[blml] 2007 laws

[Adam Beneschan]

Steve Willner wrote:
 
> 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.  

I don't think it does, although I can see how the word order is a bit
problematic and could lead to misinterpretation.  First, I'd assume
that the parenthesized phrase applies to passes as well as to bids,
doubles, and redoubles---I cannot imagine that it wouldn't apply, even
though its placement in the Law may make it seem that it doesn't.  So
if players generally would see a certain pass as meaning "nothing to
say", then it's not artificial.  Second, since a "nothing to say" pass
would not promise any values or any strength, the only way you could
see this as artificial is if it "denies values other than in the last
suit named"; is your thinking here that if a pass denies "general
values", rather than specifically denying values in the last suit
named, then that makes it artificial?  If so, then there are probably
some words missing from the definition.  Maybe it was intended to mean
something like "promises or denies values IN A SUIT other than the
last suit named", but I don't know exactly what the authors had in
mind.

                                -- Adam