[blml] Law 12 A 1.

[Konrad Ciborowski]

> At the risk of jogging some minds that need jogging, this paragraph is 
> unchanged from the previous laws, and appeared originally word-for-word in
> 
> 1963 -- a date where some of you had not yet even been the result of 
> heterogeneous sex!  It is pure and simply there to let the bridge world
> know 
> that there may be infractions that have not yet been thought of and taken
> 
> care of by the rest of the laws. 


Here is the part that I'm having a problem with. 
An infraction is doing something that is in conflict with
one of the laws in TFLB. When an infraction is not in conflict
with any of the laws in TFLB then it is, by definition,
not an infraction.

    So your line of reasoning is contradiction in terms.
When some action hasn't been "taken care of" by the rest
of the laws then it is not an infraction because 
nullum crimen sine lege. While the premise of L12A1 is that 
there _has been_ an infraction. This means, implicitly, that 
the offender broke some specific, such-and-such law from
TFLB.

    After reading other's posts I am beginning to think
that L12A1 applies in the following situation:

a) there has been an infraction - a law number XX has been broken
b) law XX, unlike, say, L16, doesn't specifically give 
the TD the right to adjust the score;  74A1 might be an example
c) in the TD's opinion the offenders benefited from the infraction
d) the TD ajusts using L21A1

    Now it is clear. Let me say that it would be much clearer
if simply written that way.



-- 
Konrad Ciborowski
Kraków, Poland


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tysiace smiesznych filmikow z sieci. 
Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1ca7