[mycroft]

I think that law 63A3 is very badly written. Like others, I have *never* seen a defender showing their hand with the intent to accept the claim, only as supporting evidence to partner ("I have no objections; pard?", which is of neutral affect); whereas I have several times seen players (defenders included) showing their hand with intent to make a claim.

I can't imagine it's the intent of the lawmakers to make both facings, with no other context, have the same affect.

Oddly enough, I'd never seen that before.

This looks to me like another one for Grattan's list.

[barmar]

I think they were just trying to save some verbiage by combining making and agreeing to a claim in one place, and mentioning the common ways players typically do this. "orally" applies to both, but "by facing his hand" generally only applies to making.

Since they included "or in any other way", the list of methods seems to be superfluous, since they're obviously not meant to be exhaustive (well, including "any other way" tautologically makes it exhaustive). I also don't think it's intended to be definitive, just illustrative. It's still up to the TD to determine whether a claim or agreement has actually occurred.

[FrancesHinden]

 mycroft, on 2012-July-20, 14:43, said:

I can't imagine it's the intent of the lawmakers to make both facings, with no other context, have the same affect.

/grammar police on

Effect, not affect

/grammar police off

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2012-July-20, 22:41, said:

It's still up to the TD to determine whether a claim or agreement has actually occurred.

I agree with this bit.

[Vampyr]

 billw55, on 2012-July-20, 07:17, said:

Interesting, EW agreement seems to be the key point. I based my (apparently knee-jerk) answer on a vague understanding that the laws had moved to toward restoring equity rather than penalizing. I suppose it is a good thing that I am not a director.

Yes, as directors are expected to read the law book, rather than having a vague understanding of it.

[mycroft]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-July-21, 03:51, said:

/grammar police on
Effect, not affect
/grammar police off

Actually, I meant affect, and I'm not sure I'm not right; in the psychiatric sense of "the intent that the action implies". Now they use it to mean "appearance of *emotion*", and I'm not sure that I can generalize it to "intent".

But English is at least my third language (after Python and K/S), so who knows?

[barmar]

 mycroft, on 2012-July-23, 11:12, said:

Actually, I meant affect, and I'm not sure I'm not right; in the psychiatric sense of "the intent that the action implies". Now they use it to mean "appearance of *emotion*", and I'm not sure that I can generalize it to "intent".

It's a stretch, IMHO.