[blml] Réf. : Re: convention

[Alain Gottcheiner]

-------Message original-------
 
(Eric) What was changed was not the definition of "convention", but L40D
itself, with the addition of the second sentence, explicitly permitting
regulation of light initial actions.  This was added at the ACBL's
behest, to insure the legitimacy post facto of their regulatory
constraints on weak two-bids and "mini" notrump openings.
 
 
It doesn't affect 2-bids, as it is written. Rather, it's there for allowing
such restrictions as the Rule of 18.
 
Notice that, while the debate over the 5+/5+ weak-2 law was raging, some
bigwigs used the Rule of 19 
-used at that time by the Dutch- as an example showing how ridiculous
restrictions might be. It seems that they changed their opinions. 
 
Best regards
 
  Alain
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061221/09a6e960/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1458 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061221/09a6e960/attachment-0001.jpeg 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 37976 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061221/09a6e960/attachment-0001.gif