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

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
***********************************
"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
                                - Henry II of England.
...................................................
Q:  Did the King yield up his four knights 
     to the justice of the See of Rome?
***********************************
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> Richard wrote:
> 
>> The "strong body of opinion" on the WBF Appeals 
>> Committee made a basic error by assuming that it is
>> _the hesitation_ which is  "the irregularity". 
> 
> Hesitations *are* irregularities (L73a2 Calls and plays 
> should be made without special emphasis, mannerism 
> or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste).   
> The use of UI is an infraction.
> 
> Tim
> 
+=+Law 16A2:  "The Director shall require the auction 
and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted 
score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted 
in damage."
      Law 12C3: "Unless Zonal Organisations specify 
otherwise, an appeals committee may vary an assigned 
adjusted score in order to do equity."
      Law 12C2 contains the phrase "had the irregularity 
not occurred". Variation under Law 12C3 is open-ended 
in the discretion of the appeals committee (subject to any 
regulation). It is for the appeals committee to judge how 
to "do equity". One should not be led by one's personal 
inclination to read into a law words that are not present.
      I support a principle that was enunciated by our WBF 
CTD Emeritus in 1997:      "Mr Schoder remarked upon 
Edgar Kaplan's skills in separating out the concerns of the 
committee from those of other bodies, avoiding trespass 
in other areas of responsibility  He invited the committee 
post-Kaplan to further this aspect of his methods."
  Matters of bridge judgement, including the assessment of 
'equity', are not within the purview of the Laws Committee 
and there should be no restriction in law on the making of
such judgements by appeals committees.
                                              ~ Grattan ~  +=+