[blml] 2007 laws

[Steve Willner]

[Definition of "artificial call"]

> From: Adam Beneschan <adam at irvine.com>
>... 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"; 

Exactly.

>  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.

I don't know either.  That's why I thought the definition odd.  In 
practice it won't matter; everyone will ignore the definition anyway. 
RAs can regulate whatever agreements they want, and it doesn't matter if 
a call is artificial or not.  I'm slightly surprised there's a 
definition at all.

From: "Grattan Endicott" <grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk>
>  By design we have extended
> considerably the RA's power to determine what matters of system
> it will regulate.

As Eric wrote, "extended considerably" might better be phrased "removed 
all restrictions upon."