[lamford]

There is no need for me to define a convention. The ACBL GCC does so.

[mycroft]

A fair amount of the problem with the GCC is that it doesn't talk about the grey area of "natural, and conventional, according to the Definitions." and when that gets to be regulable. However, this game is not run according to the GCC; it's run under the club's convention regulation, as allowed by the ACBL. So, I am not sure DEFINITIONS, 4 necessarily applies.

I have been saying is that the Law says what it does; the intent of the law is what it is; if the two don't match in SB's reading, then argue to get the law or the acknowledged spirit of the law changed; until then, this is what happens.

I agree about the Grattanese - in fact, I use that construction a fair bit. I agree that the laws could use a bit of cleanup - but oddly enough, I'd want it to become more precise and if anything more lawyerly. If the players won't read this FLB, because it's "too hard" for tax accountants and doctors to understand the language (but they sure do read the Golf LB and interpretations. I wonder why) then let's not worry about making it easier to read (they won't) and instead make it more precise. And issue annual interpretation booklets (just like Golf, and Lacrosse, and ...)

I do however hope that in the stories, somehow this thread, or at least this hand, has been passed to the DIC in Reno, so he can make the staff aware that the bird is the word - and in town. (Note that I am *explicitly* not conflating SB and his Watson!)