[blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question

[John Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Guthrie" <Guthrie at NTLworld.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question


> Fro TNLB, The WBFLC had the chance to make this law simpler and fairer,
> along the lines suggested by David Burn.
>
> Instead, by leaving both sides with options, the WBFLC
>  - maximise unauthorised information and
>  - increase opportunities for special agreements contingent on the
> option chosen.
>
> The new L27 opens up more cans of worms :( I suppose, at least, it has
> been made consistent with all the other laws that encourage their own
> infraction :) The new law gives a further boost to those who prepared to
> economise on the truth -- here, about about information that a bid 
> includes.
>
> It would contravene so-called "equity" principles but it would be much
> more simple and just to penalise the insufficient bid itself.

I have no problem with the Burn doctrine. "take them out and shoot them", 
but sadly the law doesn't say this.  John
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml