[BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand
g3 at nige1.com
Tue Apr 17 21:31:05 CEST 2012
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.
I enjoy BLML because I'm interested in improving future law. I agree,
however, that BLML should be concerned equally with interpretation of
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