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

[Herman De Wael]

gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote:
> 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 ~  +=+
> 

Come off the fence, Grattan, and tell us what you really think.
It is all very fine to keep saying that a particular body has the 
power to make a particular decision. That does not mean that they are 
correct in doing so (I originally had the word "right" in two places 
in these 2 sentences).

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html