[blml] The new L27C2

[Wayne Burrows]

> > From: "Wayne Burrows" <wjburrows at gmail.com>
> > It is also not at all clear to me why a redouble would not be allowed.
>
> You mean why the DSC decided not to include redouble?  Apparently, from
> something Grattan wrote, there just wasn't anyone on the DSC who
> advocated including it.  If you mean more generally, why only at most
> seven possible calls, my _guess_ would be that this whole approach was
> regarded as experimental, and the DSC didn't want to risk too many
> unforeseen problems.  We'll have to see what really happens when the new
> Laws take effect, but for now it looks like the unforeseen problems have
> to do with "incorporates" rather than what replacement call is selected.
>

If just seems arbitary to me.  There could easily be a pair that play
transfers starting at XX after intervention.  Allowing a XX if it
incorporates the meaning of some natural suit seems to be no cost and
in accordance with my understanding of the intention of the new law.

Wayne