[blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Wayne Burrows]

On 30/10/2007, gesta at tiscali.co.uk <gesta at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
> [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
> ******************************************
> "The intellectuals' chief cause of anguish
> are one another's works."
>                 ~ Jacques Martin Barzun.
> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Collier" <dcrc2h at hotmail.co.uk>
> To: <blml at amsterdamned.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>
>
> > >Richard Hills:
> >>
> >>For a definitional dog in the night time, look at the nothing
> >>between the definition of "Contract" and the definition of "Deal".
> >
> > I see it, but I don't understand what it means. The word
> > "convention" appears in the new Law 40B. What are we
> > supposed to deduce from the lack of a definition?
> >
> +=+ "The Secretary was invited to state what difficulty
>         he had with the present definition of convention.
>         (----------------  omissis ---------------------)
> Mr Martel and others agreed that the current definition
> is flawed but felt that the suggested definition may
> introduce other problems. It was concluded that more
> thought needs to be given to the subject . It may be
> a matter to be deferred until the next major revision."
>                             [WBFLC minute, Jan 11th, 2000]
>
> In the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 the word 'convention'
> appears only in a default stipulation that enwraps use of it
> in regulation, should it persist, into the Law 40B provisions
> for 'special partnership understandings'.  It is discarded.and
> not used otherwise in the Laws, thus ridding the drafting sub-
> committee of the onus of any further definition.
>                                               ~ Grattan ~  +=+

Forgive me for being cynical but I can't help but think that the real
reason that the word 'convention' has been dropped is so that
Regulating Authorities can regulate unconstrained.

For years their have been constraints on the Regulating Authorities
(NOs and SOs) written in the laws.  Those organizations have at times
ignored the constraints imposed upon then and either flagrantly or by
exploiting loopholes ignored those constraints.

My NO for example in response to my question to them wrote that L40
was never intended to constrain them.  The word 'never' was
capitalized and written in bold.

Wayne