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

[Tim West-Meads]

Brian wrote:
> 
> But the decision we were given related solely to Ro19, Tim. There 
> was **no mention made** as to whether it was on the basis of 1D being
> conventional. 

So perhaps the TD was wrong.  Perhaps the event pre-dated the 87 lawbook
and a precise limitation of both natural and conventional 1D openers
would have been legal.

I can only repeat that for a TD to interpret the post 87 OB reg in the
post 87 lawbook context (when applied to natural bids) as precluding
judgement as to playing strength would have been illegal.

> Something along these lines...
> TD: Then opponent's complaint is justified, you are not allowed to 
> open 1 of a suit on a hand which contravenes Ro19. 

So at the time the prohibition did not apply to 1NT (opened at the other
table)?  I'm sorry Brian but my initial comments referred to the OB regs
post 87 and I simply cannot remember the Yellow book at all (it was those
regs, not the YB, to which Nigel was referring).

> I might resent Tim again branding me a "liar and and idiot", were I 
> not in such good company.

Just an idiot Nigel.  I believe you when you tell me that your team
slavishly decided the EBU would use illegal regulations.  I believe you
didn't bother making bids that would have tested the legality of those
regulations.  I believe you when you say that Burn also thought the EBU
would act illegally.  However I checked with the EBU and they assured *me*
that the regulations were legal.

Tim