[blml] ...have we really come to this???

[Grattan Endicott]

Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
****************************
"The trouble with referees is that they 
know the rules, but they don't know 
the game."         [Bill Shankly]
 vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
To: "Grattan Endicott" <grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] ...have we really come to this???


> Hello Grattan.
> 
> I have now reposted my original to BLML.  Your response was  
> illuminating, and I urge you to post a public reply.  /eric
> 
===========================================
+=+ With respect to Eric's paragraph in which he wrote:
<<
>> "If the ACBL wanted L12C2, and the rest of the 
>> world wanted ACs to have discretion to do equity, why 
>> not have TFLB say that ACs have discretion to do equity 
>> subject to regulation by their ZO, and let the ACBL pass 
>> its own equivalent to L12C2?"
>> 
<<< I responded to Eric on this wise: 
<<
>      " In the paragraph quoted here the reference to what the 
> 'ACBL' wanted is dubious - we did not identify 'Kaplan' as 
> 'the ACBL' and there was no evidence that he was proposing 
> with an ACBL mandate. Nor, on the other hand, did the EBL 
> constitute, or seek to speak for, the 'rest of the world' - even 
> if one could possibly say it was the only part of the rest of the 
> world sufficiently progressed at that time to stand up to Kaplan.
>       We did have a vision of the individual as being imbued 
> with his own sense of power and inclined to act as though the 
> law was what Kaplan said it was (and if it wasn't it should be)."
============================================
  I can add something to the above. First, there were ACBL 
personalities who saw dangers in the kind of  'authoritarian' 
approach adopted by Edgar. It was largely their initiative that
led to the 'Stop' placed on creation of law by individuals post 
Kaplan (WBFLC, item 4, 20th January 2000). 
   Second, I quote from a letter I wrote with EBL LC backing 
on 28th July 1987, to Ed Theus (Chairman WBFLC):
   << I do ask that the Committee give attention to a point on 
which I have corresponded with Edgar and where we do not 
share an identical point of view. Put in the simplest terms I seek 
to institute a footnote to Law 93B3, with an asterisk against 'all 
powers', to say 
        "But may vary a score assigned under Law 12C2 on
          grounds of equity."
It is becoming apparent to me that, even allowing whatever 
deprivation the non-offending side may have suffered, a literal 
application of the Law will still prove grossly inequitable at 
times - there should be an escape clause for Appeals Committees  
to apply in such circumstances. I make these points:
    1. It is not for our committee to seek to dictate the policy 
of Organizations, as distinct from the framework of Laws within 
which they operate.
    2. Still less is it right for our committee to enter into the field 
of value judgements which are, in essence, matters for Appeal 
Committees. To have a law which, as here, dictates a value 
judgement is autocratic and inappropriate.
    3. I am convinced that some of the organizations will continue 
to award what they consider to be equitable split results, not 
conforming to the prescription in the laws, whilst the prestigious 
W.B.F. Laws Committee sits like some latter-day Canute ordering 
the flood to retreat. >>
(At a meeting on 18th October 1987 the WBFLC added a footnote 
to Law 12 (in reference to 'Director') saying "An Appeals Committee 
may vary an assigned score in order to do equity.")  
=============================================
So it was.                                    ~ Grattan ~   +=+