[blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[John Probst]

>>approaches in cases of difficulty.
>
> Richard Hills quibbles:
>
> However, this "Orange Book" clause 1C is not relevant to
> John Probst's answer, since the clause applies to EBU
> *players*, but does not apply to a MadDog EBU *director*.
>
> :-)
>
> And, of course, even if clause 1C was revised so that
> "players" was amended to "players and directors", what if a
> MadDog director deemed that such a revised clause 1C was an
> illegal regulation?
>
> :-)

Aw come on. 91B2 is entirely clear. I am bound by the Laws, and if a 
regulatoion is illegal I can't apply it. It is so obvious. "You can't open 
NT on Thursdays" is an illegal regulation in contradiction to Law 40A for 
example. I am not allowed to apply it.

The EBU's "Partner sometimes forgets" regulation is illegal, to take a case 
in point. Every now and then we get test cases where the Law itself is 
tested. either in Bridge or in given Law. Sometimes these test cases 
demonstrate that a Law or regulation is illegal as it is in contradiction 
with some higher held interpretation. Such is the case for Bridge illegal 
regulations.

John