[blml] 'normal'

[Eric Landau]

On Nov 8, 2007, at 5:18 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote:

> From: "Steve Willner" <swillner at nhcc.net>
>
>>> 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.

Perhaps someone might also suggest (I would do so myself did I not  
lack the standing, not being a member of any of the WBF's privy  
councils) and submit for consideration that the reinterpretations  
that appear in the Appendix be perused by some otherwise uninvolved  
pairs of eyes prior to finalization, lest the WBF subsequently  
discover the need to submit re-reinterpretations for coverage in the  
not-yet-to-be-forthcoming (fifthcoming?) Appendix to the Appendix.


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