[blml] 'normal'

[Eric Landau]

On Nov 4, 2007, at 7:26 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote:

>> 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.

That is not being absorbed because that is not what it says.  What it  
says is that "'normal' includes play that would be careless or  
inferior".  Which means that "normal" includes play that is any of  
(a) "dictionary" normal, i.e. plays that would be considered normal  
were there no footnote, (b) careless, or (c) inferior.  Which means  
that it excludes only play that is none of (a), (b) or (c).  Very few  
"irrational" plays, however defined, would qualify as none of (a),  
(b) or (c).

Grattan's suggested criterion is precisely what the 1997 laws, as  
written, called for.  If that was the WBFLC's intent, there was no  
need to change the footnote; all it needed was to be "un- 
reinterpreted".  If it was felt that clarification was needed, they  
could have used Grattan's words above, leaving the existing words  
unchanged but (redundantly) appending "without reference to the class  
of player".  Or simply deleted "for the class of player involved".

Moreover, if such an exception were implicit in the new footnote, as  
Grattan suggests, it would surely not appear explicitly in L70E.  The  
author(s) of L70E must have meant *something* by putting it there,  
and it must be something that they didn't intend should apply to L70D  
or L71.

I don't understand how TDs are supposed to "absorb" this implicit  
exception for irrational plays in contexts in which neither of the  
words "rational" nor "irrational" appears in the relevant law.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net