On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:56 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Although Rule 2124 defines it as a message that must be sent, we treat > objecting very, very much like an action, which we send > pseudo-announcements in order to perform. Or is it a real > announcement? Although Rule 478 defines "by announcement" only in the > context of actions that the Rules say we can take by announcement, > that simply means that "by announcement" is otherwise undefined. Rule > 2208 refers to *any* attempt to perform *any* action by announcement, > so we must infer a meaning for "by announcement" in other contexts.
Why? If somebody attempts to perform an action by announcement, and the action can't be performed by announcement, then obviously the attempt fails regardless of whether R2208 can be applied to it. It doesn't matter whether an arbitrary publication takes the form of an announcement; if the rules say it's not an action-by-announcement, then it's not an action-by-announcement. > Compare to contract-defined announcements: although the Rules do not > "define an action that CAN be performed 'by announcement'", so the > term is undefined, we still treat actions which a contract says can be > performed "by announcement" as effective. I think it is game custom > (although the rule is still new) to treat Rule 2208 as applying to > such actions, too. Apart from equity cases, a contract is its own authority, and if their parties want to be lax in their interpretation, that's their own business. -root
