Re: ??

For two decades we have been told that there is nothing worth correcting in TFLB from which is concluded that the only thing now worth discussing are ambiguities.  And now it is pointed out that low traffic is a consequence of no ambiguities.  My assessment is different: low traffic is actually a consequence of too many ambiguities…so many that it is too overwhelming.  Overwhelming?  How so?  Well, since there is no hope that discussing ambiguities will get them repaired the obvious answer is that thinking people have better things to do.

Take 44C for example.  This law must be the most clear and concise in the book.  Not so.  Presumably you believe what it says hook, line, and sinker…...  And I will point you to 63B and ask why it is there since 44C is so important?  And for those that can't let go, the big question makes me wonder why 64B exists.  But since 64B is there- I wonder why a COOT is penalized but the failure to perform the most important obligation is not.  And since 64B conveys that it is justice to not penalize the failure to perform the most important obligation: there is merely the smallest utility from the presence of 64C- after all, since justice has already been done via 64B, there is no more justice to be had, is there?

regards
roger pewick


From: Adam Wildavsky<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 6:11 PM
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [BLML] ??

Good one, Richard!

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Richard Hills <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
My opinion about the lack of traffic on this mailing list nowadays is that there are not any meaningful ambiguities in the 2017 Lawbook. But in the Good Old Days the 1997 Lawbook was infested with ambiguities, thus providing fertile ground for interminable discussions.

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