[blml] 60% session in IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
***********************
"Le congres ne marche pas, il danse"
 (The Congress makes no progress ,
  but it dances.)
                           Prince de Ligne
+++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Konrad Ciborowski" <cibor at poczta.fm>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] 60% session in IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]



Sentences that are semantically null should be avoided in
laws.

Much like the following sentence in the Systems Policy:

"A pair may prepare written defences against
the Brown Sticker elements of any system. "

Have you ever needed a special permission
to prepare a written defense to anything?
........................................................................................

+=+ I think the whole of the statement should be considered
if it is to be criticized. It says:
       "A pair may prepare written defences against the 'Brown
Sticker' elements of any system. Such defences will have to
be given to the opponents (two clearly legible copies) at an
appropriate time and place prior to the start of the segment,
to be specified in the Conditions of Contest. Written defences
against Brown Sticker conventions are deemed to be part of
the opponents' convention card."
       I regard the further statements that are dependent on the
first as conveying the real objects of the regulation.
      In the future, under the 2007 Laws 40B2(a) and 40B2(b),
the regulating authority no longer needs the device that treats
the defence as part of the opponents' system card.
                                             ~ Grattan ~   +=+