[blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL]

[Grattan Endicott]

from Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
*****************************
"The best words in the best order"
                          ~ S T Coleridge.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL]


> > 
> And any attempt by the blml posters to classify the 
> Herman 1H into one of these categories without 
> examining the rest of the facts is doomed.
> 
+=+ If I were to meet the question in my periodic 
role as Systems Desk Manager at an EBL Championship 
I would have no difficulty. +=+ 
<
Ton wrote:
I don't see a good reason for blml-ers to obey to the 
regulations of WBF or EBL. They both might be in 
error, and probably when one is the other is as well, 
since they normally copy their regulations. 
<
+=+ I am in sympathy with Ton's attitude to psyches 
in this thread - I believe that if a call is truly psychic 
there can be nothing predictable in it. (For example, 
the method will not have been proclaimed on the 
internet!). Therefore there can be no matter of 
understanding to be disclosed.
      However, where there is considered to be a 
partnership understanding, 'psyches' which may be 
made on hands of fewer than 8HCP, are clearly 
subject to regulation under Law 40D. The EBL 
and the WBF have deemed fit to exercise this 
power as part of their systems regulations. They 
do so under the heading of 'Psychic Bidding' and 
the definition of 'Psychic Call' in the law book is
drawn sufficiently loosely to allow of its applicability
even when there is a measure of partnership 
understanding with regard to it.  So my stated 
objections to describing matters of understanding 
as 'psychic' are admittedly objections of principle, 
not fused in the clay of the 1997 laws.  
                                   ~ Grattan ~   +=+