Re: Deja vu (was Standard)

At 01:50 PM 10/2/03, Grattan wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa <at> starpower.net>
>
> > At 07:39 PM 10/1/03, grandeval wrote:
> >
> > >+=+ Responding as though you had spoken in
> > >your own behalf, I would merely observe that the
> > >interpretation of the law has not given a blessing
> > >to such a regulation. It gives its blessing to placing
> > >in the domain of the regulator the determination
> > >whether such a regulation is of a kind beneficial
> > >to the game.
> >
> > "Beneficial to the game" can mean either beneficial to
> > the game as a  whole, for everyone, or beneficial to the
> > game in a limited area, region or jurisdiction, for some
> > limited constituency.  When there is an international
> > governing body comprised of representatives of
> > individual constituencies, it is natural to assume
> > regulations in the first class to be the responsibility of
> > the international body, and those in the second class to
> > be delegated to the regulating bodies of the organizations
>representing the individual constituencies.
> >
> > Many of us believe strongly that when it comes to
> > regulation of bidding methods, the first class is not empty.
> >
>+=+ Yes, Eric, I recognize that you and others believe this.
>I also recognize that some of you feel you have a problem
>with your NBO or Zonal Authority in respect of such matters,
>which encourages you to argue for central control by the
>world body. I think I can say with certainty that the day is
>a long way off.     I seek only to establish the way it is; the
>discussion that placed the subject in the second category
>occurred a long time ago and it will surprise me greatly
>if it changes in the present round.

Grattan's message is clear, and I do recognize the reality of the 
situation.  I understand I must content myself with the modest hope 
that, indeed, things will not change in the present round.  Recall that 
my original contribution to the thread (the above is the second round 
with Grattan) was in response to a post calling for L40D to be expanded 
to allow SOs to regulate *all* agreements of any kind, so as to 
eliminate the need to define "conventions" in order to know what 
authority it actually grants.  SOs already do indeed, as the ACBL has 
clearly proven, have the de facto authority to do whatever they want, 
but granting them the de jure authority to go with it would close off 
any hope whatsoever for the future.

Eric Landau                     ehaa <at> starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618 

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> rtflb.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml