[blml] Law 24

[WILLIAM SCHODER]

>
> from Grattan Endicott
> > +=+ I agree that this law does not sit well with Law 50.
> It may be that Law 24 is aberrant; equally well it may be
> that the aberration is the omission of words "except as
> Law 24 allows" in Law 50.

> Since each Law stands  equally with each other Law, Sponsoring 
> Organizations
> may determine how they will apply Law 24 in the absence
> of guidance from a higher level. If a card is not treated as
> a PC the card is not a penalty card and Law 50 does not
> apply to it.  It is then open to deem  Law 16A applicable
> to information from exposure of the card.
>                           ~ Grattan ~   +=+



I have trouble with the foregoing.  For over 50 years I have been taught 
that when there exists  a specific Law dealing with an infraction it takes 
precedence over any other Law which may appear to apply. Now I find 
categorically stated that all Laws "......stands equally with each other 
law....." which is, to me, is a personal opinion in conflict with  years of 
usage. I fail to see any aberration in Law 24, or 50. When the declarer 
deems ".....such card a penalty card....." then Law 50 applies in which part 
C invokes the provisions of Law 16A. I find it presumptuous for the TD to 
decide on applying Law 16A on his own recognizance when the declarer has 
specifically decided not to, and find no justification for a Sponsoring 
Organizations right to decide otherwise.

Kojak.
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>