[helene_t]

OleBerg, on Aug 6 2009, 08:13 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 6 2009, 07:40 AM, said:

The laws say agreements must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations in place. We have such regulations. They work, at least they do when people follow them. Why mess with them?

Some people, me included, think there is a problem (the loop). The proposed changes are meant to solve that problem.

Yes, but for most of us the cure is worse than the disease.

Most of us never psyche 1NT openings. Nevertheless, we would have to deal with opps playing two different defenses to our 1NT opening and we would have to agree on defenses to both.

[OleBerg]

helene_t, on Aug 6 2009, 11:32 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Aug 6 2009, 08:13 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 6 2009, 07:40 AM, said:

The laws say agreements must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations in place. We have such regulations. They work, at least they do when people follow them. Why mess with them?

Some people, me included, think there is a problem (the loop). The proposed changes are meant to solve that problem.

Yes, but for most of us the cure is worse than the disease.

Most of us never psyche 1NT openings. Nevertheless, we would have to deal with opps playing two different defenses to our 1NT opening and we would have to agree on defenses to both.

Having to make a defense vs a penalty double of 1NT doesn't seem like a tough job to me.

[bluejak]

cherdanno, on Aug 6 2009, 03:36 AM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 5 2009, 08:37 PM, said:

That is certainly illegal.

I assumed this thread was about how the rules might be changed, I am fully aware that this would not be allowed under current rules.

This forum is for exaplaining the current Laws. I am not arguing how the Laws might be changed, and this forum is unsuitble for doing so.

As previously noted, despite the name "The New Laws" I feel that is a suitable forum for discussing ways to change the Laws because we are also loooking forward to the next New Laws.