[nige1]

bixby, on 2010-December-23, 19:48, said:

Hmmm . . . . the chief problem is that the hand appears to be fictional. West's miraculous ♣J109 tripleton is suspicious enough, as well as the 7-1 heart split that makes it impossible for South to make the slam by ruffing a heart before drawing trumps, but what really seems like a setup are East's ♥J1098765 and ♣76543. Not to mention the trump layout -- ♠AKQJ10, ♠9876, ♠5432! Oh, and the diamond layout looks setup too. I'm guessing that this hand is a setup hypothetical. (Or at least the spots have been altered.)

bluejak, on 2010-December-24, 10:27, said:

I am not sure why this makes it a "problem". When abstract questions have been asked here and on other forums it has often proved very difficult to answer them. Far better is to discuss an actual hand which can make a point much clearer. So if a person wants to discuss a point and invents a hand that fits, why not?

Agree with Bluejak. IMO the law book should be illustrated with two kinds of case:

• Cases like Lamford's that explore fundamental concepts of the laws and currently generate a variety of inconsistent rulings.
• Cases on the cusp - where the ruling is on a knife-edge and could go either way. For example, if you changed a ten to a nine, then the ruling might change.

[AlexJonson]

Nige

I happen to disagree.

I suffer a sort of internal groan when I see the latest Lamford 'from the club' post.

It's all sub or super BLML, or of course the next wonders of the menagerie.

I must say I read it with enjoyment, but without information or education.

[bluejak]

Claims probably involve more TD judgement than any other kind of ruling, and examples for discussion seem a good thing to me, but unfortunately for similar reasons are less likely to get definitive answers. However, I believe such discussions help people when later they have to rule on a claim.

No, I do not think things like this are BLML style at all. The biggest problem with BLML [apart from a couple of the people who post] is that they are trying to work out the absolute conclusions from super-careful readings of the Laws. On IBLF we are adopting a more practical approach, trying to help people how to rule in practice.

Especially in the case of claims, I think difficult examples, whether invented or real, help our readers.