[blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

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: "Wayne Burrows" <wjburrows at gmail.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 6:29 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Countdown [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> 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.
>
+=+ That objective could be achieved whether or no the word
'convention' were dropped. The fact, as I have indicated, is that
over many years no attempt to define 'convention' in the laws
has proved satisfactory to all. There always seems to be a flaw.
So the easy exit is to abolish the need for a definition in the laws.
       For a dictionary definition try: < 'convention' (bridge) = a
call or play not to be taken at its face value, which one's partner
can interpret according to a prearranged system. >
But the fact is that if a RA uses the word it can, if it wishes, also
define it. An RA may also say "Where for the purposes of these
regulations the laws require an understanding to be designated
a 'special partnership understanding' it is so designated."
                                                  ~ Grattan ~  +=+