[blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Nigel]

[Grattan Endicott]
+=+ Even so. But it seems unlikely that the
use of CCs would cease to be a matter of
regulation rather than of law direct.

[John Probst]
Grattan, have you got lost in your use of multiple
negatives in this sentence?

[Grattan2]
+=+ I was taking care not to denigrate the powers
of my colleagues, as by writing simply "It ain't gonna
happen". ~ G ~ +=+

[nige1]
A disappointment. Recently, in BLML, Grattan seemed to agree that the 
official law-book would comprise a *complete* set of bridge rules. Some 
of these would be "default" laws so that local jurisdictions would no 
longer be forced to plug the gaps in the law-book with local regulations 
and conditions of contest. It would not prevent local jurisdictions from 
rejecting the defaults and substituting their own regulations.  Rules 
about disclosure seem ripe for inclusion in the law-book because it is 
so difficult for players to adjust to the regulations peculiar to each 
country in which they play.

For example it should be easy to specify standard convention card 
formats and rules about their use that would suit most jurisdictions. A 
standard format card would also reduce language handicaps. The WBF card 
would be a good place to start (although we probably need slightly 
different cards for local and international competition -- and there 
should be completed card templates for widely played basic systems). 
There are minor problems with such a scheme but the WBFLC should be 
equal to the task of finding workable compromises. If they need any help 
they can always ask on-line sites such as BBO for advice.