[BLML] Inn any manor [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Richard HILLS richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Mon Nov 4 22:40:22 CET 2013


UNOFFICIAL

Nigel Guthrie ("detaching card" thread):

>IMO a director can't just transmogrify into a spectator to avoid his duties.

Law 81C3:

"The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying
irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers
normally include also the following:
to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware ++in any
manner++, within the correction period established in accordance with
Law 79C."

Nigel Guthrie:

>It is not within the director's prerogative to decide which irregularities to
>allow. Whether the director witnesses a blatant infraction by a known
>cheat or an accidental irregularity by a good friend -- he *must* rectify it,
>sooner or later.

Richard Hills:

The key word is "rectify", and the key protocol is "sooner or later". If a non-
offending side does not observe the other side's revoke, but the Director
does, then equity demands that the Director waits until such a ++later++ time
that only the equity provisions of Law 64C apply.

Grattan Endicott, 19th September 2002:

>>
>>But note also the word "rectify". This covers returning the position to
>>normality, restoration of equity, but it does not necessarily require that
>>any penalty provision of a law be imposed. A Director often has room for
>>manoeuvre in this respect: time limits intervene, there are such provisions
>>as those in Law 11B, and so on.   ~ Grattan ~   +=+

Nigel Guthrie:

>A bizarre argument is that somehow it's unfair to pick on a particular rule-
>breaker when others are profiting from infractions at unsupervised tables;
>but victims deserve as much consideration as rule-breakers; and rule-
>enforcement deters would-be rule-breakers.

Richard Hills:

"Fairness" in Duplicate Bridge is defined by the Laws and Lawful regulations
of Duplicate Bridge. So the argument is worse than "bizarre", it is an illegal
breach of a Director's "in any manner" duties.

And, in my opinion, IF a Director refuses to "walk the floor" SOLELY
because of a fear that she might have to apply Law 81C3 (instead of the
Director having a legitimate reason for being absent from the floor, e.g. setting
up the scoring on the computer), THEN that Director is in breach of Law 82A,
Rectification of Errors of Procedure, Director's Duty:

"It is the ++responsibility++ of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and
to maintain the progress of the game ++in a manner++ that is not contrary to
these Laws."

UNOFFICIAL




--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.  DIBP respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988.  The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au.  See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131104/d2513712/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list