[BLML] All gone quiet

Sven Pran svenpran at online.no
Mon Dec 1 08:13:22 CET 2014


I fail to see any discrepancy between my view and the various view you are referring to below?

Apparently the directors involved have all used their judgement skills, which is exactly as it should be. 

(And tremor may well, but not necessarily, qualify as extraordinary cause.)

 

Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] På vegne av Richard Hills
Sendt: 1. desember 2014 04:32
Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Emne: Re: [BLML] All gone quiet

 

 

Sven Pran:

 

I see no reason to change the laws on this matter.

It is clear to me that the Director has the power to “rule otherwise” if he finds cause, but such cause must be real.

As such cause most necessarily must bed of an extraordinary nature the laws do not specify possible criteria but leave it for the Director to judge. He certainly may not use his powers arbitrarily.

 

Richard Hills:

 

A real-life paradigm case occurred (to the best of my recollection) in the 2001 Kansas City Nationals. A sweet old lady as defender exposed 13 cards. Declarer summoned the Director. A generous declarer would have requested the Director to waive the 13 penalty cards. But this declarer valued his competive score more than niceness to sweet old ladies. (And, indeed, niceness has to stop somewhere. If a sweet old lady bids 7H with the ace of trumps offside, I do not accept her Law 25B attempt to convert the contract to 6H.) So the declarer refused to request a waiver of the 13 penalty cards.

 

The Director over-rode declarer's wishes, not only ruling that the 13 exposed cards were not penalty cards, but also ruling that the 13 exposed cards were not unauthorised information.

 

The Director's so-called "cause of an extraordinary nature" was that the sweet old lady had accidentally knocked over her card-holder. This does not seem "extraordinary" to me, given that there are several Laws defining correct procedure for a Director after an accidental placement of a card on the table.

 

Of interest were the views of the appeal casebook panellists. Almost all of the panellists did not discuss the merits of the appeal, instead vehemently (and irrelevantly) denouncing the declarer as unsporting. But Grattan Endicott, in my opinion correctly, had a firmer opinion than Sven Pran's "extraordinary cause". Grattan's opinion was that ANY cause - in this case the sweet old lady's tremor - was a sufficient cause to cancel 13 penalty cards.

 

Best wishes,

 

Richard Hills

 

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be> wrote:

I second this view.
All the cases we've seen in this manner are extraordinary - so putting
them in the laws would require forsight larger than life.
And it need not be said that the director should use his powers with
care. Nothing in the laws stops him from seeing to it that the (male of
female) object of his/her desire, despite being a beginner, wins the
national championship. Nothing in the laws, but possibly something in
his pay-packet in the future.
Herman.

Sven Pran schreef:
> I see no reason to change the laws on this matter.
>
> It is clear to me that the Director has the power to “rule otherwise” if
> he finds cause, but such cause must be real.
>
> As such cause most necessarily must bed of an extraordinary nature the
> laws do not specify possible criteria but leave it for the Director to
> judge. He certainly may not use his powers arbitrarily.
>
> *Fra:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *På vegne
> av* Richard Hills
> *Sendt:* 28. november 2014 01:55
> *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List
> *Emne:* Re: [BLML] All gone quiet
>
> Sorry, until recently I was one of blml's most prolific creators of new
> threads. Let us try this new topic. The Director is empowered by Law to
> rule that a defender's exposed card is not a Penalty Card. Is this
> exercise of this directorial power:
>
> (a) unconditional? or
>
> (b) constrained by meeting a specific criterion and/or criteria in the
> Lawbook?
>
> If (a) is currently true, should (b) become true in the 2017 Lawbook,
> so as to prevent the Director arbitrarily deciding the result of a
> tournament?
>
> Alternatively, should the Penalty Card Laws be deleted from the 2017
> Lawbook, with instead Law 16D applying to a defender's exposed card(s)?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Richard Hills
>
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Robert Park <bpark56 at comcast.net
> <mailto:bpark56 at comcast.net>> wrote:
>
> On 11/27/14, 1:53 PM, bmeadows666 at gmail.com
> <mailto:bmeadows666 at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > Apologies for the test message, but I've seen no messages on this list
>  > for more than a month.
>  >
>  > Brian.
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > Blml mailing list
>  > Blml at rtflb.org <mailto:Blml at rtflb.org>
>  > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>  >
>
> I'm glad you posted this. My experience has been the same.
>     --bp
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org <mailto:Blml at rtflb.org>
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml at rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20141201/ba9158e5/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list