[blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion.

[John (MadDog) Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <gesta at tiscali.co.uk>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion.


>
> Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
> [following address discontinued:
> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
> *************************
> "we that live to please
>  must please to live"
>        ~ Dr Samuel Johnson
> *************************
>>> From: John (MadDog) Probst
>
>> Honestly Robin, I don't see a problem with
>> what we do now. Perhaps I'm being really
>> thick.  John
>>>
> +=+ As I have made clear, it does not matter to me
> what we did with the 1997 laws - I am working with
> the 2007 Code where I am committed to undertake
> any task.
>        I think we should all read the 2007 Code with
> fresh drops in our eyes to remove any film placed
> there by what we did, or did not do, under the 1997
> laws. I presume, John, that where the new laws call
> for a modification of past practices you will flex to
> the need.

ca va sans rien dire. but I will continue with the instruction and education 
of my probst cheats in order that they may take maximum advantage of the 
interpretations; and I will endeavour to position the interpretation of the 
new law so as to deny them any advantage. My apologies if this position 
causes grief. I've many times remarked that almost all infractions are made 
with no intent to gain advantage, but I'd be surprised if anyone here would 
not want to position the interpretation of the law in such a way as to deny 
those who make infractions _with intent_ from gaining thereby. We  then keep 
a level playing field and don't have to call anyone a cheat.  John

>                               ~ Grattan ~   +=+
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml