[blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Grattan Endicott]

from Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
*****************************
"Reason's whole pleasure, all the
                               joys of sense,
 Lie in three words, health, peace,
                          and competence."
                       -~ Alexander Pope.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads
> > Sven wrote:
> >
> > > I read your statement to say that if the Director while accidentally
> > > watching the play like any other spectator becomes aware of an
> > > irregularity happening or about to happen he shall take immediate
> > > action and interfere with the activities at that table in order to
> > > prevent or rectify the irregularity?
> >
> > I didn't see a universal need for *immediacy* in Grattan's comment.
> > Obviously if attention has already been drawn I'd take action because
> > the TD should be called.  However, the last time I saw a revoke (which
> > went unnoticed at the table) I waited until the provisions of L64b4 had
> > expired and then rectified the board by adjusting under L64C.
> >
> > NB, I saw the revoke because I was, in my role as TD, checking that play
> > at that table wasn't falling behind the clock (or maybe waiting to put a
> > board on the table).  The nuances are such that I'm fully behind Grattan
> > in saying that the TD is NEVER a spectator while on duty.
>
> Do I understand you correct that in your opinion the TD shall never
> interfere with activities at the table in an attempt to prevent an
> irregularity (except when the very purpose of his presence at the table is
> to assist the players in correct procedures), but that he shall execute
the
> relevant procedures afterwards regardless of how he became aware of an
> irregularity?
>
> This implies that he for instance shall not in any way react on a revoke
of
> which he becomes aware in any other way than by being summoned to the
table,
> until after the provisions of Laws 64B4 and 64B5 have expired.
>
> I fully agree with such opinion which in my view is just another (and
maybe
> better) way of describing that the director has the role of a spectator
when
> he notices events in the room without being summoned.
>
> Regards Sven
>
+=+ I am not sure what I am reading here. One, the status of the Director
 is always 'Director', never 'spectator'.  Two, did someone suggest that
the Director, by his own extraneous action - seeking to prevent an
irregularity, should interfere with the outcome of the board? Anyone
who thinks that should read the lawbook again. It does not authorize
the Director to intervene to prevent an irregularity in the play. Only
when the players are acting under his instructions should he ensure that
they do so correctly. It is no part of the Director's role to participate in
the play until he is required to deal with an irregularity that has
occurred.
It is inappropriate for the Director to change the course of play at one
table, by an action not authorized in the laws, when like risks may go
unchecked by him at others.
                                  ~ G ~    +=+