[BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn)
grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk
Sun Jan 17 13:22:07 CET 2010
Grattan Endicott<grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk
"Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time,
Why should I strive to set the crooked straight?
Let it suffice that my murmuring rhyme
Beats with light wing against the ivory gate
Telling a tale not too importunate."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Frick" <rfrick at rfrick.info>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 3:41 AM
Subject: Re: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn)
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:42:34 -0500, Grattan <grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Nigel Guthrie" <nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com>
>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 7:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of
>> Davids Burn)
>> [B] The rest of this law means "If the director becomes
>> aware of an irregularity/infraction before the end of the
>> correction period, then his duty is to rectify it." Some
>> BLMLers interpret it to mean that the director can
>> *delay rectification* provided he does something
>> before the end of the correction period. Unfortunately,
>> unnecessary delay sometimes risks inadequate rectification.
>> +=+ I share the following opinion addressed to me by
>> the WBF CTD:
>> <<""81C3 gives the Director no choice but to act at some point
>> within the correction period.
>> Broadly speaking I agree with what you have already said on
>> the subject. For example, the Director notices that a player has
>> revoked. I'd wait until the 64C period before doing anything. In
>> other words, I'd give the revoking side a chance to notice their
>> own revoke before it became established, and I'd give the non-
>> offending side the chance to notice it and receive the penalty
>> tricks. Only if no-one noticed it would I act, and I'd do so
>> within the 64C period [equity only].
>> I'm a little surprised that there's any real debate on this
>> subject. "">>
> Again, L81C is a list of duties and powers. It never says which ones on
> the list are duties and which ones are powers. I don't think it makes
> sense to read them as all being duties. Because of this ambiguity, L81C
> cannot be used to support the idea of the director having a responsibility
> to act.
> I would be very surprised to learn that the laws provide that much
> guidance for when a director should intervene following a revoke.
> And ironically, I revoked as a playing director last week. The opponents
> did not notice. What are my responsibilities?
+=+ Would you not think that the matters listed, and others generally,
are not either duties or powers but both duties and powers?
As to a playing Director's revoke, my opinion is that he is
at the table as a player not as a Director. He has the responsibilities
of a player. If these require the Director to be summoned he calls
himself, puts on a different hat, rules and rectifies. It is better that
he should not rule at his own table if there is someone available
(who is not still due to play the board) who can meet the need.
It is for the Director to know what the law requires of him. His
guidance comes from his training. In the tournament his power of
interpreting the law prevails. If there were to be ambiguity he is
empowered to resolve it.
~ Grattan ~ +=+
More information about the Blml