[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
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Willner" <swillner at nhcc.net>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] 'normal'


>> 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.
> 
+=+ On this last point I can only say that John Wignall has suggested, 
and I have submitted for consideration, that the subject be covered in 
the Appendix.                       ~ Grattan ~   +=+