[spaderaise]

 bluejak, on 2012-October-22, 19:00, said:

Hmmm. I think it is clear, but people do not believe it is clear.

A double is alertable if it asks for a suit other than the suit doubled.

I cannot imagine how anyone thinks this applies in any way to a double of no-trumps.

Try this comparison: a tax law that says "A gift is taxable if it is made to a person other than the spouse of the giver". Would you say "I cannot imagine how anyone thinks this applies in any way to a gift made by somebody unmarried"? No, it obviously does apply also to unmarried people. If the giver has no spouse, then any person is "a person other than the spouse of the giver".

In a similar way, a natural reading of the sentence above is that if there is no suit doubled, then any suit is "a suit other than the suit doubled".

[Zelandakh]

Your tay anaology is flawed but I think I can make it work. Taxable = suit; non-taxable = no trumps; declaration = lead-direction; income = denomination

Section 1: Declare all direct income here
Section 2: Declare here all taxable income other than taxable income in Section 1

The difficulty is in finding something that has the same property as suit/no trump = denomination. In your example you have tried to use person = denomination; spouse = suit; non-spouse = NT; giving = lead-direction. The trouble is that when you plus this in to the sentence you get "a spouse of the giver other than the legal spouse", something that is simply not possible. It has already been pointed out that substituting denomination for suit in the current wording would clear up the meaning completely (making it what lamford says). Your example demonstrates this. The wording could also be cleared up very simply to make it what David says. It is clear to me that both ways of parsing the sentence are reasonable and that this is something the EBU should address (which I assume was the point of lamford starting this thread in the first place).

[spaderaise]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-October-23, 03:19, said:

Your tax analogy is flawed but I think I can make it work.

Well, thanks, but you're reading more into it than intended. All it was serving to demonstrate is that a regulation that says "other than the spouse of the giver" can apply perfectly well when there is no spouse of the giver. In the same way, a regulation saying "other than the suit doubled" could perfectly well apply when there is no suit doubled.

I don't think that one interpretation is right, and the other wrong, in the case of the bridge regulation. It's ambiguous, as you quite rightly say. I was just mystified that David was (by his own account) unable even to imagine the other reading.

[barmar]

 spaderaise, on 2012-October-23, 00:59, said:

Try this comparison: a tax law that says "A gift is taxable if it is made to a person other than the spouse of the giver". Would you say "I cannot imagine how anyone thinks this applies in any way to a gift made by somebody unmarried"? No, it obviously does apply also to unmarried people. If the giver has no spouse, then any person is "a person other than the spouse of the giver".

In a similar way, a natural reading of the sentence above is that if there is no suit doubled, then any suit is "a suit other than the suit doubled".

I think to fit the analogy, you have to ask whether a gift to a DOG is taxable. The tax law specifies "a person" (just as the bridge regulation specifies "a suit"), but a dog is not a person (just as NT is not a suit).

[campboy]

 barmar, on 2012-October-23, 09:25, said:

I think to fit the analogy, you have to ask whether a gift to a DOG is taxable. The tax law specifies "a person" (just as the bridge regulation specifies "a suit"), but a dog is not a person (just as NT is not a suit).

I disagree. Asking whether a gift to a dog is taxable in this analogy is like asking whether a double that requests partner to lead a no-trump is alertable.

[CamHenry]

 campboy, on 2012-October-23, 09:54, said:

I disagree. Asking whether a gift to a dog is taxable in this analogy is like asking whether a double that requests partner to lead a no-trump is alertable.

"Don't lead anything, P; I'm going to be on lead"?

"Don't lead anything; I want to lead out of turn"?!

[spaderaise]

 barmar, on 2012-October-23, 09:25, said:

I think to fit the analogy, you have to ask whether a gift to a DOG is taxable. The tax law specifies "a person" (just as the bridge regulation specifies "a suit"), but a dog is not a person (just as NT is not a suit).

Probably more posts devoted to this by now than it deserves! - but for what it's worth, the analogy is between the phrase "person other than <description of non-existent person>" and the phrase "suit other than <description of non-existent suit>".

[barmar]

 spaderaise, on 2012-October-25, 08:29, said:

Probably more posts devoted to this by now than it deserves! - but for what it's worth, the analogy is between the phrase "person other than <description of non-existent person>" and the phrase "suit other than <description of non-existent suit>".

You can't just match up words ("time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana"), you have to recognize the logic.

[spaderaise]

 barmar, on 2012-October-25, 18:26, said:

You can't just match up words ("time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana"), you have to recognize the logic.

A double is alertable if it asks for a suit other than the suit doubled.

A gift is taxable if it is made to a person other than the spouse of the giver.

<Statement A> holds if <C, specific object of type B> is an <object of type B> "other than" <description D>

where "description D" specifies precisely 1 or 0 (according to circumstance) objects of type B.

<Statement A>: Alert is required
<type B>: suit
<C>: suit requested
<description D>: "the suit doubled"

<Statement A>: Tax is payable
<type B>: person
<C>: person to whom gift is made
<description D>: "the spouse of the giver"

The question is: does the regulation apply if the number of objects described by D is zero rather than one?

Campboy's reply to you is on the money. Asking "what if the gift is made to a dog" is asking "what if C is not of type B", hence "what if the thing requested is not a suit".

OK?

[barmar]

 spaderaise, on 2012-October-26, 03:03, said:

OK?

OK.

However, the context of the two regulations is different, which allows for different expectations for how they should be interpreted. Just because two statements have the same lexical structure doesn't mean they translate to the same set theory proposition. As an example, there are times when "or" means "inclusive or", other times it means "exclusive or", and this is usually determined from context (in cases where it's not obvious, we say "and/or" or "either ... or ...").

[Quartic]

I had a similar situation last Thursday:

---

I was West and hadn't discussed lead directing doubles of slams with East, so didn't alert partner's double. I led a spade because my general bridge knowledge told me that was the right lead if partner's double was lead directing. After the hand we discussed it, and agreed that double of a slam asks for dummy's first bid suit. It is still not clear to me whether I should alert in this sequence in the future.

Declarer said after the hand that if he had been certain that his partner's aces weren't in spades he would have bid 7♣.

[spaderaise]

 barmar, on 2012-October-27, 21:04, said:

OK.

However, the context of the two regulations is different, which allows for different expectations for how they should be interpreted. Just because two statements have the same lexical structure doesn't mean they translate to the same set theory proposition. As an example, there are times when "or" means "inclusive or", other times it means "exclusive or", and this is usually determined from context (in cases where it's not obvious, we say "and/or" or "either ... or ...").

Indeed. Of course. I am not arguing that the two need to be interpreted the same way. The bridge regulation is ambiguous - there are two sensible ways to interpret it. I already said this above, and many others had already said it. I posted in response to David, who said that he was unable even to imagine how somebody could interpret it as applying to a double of a no-trump bid. I really didn't expect it to be contentious!