[BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand

Nigel Guthrie g3 at nige1.com
Tue Apr 17 21:31:05 CEST 2012


[Eric Landau]
Of course, we cannot fruitfully consider alterations to our existing laws 
without consideration of what those existing laws actually say and mean, so 
we spend a great deal of time doing that.  But if we have an overarching 
general objective here, I would think it would be closer to improving future 
versions of TFLB than to improving the  state of directing and appeals under 
the current one.

[Nigel]
I enjoy BLML because I'm interested in  improving future law. I agree, 
however, that BLML should be concerned equally with interpretation of 
present law.

Unfortunately, if the law-book were ever complete, universal, clear, and 
simple, then BLML would lose what interests me.  Others would also miss the 
endlessly repetitive controversy over interpretation of the current miasma.

Only players would gain.

Directors have little to fear because law-makers formulate Bridge-law mainly 
for the benefit of directors and administrators rather players. Just as, in 
all fields of law, law-makers appear to ensure that law is sophisticated, 
subjective, and arcane, for the benefit of lawyers, rather than in the 
interests of  justice.



More information about the Blml mailing list