[blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Tim West-Meads]

Richard wrote:
> 
> Is Tim saying that hesitations without design, although not
> infractions, are still irregularities?

It is not I who say it but the laws (definitions+L73a2).  Design (or lack
thereof) is irrelevant - hesitations must also be "due".
 
> If so, I disagree.  I believe that an infraction should be
> defined as an irregularity committed by a player.

I believe that infraction should be defined.  I don't think "irregularity
committed by a player" works.  I think spectators can commit infractions.
The context in which the word is used in the CoP
is "an irregularity which gains advantage/damages opps".

> Ergo, if a hesitation without design is not an infraction, it
> cannot be an irregularity either.  Therefore Tim's
> interpretation of "without undue" in Law 73A2 has been
> superseded by the WBF CoP interpretation, which has redefined
> "without undue" as meaning "without design".

Neither my interpretation nor that of any other TD *can* be superseded by
the CoP.  As a guiding document it applies solely to WBF competitions
while as a source of official interpretation of law it has no standing
whatsoever. 

As a player/TD I believe that bridge is *supposed to be played in tempo*
and until the WBFLC explicitly state otherwise I will continue to rule on
that basis.

Tim