[blml] "not have the force of law"

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*********************************************
"Football is football. If it was different
it wouldn't be the same game."
                    - Garth Crooks.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ton" <t.kooyman at worldonline.nl>
To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <blml at amsterdamned.org>;
<blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] "not have the force of law"


> Good question Ferry,
>
> This seems kind of a semantic problem.
> Examples are an interpretation of the laws and if the drafting committee
> distributes such examples you may expect those to have the force of
> jurisprudence. But then the laws committee later might decide otherwise,
> discovering that the drafters forgot something, interpreted something
> wrongly or whatever. Don't be too afraid, practically spoken we will be
> close to that famous force.
>
+=+ A problem arises if the WBFLC's power to interpret the meaning
of the laws is confused with a power not within its remit - that of making
bridge judgements in the application of law. This function lies within the
remit of the Appeals Committee. So examples the WBFLC produces
to illustrate laws are subject to the caveat that any bridge judgement it
may suggest in an example is assumptive and the WBFLC cannot
impose it on the Director or the Appeals Committee.  We must not
think that we can create 'jurisprudence' unless the WBF Appeals
Committee supports bridge judgements deployed in examples we
produce; jurisprudence derives from case law and while the WBFLC
defines the meaning of the law, the application of that meaning to
cases is the responsibility of others.
                                           ~ Grattan ~   +=+