[blml] 2007 laws

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*********************************************
"Football is football. If it was different
it wouldn't be the same game."
                    - Garth Crooks.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 laws


>>
>>.                                         Although it leaves it entirely
>>up to
> the RA to regulate "special partnership understandings", it does
> contain the first "Nigellian default rule" we've seen: L40B1(b)
> specifies what shall constitute a "special partnership
> understanding" (a "convention"(?) or "any call that has an artificial
> meaning") in the absense of any action by the RA.
>
+=+ The 2007 Code of Laws incorporates quite a number of
such 'default' provisions. Pretty well everywhere the RA has an
option, I think, except in Law 76 and, as we have already noted,
in Law 92D.                                  ~ G ~   +=+