[blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options.

[Steve Willner]

> From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
>  I have always believed that the 1997
> laws "at all probable" logically referenced the same "had the infraction
> not occurred" as did the "likely".  AFAIK the WBFLC never contradicted
> that interpretation.

I was almost sure there was a contrary interpretation, but it may have 
been an EK writing rather than an official opinion.

The actual language used in the Law suggests to me that "had the 
infraction not occurred" is _not_ intended to apply to the OS. Of course 
that opinion is now (or anyway soon to be) irrelevant in the ACBL.