[blml] 2007 laws

[Grattan Endicott]

Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
*************************
"Progress is not an accident but
 a necessity."
                      {Herbert Spencer}
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adam Beneschan" <adam at irvine.com>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Cc: <adam at irvine.com>
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 laws


>
> 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.
>
+=+ Ah, yes! This reminds me of the further content of my first
undelivered message to BLML from Shanghai.  'Convention(al)'
is no longer an issue under the 2007 Laws. The word appears in
2007 Law 40B1(b) but the reason for its presence is to provide
default cover for situations in which RAs continue to use the word
in regulations - perhaps through inertia. If they do use the word it
is for them to define it.  So far as the 2007 Laws are concerned
partnership understandings fall into one of two categories - the one
(a) where they are 'special partnership understandings', and stated
to be such by the RA, the other (b) containing those that the RA
does not include in the (a) category.  By design we have extended
considerably the RA's power to determine what matters of system
it will regulate.
        One other thing:  it will be noted that the name of the game
has changed. It is 'Duplicate Bridge', not 'Duplicate Contract
Bridge'.    In the DSC John Wignall's suggestion to do this divided
the committee; however, when the question came before the WBF
Executive Council the vote for change was overwhelming.  See the
Title of the Laws, the Introduction, and Law 1.
                                                  ~ Grattan ~    +=+