[blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Guthrie]

[Grattan Endicott]
+=+ I am reading this topic but I am not altogether sure where it is 
leading. Law 16 has attempted to make as clear as possible the treatment 
of UI.

[Richard Hills]
The 2007 Law 16 is a huge improvement on the 1997 Law 16.  Much more 
detail and clarified processes.  But to discover that the _creation_ of 
UI is not necessarily an infraction one still has to turn to the 
(un-cross-referenced) Law 73D1 and/or the WBF Code of Practice.

[Grattan]
Presumably magazines and pundits, appeals committees, tournament 
directors quietly, will devote attention to the 'education' of
players who have difficulty with the subject.

[Richard]
But often it has been the directors and appeals committees who have had 
difficulty with the subject.  See, for example, the ACBL Appeals 
Casebook for the Spring 2000 NABC in Cincinnati (in which Grattan and 
David Stevenson were transatlantic guest stars).

[Grattan]
It is unlikely that an esoteric message board will have the breadth of 
readership to get the message across where it is needed.

[Richard]
Esoteric? I beg to differ.  The principle of Six Degrees of Separation
means that significant messages can be leveraged onto much more popular 
fora.  For example, my Unofficial executive summary of Law changes is 
being serialised in the Melbourne bridge newsletter and is also being 
used as a resource in South Africa. And now for some esoteric 
unconjugated Latin: "Romanes eunt domus".

[Nige1]
[1] I agree with Grattan and Richard if they imply that promulgating 
corrections and clarifications through magazines, WBF codes of practice, 
director seminars, newsletters, conferences, appeals committee reports, 
unofficial summaries, minutes and the like is a poor substitute for 
completing and disambiguating the law-book itself. Certainly, players 
rely on the law-book for guidance.

[2] Do you break the law when you deliberately or carelessly give 
unnecessary unauthorised information? Until I read recent posts by 
Maddog and Grattan, I had been under the impression that to do so is an 
infraction. Like Stefanie, I feel that it should be discouraged because 
it tempts players to rationalize its use.