[blml] 2007 laws

[Steve Willner]

> From: Yvan Calame <webmaster at bridgefederation.ch>
> http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/2007laws.asp

Thanks, Yvan.

No doubt along with others, I'm still trying to digest the changes, but 
a few things of interest pop up.  I am, by the way, enormously grateful 
to those who spent so much time working on the new version.

1. L25B as we have known and loved :-) it is gone!

2. There are many, many clarifications of language with regard to issues 
that have been discussed on BLML.  Good job.

3. I am not convinced that changing "convention" to "artificial call" is 
a big step forward.  The definition of "artificial call:"
    a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being
    information taken for granted by players generally) other than
    willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a
    pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it
    promises or denies values other than in the last suit named.
seems to make an ordinary "nothing to say" pass into an artificial call, 
at least if the pass occurs after at least one bid.  Also, despite not 
being defined, "convention" is used in at least one Law, though its 
exact definition is largely irrelevant in that context.

4. It now appears to be illegal for NBOs to conduct extraterritorial 
games, e.g., the ACBL games in Britain and Germany.  Further, the Laws 
purport to impose NBO regulation on all games within the boundaries of 
that NBO, even independent clubs not affiliated in any way with the NBO. 
  (L80A1c.  Sensible clubs will simply ignore this and get on with their 
games.)

5. L75B is changed:
   [the player whose partner has given MI] if he is to be declarer or
    dummy, should call the Director and must volunteer a correction of
    the explanation.

Note separation of calling the director and correcting the explanation; 
the former is now a weaker obligation than before, though still an 
infraction if not done.  But then:

    If [the player] becomes a defender, he calls the Director and
    corrects the explanation when play ends.

But for a defender, failing to correct the explanation is no longer even 
an infraction!  I confess to being astonished by this.

No doubt there will be many other topics for discussion!