On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > Ambiguous actions are normally taken to fail. I'm not sure whether the > action Murphy tried was ambiguous enough to cause it to fail, but it > certainly isn't completely clear-cut. Rule changes are held to a higher > standard, as is shown by this quote from rule 105:
I vaguely remember a situation or two where there were two different mechanisms for doing the same thing existed (both of which could be done by announcement) and I vaguely remember that it was decided since the action itself was specified and unambiguous, the fact that either mechanism could do it wasn't substantial ambiguity. But that's a vague memory, I know it didn't involve rule changes and thus R105, does anyone recall if a CFJ was involved? I think it may have had something to do with paying a fee of 0 vs. just doing it by announcement, so perhaps from the Fee Era. -Goethe
