Old law forum

[nige1]

I'd better stop there because I'm about to ask a favour about the moderators' old forum, now defunct. I posted many law-change suggestions, which got little or no support  but I would still be grateful for the opportunity to review the criticisms. Is there still an accessible archive anywhere?

What I managed to scrape from the old forum (most recent stuff, but not all the very old posts) is here:

 

http://iblf.matthew.ath.cx/

 

it's a static mirror only, so no searching I'm afraid

Thank you, mjj29. Just what I hoped for.

 

In reply to Blackshoe . We need thick skins to participate in on-line discussions, as Gnasher often points out. I may be mistaken but I believe what I said about the law-makers' assessment of the laws is correct. To check, I fear that you would need to peruse thousands of posts by BLML law-makers. There is a small clue, however, in the changes that law-makers have made to the laws over the decades. Most are minor and there are few of them. I think the trend is in the wrong direction (complexity rather than simplicity, delegation rather than completeness, and so on). Notwithstanding, Bridge is a successful and long-lived game, so law-makers do have a point.

[bluejak]

Of course IBLF existed before Bridgetalk! The way to find all available threads is to look at IBLF from the beginning at http://blakjak.org/iblf1.htm.

[blackshoe]

Huh. I thought I'd seen a link on David's site, but last night I couldn't find it. :blink:

 

I suspect that much of the "maintain the status quo" in lawmaking is due to pressure from non-lawmaker elements in some of the various NBOs.

[nige1]

Of course IBLF existed before Bridgetalk!  The way to find all available threads is to look at IBLF from the beginning at http://blakjak.org/iblf1.htm.

Great stuff. I unsuccessfully tried the links on Bluejak's website, last night, before asking here. But they work fine now :blink:. mjj29's version is less complete but slightly easier to navigate

Thank you both.