[blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Jerry Fusselman]

Richard Hills:
> Jerry Fusselman:
>
> >"Each individual case should be considered" is a
> >necessary evil in some situations, not a wise
> >principle to cover everything.
> .....
> >have some principles so that two directors tend
> >to get the same result.
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> It seems to me that this Procrustean Philosophy

It is nonsense to call what I said Procrustean.  You could equally
well call any bridge law Procrustean if you wanted to, because it is a
law and must be followed.  How about starting your post with some
analysis instead of name calling?

> is contrary to the 2007 Lawbook's Philosophy, as
> described in Law 70A:
>
> "...the Director adjudicates the result of the
> board as equitably as possible to both sides, but
> any doubtful point as to a claim shall be
> resolved against the claimer..."

You really misunderstood me well here.  The "so that two directors
tend to get the same result" quote you gave at the top refers to
situations where the facts are the same.    What else could the quote
mean?  Any other interpretation is absurd.

>
> It is not equitable to assume Mrs Guggenheim will
> perform a double squeeze, but it may be equitable
> to assume that Geir Helgemo will do so.
>

Continuing to misunderstand.  I did not say that when the facts were
different the ruling should be the same.   The are generally other
factors, such as the language used by the claimant, to distinguish
these two cases.

On the other hand, suppose there is no difference between the two
cases other than the director's beliefs in their class of play.  I
thought that the "class of player" is no longer a part of the text of
the laws for contested claims.   We are talking about the new laws,
right?

Jerry Fusselman