[blml] concession

[Jerry Fusselman]

Kojak, I think I follow much of what you wrote, but would you be
please be so kind as to answer two questions?

Kojak:
>
> How to rule/adjudicate?  In my opinion I would not let the claimant depart
> from his claim. Supervised play continues as mandated, and the TD must
> determine if any exposed cards or actions by defenders provide UI.
>

Can you tell us a little about how play is supervised?  (For example,
what does the director say to the table before play continues?  Also,
which hands does he look at?  When should he consider previous tricks
or the auction or the defender's convention cards?)

Kojak:
> More importantly I would pay particular attention to see that the
> claimant or objector does not benefit from actions prohibited by 70 D 2.
> which is a new and important provision of the laws.
>
> The rest of the postings about non-offenders, irregularities, infractions,
> trick-by-trick, etc., are not ad rem and probably stem from a mistaken
> impression
> that you always have to have a bad guy to resolve an issue.
>
> Grattan may find that I am not "on the other side of the river" but I am
> concerned about the sloppy English which makes argument possible.  Examples
> in an Appendix will certainly help. An example shows how a writer(s) would
> use the law. To object to Appendices usurping the WBFLC power to interpret
> the law is not a "minimalist" position.
>

OK, that objection *is not* a "minimalist" position, but what *is* it?

Jerry Fusselman