[blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[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: "Ed Reppert" <ereppert at rochester.rr.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> Hm. SOs have an untrammeled right to regulate conventions, so a
> regulation prohibiting the misuse of a convention - as seems the case
> in fact if not in law in some jurisdictions wrt Ghestem - is legal.
> I'm not so sure it's right, in the broad sense of that word, though.
>
+=+ I think you are questioning whether such a regulation is desirable.
I have long held the view that legislators should make the law, but that
regulators should make the policy. My belief is that a shack in Mossley
Hill or a villa in the Dordogne is no location for judging the ethos of
play in Los Angeles or in Sao Paulo.+=+
>
> As to remedy, what if the regulation provides none? It would then be
> up to the TD to apply an applicable law - but convention regulations
> are made under Law 40D, and that law does not specify a remedy. It
> would seem we're left with Law 12A1. Or is there something I've missed?
>
+=+ 84E +=+