Re: 2017 Law 26 (Call Withdrawn, Lead Restrictions)

I don’t take all credit for this – there were plenty of other similar views expressed at the EBL TD course in Prague. I welcome that they were listened to and acted on so promptly, even if it means we now have to put stickers in our EBU published law books!

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Richard Hills
Sent: 11 August 2017 03:08
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BLML] 2017 Law 26 (Call Withdrawn, Lead Restrictions)

Gordon Rainsford's complaint that the Law 26 "effects are sometimes draconian" has perhaps stimulated the WBF Laws Committee into an ex post facto deletion of Law 26B1.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

Sent from my iPad

> On 5 Jun 2017, at 6:16 PM, Gordon Rainsford <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Certainly it is easier to understand and apply, but it's effects are sometimes draconian. 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On 5 Jun 2017, at 08:15, Richard Hills <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Law 26 was comprehensively rewritten by the 2017 Drafting Committee.
>> 
>> Outcomes - lead a suit specified by declarer / do not lead a suit (while retaining the lead) specified by declarer - are similar. However, in my opinion, the 2017 Law 26 is much easier for a Director to understand than the recondite wording of the 2007 Law 26.
>> 
>> The 2017 Law 26A (No Lead Restrictions) also contains useful cross-references to the new 2017 Law 23 (Comparable Call).
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> 
>> Richard Hills
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml