[BLML] Inn any manor [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Tue Nov 5 02:40:16 CET 2013

Ah, we've been down this road. This is either a power or a responsibility;  
that's as far as the laws go. I prefer to interpret it as a power.

On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 16:40:22 -0500, Richard HILLS  
<richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:

>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.”
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/20131105/8ca1af1e/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Blml mailing list