[blml] 'normal'

[Grattan Endicott]

Grattan Endicott
gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[also geggeg at tiscali.co.uk]
*************************
"The multitude of the sick shall
not make us deny the existence
of health."       [Emerson]
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

> But it no longer appears in the footnote.  That
> raises a new concern:  not whether a player's
> ability is relevant to "irrational", but whether
> "irrational" is relevant to L70D and L71, from
> which the refererence to it has been expunged.
> Tim's point, as I understand  it, is that while it
> may be true that it is no longer relevant to the
> consideration of plays that are careless or
> inferior, it may remain relevant to consideration
> of plays which are neither (like trump squeezes
> when Mrs. Guggenheim declares).
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
+=+ I wonder whether what is not being absorbed
here is the requirement in the substantive law that
the Director shall only postulate plays that are, in
bridge terms without reference to the class of player,
normal. If a play would be abnormal whoever might
make it then the Director is not entitled to consider it.
To that extent irrational plays would be excluded
from the Director's mind.
                                          ~ Grattan ~   +=+