[BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn)

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Sun Jan 17 20:48:22 CET 2010

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 07:22:07 -0500, Grattan <grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk>  

> 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."
>                       [William Morris]
> "''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> ----- 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>
>> wrote:
>>> ----- 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?

Do I have the duty to refer any matter to an appropriate committee? To me,  
this reads more like a power -- I can handle a "matter" by myself, but I  
have the power to refer any matter to an appropriate committee. Would you  
say that when a matter comes up I have an obligation to refer it to an  
appropriate committee?

>        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.

This is a really interesting point of view. I agree. But.... what if I am  
directing but at the table as a kibitzer? Do I have the obligations of a  
kibitzer instead of the obligations of a director? I think so. But then we  
are back to not having to rectify a revoke that wasn't noticed when I am  


More information about the Blml mailing list