[blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Wayne Burrows]

On 01/02/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:
> Richard Hills:
>
> >>>That is, I prefer the Kojak rule-of-the-thumb, "a specific
> >>>Law takes priority over a more general Law" to another more
> >>>arbitrary policy, "if you do not like what a Law says, find
> >>>another Law".
>
> Wayne Burrows:
>
> >>This would be a major philosophical change we have just had
> >>20 or more years in which the laws are interpreted to mean
> >>whatever the director or Sponsoring Organization or National
> >>Authority want them to mean even if plainly contrary to the
> >>written laws.
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> In my opinion Wayne is a little bit too cynical, since I think
> that the Drafting Committee of the 2007 Lawbook has made a very
> significant number of improvements in aligning the letter of
> the Laws with the spirit of the Laws.  I expect the 2018
> Lawbook to be even better.
>

Why does it matter what the drafting committee write.  The 1997 Laws
constrained sponsoring organizations to regulate conventions.  My
national authority when I questioned their regulations said Law 40D
was "*NEVER*" intended to constrain them - they chose to capitalize
and bold this word.

The changes in the new law seem to me to have moved towards the former
illegal practices of the many sponsoring organizations and national
authorities.  Why would anyone expect that this liberalization will
suddenly constrain these organizations to obeying the written law.  My
observation is that liberalization usually encourages individuals and
groups to stretch the new boundaries.

The 2007 laws constrain the Regulating Authority to regulate (allow,
disallow or allow conditionally) 'Special Partnership Understandings'.
 'Special Partnership Understandings' require that the Regulating
Authority believes that the understanding "may not be readily
understood and anticipated".  This seems a severe restriction to me
e.g. I can't believe that anyone would believe that a 8-10 1NT could
not be readily understood so this would not meet the requirement for a
"Special Partnership Understanding".  I have had problems in the
recent past with the regulators and my natural 1NT because it might
contain a singleton - that seems easy enough to understand when
disclosed so this surely is not a "Special Partnership Understanding".
 Even a Fert 0-8 any distribution seems like it would be easily
understood by the masses.  I guess these can no longer be constrained.
 In fact I struggle to think of something that might not be readily
understood if properly disclosed but somehow I don't think the
intention is to make all understandable methods instantly legal.  Of
course all of these bids will be anticipated when the players are
simply told in advance that they are in use.

I have no idea how these laws are going to be interpreted but the
track record of the last 20+ years while I have been playing does not
fill me with confidence in the Regulating Authorities world wide.

Wayne