nige1 Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 How long has "logical alternative" been in the laws? They certainly had an opportunity to change the wording in 2007. Why didn't they? Good point :). When I expressed such opinions, blackshoe deleted my posts, ostensibly for being off-topic or in the wrong forum :( Anyway blackshoe is right: In the past, had lawmakers adjusted the laws in place, in response to pleas for clarity, they would long ago have resolved a lot of contentious ambiguities and anomalies :) If clarifying a particular law is too hard a task, then it may also be too hard for players to understand. Law-makers should consider simplifying it :)I would hate to agree with wank in any way, but I do not see the point of this thread either. Surely, to comment sensibly on it, we need to see the hand. I support vampyr in raising the issue of the legality of committee rulings. It seems peculiar to overturn a director decision and to penalise the other side. The law-book should stipulate that the committee must always consult a director about the legality of its ruling and its phrasing. The committee could still reject the director's advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 When I expressed such opinions, blackshoe deleted my posts, ostensibly for being off-topic or in the wrong forum :( I did, did I? I think you must be mistaken, since if that was the reason I did anything with your posts, what I would have done would have been to move them to the right forum (assuming there is one). In any case, I don't recall doing anything with any posts of yours. Certainly not recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanPayn Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 I had already written that I did not think that the original wording being wrong was a big thing. I don't think there is any reference to any member of the AC in this thread. Of course, the bridge grapevine spreads news fast. ++++Indeed it does. Even to the outlying badlands of Fulham... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 It was not unsolicited.It was in the sense of "given or done voluntarily".This does not make sens to me. Something that is solicited is asked for. Voluntarily has nothing to do with it. I have no idea what this is about nor whether it matters, but if someone asked in any way, directly or indirectly, for details from the AC Chairman, it was solicited. I support vampyr in raising the issue of the legality of committee rulings. It seems peculiar to overturn a director decision and to penalise the other side.I don't understand this either, again as a general comment as against the specific. If an AC thinks that a ruling should be different and include a PP or DP, what difference does it make whether they are disagreeing with a TD or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 I have no idea what this is about nor whether it matters, but if someone asked in any way, directly or indirectly, for details from the AC Chairman, it was solicited.Apparently my partner sent a PM on here, of which I was not aware, to one of the AC members, hence the confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.