[BLML] 12A1 case or not?

Grattan grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk
Wed Dec 23 00:08:06 CET 2009



Grattan Endicott<grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk
********************************
"He that is of a merry heart
 hath a continual feast."
                 ~ Proverbs 15:15
"''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nigel Guthrie" <nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: [BLML] 12A1 case or not?


>
 In principle it looks like a typical 12A1 case to me. Declarer violated
 L74C8. There is no specific rectification for violating this particular
 law this case seems to be covered by L12A1. The only problem that I have
 is that L12A1 is not a law of the "could have" type. It simply says that
 "The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws
 do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the
 particular type of violation committed by an opponent."
<
+=+ So it hinges on the interpretation of 'indemnity'. It is true
that the dictionary states "compensation for loss or injury". But
it also defines the word as "security from damage or loss".
I consider this definition to be sufficient to cover protection
from  losses of all kinds including intangible losses.
                                 ~ Grattan ~   +=+ 



More information about the Blml mailing list