[blml] Categories of rule-breaker

[WILLIAM SCHODER]

I find that often it is necessary for the TD to "divest" the individual from 
spectator status. "See me after the game" usually works though there is 
resistance to being putt off when one who feels strongly about something at 
the moment. I also find that there are TDs who would rather not hear 
anything that might give them the need to be complete TDs.  In the case 
cited about Cokin-Sion a TD even went so far as to find an ex-spectator 
after the game.

Grattan is right in taking this opportunity on BLML to give the TDs a 
reminder about the constraints on spectators during the game. The reason for 
the Law is to isolate the bidding and play to only the active players and 
preclude any interference at the table by extraneous personnel or 
information.

The hazy area not yet addressed to my satisfaction is when we broadcast to 
thousands of people and make visual records during a match.  Maybe golf 
should take up our principle -- then Curtis Strange would not have been 
penalized for kneeling on a towel to keep his pants clean when it was called 
in by a television viewer not even at the tournament who was a "spectator". 
However, in the past we have used recorded televised evidence to establish 
facts.


Kojak


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Grattan Endicott" <grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk>
To: "BLML" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:23 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker


>
> from Grattan Endicott
> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
> [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
> *****************************
> "The best words in the best order"
>                           ~ S T Coleridge.
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" <schoderb at msn.com>
> To: "BLML" <blml at rtflb.org>;
> "Matthias Berghaus" <ziffbridge at t-online.de>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 7:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker
>
>
> > To read the law and twist the words to defend a
> > ludicrous interpretation is probably what the
> > games of BLML are mostly about. There's a world
> > of difference between alleging that the words used
> > in the laws could be misinterpreted (in this case it
> > would need someone without any knowledge of
> > the game of bridge), and taking a stance that is silly.
> <
> +=+ It seems to me that to comply with the law the
> individual should divest himself of the status of
> 'spectator' before engaging in discussion on such a
> matter. I believe the principle that spectators have
> no standing to intervene in the game is well supported.
> However, there is a requirement to define when a
> spectator ceases to be a spectator and this extends
> to those privileged to view electronic transmissions.
>                                      ~ Grattan ~   +=+
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>