[blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27

[Steve Willner]

> From: Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net>
> It is quite clear that 2008 L27B1(a) is, and was intended to be,  
> identical in its effect to 1997 L27B1(a) 

I don't doubt "intended to be," but I'm not so sure about "is."

Has anyone noted that the new definition of "artificial call" is far 
broader than the old definition of "convention?"  If you take the words 
literally, probably half the bids that most of us think of as natural 
are artificial according to the definition.  In particular, a 5cM 
opening is apparently artificial.  So is any call with a narrowly- 
limited strength range.  I'm sure there are other examples.

I suppose an interpretation of the new definition in accord with past 
practice is possible, but it looks to me as though it will take quite a 
bit of "creativity."

[I've been intending to comment on other things but don't have time; 
maybe next weekend.]