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

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Grattan Endicott:

[snip]

>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 ~    +=+

Richard Hills:

But is it appropriate for the Director to create equity at one table,
by a Law 81C6 and Law 64C ruling authorized in the laws, when like
risks may go unchecked by her at other tables, due to successful
applications of Law 72B3 by offending sides at other tables?

Law 72B3 (Infraction of Law - Inadvertent Infraction):

"There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent
infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see footnote to
Law 75 for a mistaken explanation)."

Richard Hills:

Long-standing posters and lurkers on blml know that Law 72B3 is the
Law that I detest most.  But as long as Law 72B3 remains in the
Lawbook, it should not be undermined by the Director arbitrarily
kibitzing a particular table.

For example, suppose that this Nigellian hypothetical exists.  The
Director is friendly with a particular pair who never revoke, but
who also never notice an inadvertent revoke by their opponents.  The
Director has some spare time, so she elects to amuse herself by
kibitzing a table, and "normally" enough chooses her friends' table.

In American League baseball, the "normal" baseball team-of-nine is
augmented by a Designated Hitter who hits on behalf of the pitcher.
In the example above, the "normal" pair-of-two would be augmented by
a Designated Revoke-Spotter.

:-)

What exactly does the Law 81C6 word "normally" constrain?


Season's greetings

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285