[blml] 'normal'

[Steve Willner]

> From: "Grattan Endicott" <gesta at tiscali.co.uk>
>  My view is that the word 'normal' excludes
> the abnormal, and that anything irrational is abnormal. However, if a
> correspondent as rational as Eric thinks this is unclrear then I do have
> an anxiety.

Let me offer a couple of examples; in each case, declarer claims in a 
two-card ending with no statement.

1) Ax opposite Kx.  I don't think we want to force the irrational play 
of crashing the honors, losing the last trick.

2) Ax alone with exactly one middle card in the suit outstanding.  I 
don't think we want to force the x to be played (though I suspect some 
would disagree with me here).

Does the new language clarify that neither play falls within "normal?" 
If not, maybe the expected "guide to interpretation" can do so.