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

[Tim West-Meads]

Eric Wrote:
> 
> Hesitations are irrgularities, but L12C2 carefully uses the phrase  
> "had *the* [emphasis mine] irregularity not occurred" rather than  
> something like "had no irregularity occurred".  That denotes some  
> specific irregularity.  Since L12 applies only when there has been 
> a  "violation of law", I think we can safely assume that it is the  
> violation of law that is "the" irregularity beling referred to.

Assuming Grattan's recollections are broadly correct I think one can
readily believe that L12c2 is *very* carefully worded to allow either the
initial irregularity OR the later infraction to be the referent.

Taking a lead from the spirit expressed back then I would suggest that
L12c3 rulings should (almost) never balance.

While I don't disagree that restoring equity in an exercise in judgement
I don't think that a closer definition of what equity *is* would damage
the ability to exercise such judgement.

IMO a Bit is not only an irregularity but a clear technical error.  The
opponents have every right to gain full benefit from such an error
(albeit not all errors cost).  Those who believe that breaking tempo
isn't an error of itself are likely to have a different view of what
equity means on a given hand.

Tim