0

We're having a discussion in a forum on rulings in duplicate bridge. In duplicate bridge, each partnership has their own set of bidding system agreements, and there are regulations that specify that certain bids must be alerted, depending on what their meanings are (usually, common agreements are not alerted, while unusual agreements are). In the English Bridge Union, these regulations are in the Blue Book, and it states that the following is not alertable:

[4C1] (c) A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings.

The question has come up in our discussion over whether unexpectedly applies only to convey values or also includes specify suit holdings.

I argued that it applies to both, because there are easy ways for them to reword it to indicate otherwise, and also because there are many common situations where a pass implies suit holdings that I don't believe the regulators intended to require an alert.

But another poster suggested that they could simply have repeated unexpectedly before each verb phrase to indicate clearly that both are intended, and he doesn't seem to agree with my extension to the other situations (which hinges on how precisely specify suit holdings should be interpreted).

Is the actual wording truly ambiguous, or should it normally be interpreted one way or the other?

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    I think this is a case where context makes the meaning clear. Why would you need to alert a pass that expectedly specified suit holdings? If your partner bids three hearts, and you're happy with it (and don't think you can make four), why would you need to alert the opponents that you aren't very short in hearts.
    – Peter Shor
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 18:26
  • @PeterShor There are some instances where we alert expected meanings, usually because addressing all the possible cases makes the alerting regulations harder to remember. So to keep them simpler, they usually address broad categories, and sometimes common meanings are included in the alertable cases.
    – Barmar
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 19:40

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

There is nothing wrong with either of the two sentence structures associated with the meanings you're concerned with, so it's grammatically ambiguous. There could be something special about the context and the way such rules are customarily interpreted that eliminates one of the readings, I suppose, but that wouldn't be a grammatical issue.

Improve this answer
2
  • I was hoping there would be a more general answer, since the argument is occurring among people who are experienced in interpreting bridge laws and regulations, and we don't agree on how the context implies it should go.
    – Barmar
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 19:42
  • @Barmar, Sorry.
    – Greg Lee
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 20:33
0

The use of the infinitive for "specify" indicates it is connected to "does not unexpectedly," which is an do-auxiliary umbrella for both main verbs, "convey" and "specify."

This is not:

A pass [which does not unexpectedly convey values] or [[which] specifies] suit holdings.

where decoupling might be in effect.

No ambiguity to me.

Improve this answer
4
  • 'A dog which does not noisily bark or bite', with the adverb modifying only the first infinitive, seems acceptable.
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 18:53
  • @EdwinAshworth If the adverb can't sensibly apply to both verbs, that's an obvious exception. Although I'd write that as does not bark noisily or bite. Analogously, the original sentence could have been does not convey unexpected values or specify suit holdings
    – Barmar
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 19:43
  • @Barmar But Marius says 'The use of the infinitive for "specify" indicates it is connected to "does not unexpectedly" ' (he does not mention semantic constraints). I'm giving an example that shows that that's not necessarily true.
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 23:32
  • 1
    "does not convey unexpected values" is NOT the same as "does not unexpectedly convey values"
    – Brian Hitchcock
    Commented Mar 27, 2015 at 9:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .