[blml] Law 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[WILLIAM SCHODER]

Thank you for the further clarification.  I was aware that Law 25B existed 
in 1990. It showed up in 1975 as a "B" not 1987.  I was referring to the 
Bandaid laid on in 1997.  It's one  example of "fixes" that can easily be 
traced back to an incident where an individual was inconvenienced by the 
Laws that have worked well for decades. Whenever something appears to be too 
harsh, too clearly punitive, feels "wrong", or some such thing we have to 
"fix" it. Ala Law 70 in this era. Hopefully the 200X Laws will have removed 
the Bandaids and not added more, by hysterical knee jerk reactions.

Kojak


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard.hills at immi.gov.au>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Law 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> Kojak:
>
> >25B came about because Edgar (l990 Geneva, WBF) did not see his
> >partner's opening of 1 spade on the bidding tray (screens in use-
> >tray not fully passed across) and passed with 10 HCPs 4 spades, and
> >a singleton.  When the tray was moved after his opponent had passed,
> >he discovered his MISTAKE.  He now wanted to change his call, and
> >the TD, in consultation with me, said no.
> >
> >This was protested to a committee of Rules and Regulations sitting
> >jointly with the Laws Committee, since it addressed a matter of
> >application of Laws and Regulations. The committee upheld the TD
> >ruling.
> >
> >Thereafter we now were faced with the "Bandaid" change of 25B
>
> [snip]
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> I agree with Kojak that the "Bandaid" Law 25B should be abolished in
> the next edition of the Laws.
>
> However, Kojak incorrectly implies that Law 25B was introduced into
> the 1997 Lawbook as a consequence of Edgar's 1990 experience.
>
> Actually, Law 25B first appeared in the 1987 Lawbook and then was
> slightly modified in the 1997 Lawbook.  It was because Law 25B
> already existed in 1990 that Edgar launched his protest at the WBF
> Geneva event.  And the only reason that Edgar's protest was
> unsuccessful was that the WBF had sensibly created Conditions of
> Contest for Geneva which limited the scope of Law 25B when screens
> were in use.
>
> Edgar argued that screen regulations created pursuant to Law 80
> could not over-ride another Law of Bridge, Law 25B.  The Laws
> Committee decided otherwise.
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
> National Training Branch
> 02 6225 6285
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>