PM, said:

campboy, on Apr 27 2010, 01:30 AM, said:

The clause to confirm the blindingly obvious is present in Law 7B2: "each player counts his cards face down". Thus, by your own argument, the fact that the same clause is not to be found in 7C means that there is no requirement for the cards to be returned face down. The two laws, as you say, should be consistent.

Not according to the EBU L&EC. I put to them the possibility of a regulation to cover this. The L&EC's view is that the vital word is "restore": the cards are restored to the board if they are replaced in the same condition, so the word face down are unnecessary.

Great, thanks. So long as there is official guidance from the L&EC that the law is to be interpreted in that way, that seems to be all we need (within England, at least).

the LEC's assertion is faulty. The word restore cuts in more way than one.

Consider the case where the board arrived boxed. To restore then requires the board to be boxed.

Further consider that to restore the board requires the cards be returned in the same order.

[blackshoe]

What's that saying about from the sublime to the ridiculous?

[dburn]

axman, on Jul 27 2010, 02:09 PM, said:

Consider the case where the board arrived boxed.  To restore then requires the board to be boxed.

Further consider that to restore the board requires the cards be returned in the same order.

Not really. To "restore" is, among other things:

Oxford English Dictionary said:

To bring back to the original state; to improve, repair, or retouch (a thing) so as to bring back something like the original form or condition.

If we consider the "original state" of the cards in the board to be that immediately following a deal performed in accordance with Law 6B, then there were thirteen of them in each pocket randomly ordered and all face down. It is that state to which they should be "restored" in accordance with Law 7C.

Of course when that Law was written, instead of "restores them to the pocket..." the Lawmakers should have said "replaces them face down in the pocket..." Maybe one day the Laws will be written in English - but that will not constitute a restoration, merely a revolution.

[campboy]

axman, on Jul 27 2010, 08:09 PM, said:

the LEC's assertion is faulty.

It would not matter if it were. Insofar as I direct at EBU-affiliated clubs, the L&EC has the authority to tell me how to interpret law 7C.

[matmat]

jdonn, on Apr 26 2010, 07:12 PM, said:

He GOT ME!

<SARCASM>
































jdonn's head

[axman]

dburn, on Jul 27 2010, 04:39 PM, said:

axman, on Jul 27 2010, 02:09 PM, said:

Consider the case where the board arrived boxed.  To restore then requires the board to be boxed.

Further consider that to restore the board requires the cards be returned in the same order.

Not really. To "restore" is, among other things:

Oxford English Dictionary said:

To bring back to the original state; to improve, repair, or retouch (a thing) so as to bring back something like the original form or condition.

If we consider the "original state" of the cards in the board to be that immediately following a deal performed in accordance with Law 6B, then there were thirteen of them in each pocket randomly ordered and all face down. It is that state to which they should be "restored" in accordance with Law 7C.

Of course when that Law was written, instead of "restores them to the pocket..." the Lawmakers should have said "replaces them face down in the pocket..." Maybe one day the Laws will be written in English - but that will not constitute a restoration, merely a revolution.

This most certainly is a common usage for restore and it would do well to examine what effects there are:

1. To which original state is the target- today? last week? last year? Is it so outlandish to go back even further than a year- after all this is the.original.state.

I don't think so. But since the presumed original state is the cards put in the pockets after the deal of today, then why not should the original state be the cards as they arrive in the current round. If the player each round is culpable for the imperfections of they who preceeded him then he must have a mechanism to ascertain precisely the original state of the cards to protect himself if he so chooses. i could imagine that the mechanism should fall to the TD and I can believe easily that it can take some time for the TD to visit every table after every board.

On the other hand, if the player only is responsible to restoring the cards to his pocket as he found them for such a thing he needs no outside assistance and the game would proceed more quickly. And that is satisfactory reason for the presumptive original state to be the cards that arrive at the table.

Which all is neither here nor there. As you have said kings and potentates and rulemakers may speak and write as they fancy without regard for what carrying out the commands will look like. Yet, if every player at the Bermuda Bowl were to protect himself by verifying every hand with the TD that he gets the correct L6B cards in the correct order prior to actually returning the cards to the pocket then after Meckwell's, Hamman's, zia's, Hellness', Helgemo's, Versace's, Lauria's.......blood has been cleaned up there might be some impetus to write the rules in ENglish.

ps A reasonably entertaining vugraph Sunday.

[dburn]

axman, on Jul 27 2010, 06:22 PM, said:

To which original state is the target- today?  last week?  last year?  Is it so outlandish to go back even further than a year-  after all this is the originalstate.

One makes certain basic assumptions that may or may not seem reasonable. It would for example seem unreasonable to expect a player to attempt to restore the original state of his cards by planting a tree to replace the one cut down for the paper from which those cards were "originally" made.

On the other hand, it would seem reasonable to expect a player to "restore" the (ideal) state of the hand he received - 13 cards in random order all face down - by shuffling his cards and returning them to the board all face down. If the Law does not make it clear that this is what he should do - why, the Law should be changed. Until then, if the Law at any rate suggests that this is what he should do, and if it would in any case be a sensible thing to do - why, he should do it.

In the former case he can (after the Law is changed) be penalized for not doing it; in the latter case he cannot - but surely we do not play the game merely in order to irritate people by acting as obnoxiously as we can within the limits of the Laws. Do we?

In passing, we may remark that deliberately returning your cards to the board with one or more of them face up might interfere with the enjoyment of the game of the players at the table next to play the board. This is contrary to Law 74A2, so that...

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Jul 27 2010, 09:28 AM, said:

campboy, on Apr 27 2010, 01:30 AM, said:

The clause to confirm the blindingly obvious is present in Law 7B2: "each player counts his cards face down". Thus, by your own argument, the fact that the same clause is not to be found in 7C means that there is no requirement for the cards to be returned face down. The two laws, as you say, should be consistent.

Not according to the EBU L&EC. I put to them the possibility of a regulation to cover this. The L&EC's view is that the vital word is "restore": the cards are restored to the board if they are replaced in the same condition, so the word face down are unnecessary.

I think their interpretation of the implications of the word "restore" is wrong, but it's good to at least have their interpretation on record whatever it is.