[blml] An EBU L&E decision.

[Wayne Burrows]

On 31/10/2007, gesta at tiscali.co.uk <gesta at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
> [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
> ******************************************
> "The intellectuals' chief cause of anguish
> are one another's works."
>                 ~ Jacques Martin Barzun.
> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wayne Burrows" <wjburrows at gmail.com>
> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 7:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [blml] An EBU L&E decision.
>
>
> >
> > "In adjudicating appeals the committee25 may exercise all powers
> > assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may
> > not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations, or on
> > exercise of his disciplinary powers.  The committee may recommend to
> > the Director that he change his ruling."  L93B
> >
> > There is no condition that this only applies to laws and regulations
> > that are explicit.
> >
> +=+ My view is that if, for example, the alerting regulation says
> "alert any call that has a potentially unexpected meaning", the
> AC cannot overrule the Director when he states that an alert is
> required of any call that has a potentially unexpected meaning.
> However, if he then goes on to say "and the meaning of this call is
> potentially unexpected" then, unless he can point to a supportive
> expansion of the regulation,  he is exercising bridge judgement in
> asserting that the call is such a call. He is not now stating the
> regulation but is expressing an opinion, a bridge judgement, as
> to the application of the regulation. In this latter area of bridge
> judgement the AC is not prohibited, in my reading of the law,
> from replacing the Director's bridge judgement with its own.
>                                     ~ Grattan ~   +=+
>

You did not answer the question.

Is there a law that states this view?

I know it is your opinion.

To me the law seems to give the sole power of interpreting regulations
to the director.  And further states that the appeal committee cannot
over-rule the director on a point of law.  I would take that to mean
that the director's interpretation of the law cannot be over-ruled.

Wayne