[blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Sven Pran]

On Behalf Of ciska.zuur at planet.nl
I have the impression that when Law Y is 16C(2), and it is 16C mostly,  it
is meant as: there are none or not too many consequences, bidding can go on,
bid can be withdrawn etc.etc.  HOWEVER (but) there is UI, so 16C is
involved.
 
Sop, the BUT is a WARNING that some other article (in this case art 16C UI)
shall be applied also.
Therefor: it is not (a), not overriding
It is also not (b),
So it is (c), namely: besides article X, also article Y applies.
 
In fact, the but .... is redundant, because all articles applay always,
unless specificly excluded for a certain situation.
And, it is confusing, because sometimes 'but 16C ...' is mentioned and
sometimes not, giving arbiters the idea that there is no UI in the latter.
E.g. article 30A. The introduction of art 16 is clear: the withdrawn pas was
irregular and gives UI, so art 16 is applicable, but not mentioned in 30A.
 
Other views?
 
Ciska Zuur, NL


I believe you are on a right track. References to other laws (like
footnotes) in the book must be taken as reminders that you do not
necessarily have the full truth from just the law you are reading.

Whether it is a "but", just a "see" or simply a "law Y applies" is rather
unimportant, you should in any case consult also the referred law(s) before
making your ruling.

("But" will usually indicate the possibility of an exception depending on
the circumstances, "See" or "Law Y applies" that there are additional rules
relevant to the case.)  

Regards Sven