[blml] L93 Why "Director in charge"?

[Peter Eidt]

From: Robert Geller 
> In ordinary talk by bridge players, all directors at a tourney, both
> the director in charge and his assistants, are called "directors" but,
> as everyone on BLML knows the Laws reserve "director" for THE director
> (the guy in charge), and everyone else is an "assistant" (see L81D)
> 
> A search of the 2007 Laws shows that the word "director" is used 242
> times.
> In 236 of these case the usage is consistent, just the one word
> "director." However, for a reason I don't understand (I'm hoping
> someone here can explain it) suddly in L93 (throughout L93) the phrase
> "Director in charge" is used (see example below).  This phrase is used
> six times in L93 (and only in L93).
> ******************************************************
> LAW 93 - PROCEDURES OF APPEAL
> A. No Appeals Committee
> The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon all appeals if there
> is no Appeals Committee (or alternative arrangement under Law
> 80B2(k)), or if such cannot operate without disturbing the orderly
> progress of the tournament.
> ********************************************************
> 
> According to L82D, the Director can delegate any of his duties to an
> assistant (while remaining responsible for performance of the duties).
> Therefore, even if L93 assigns appeals-related duties specifically to
> the "Director in Charge," he is free (under 82D) to delegate these to
> an assistant (in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary
> in L93, which of course doesn't exist).
> 
> So, why does L93 (and L93 only) use the term "Director in Charge"? Can
> anyone explain this?

Perhaps because here (in Law 93 territory) the duties of the TD
may not be delegated ??? Law 93 wants THE Director not any
of his assistants to act.
 
> And how should we translate this?  Should we take seriously the
> difference in usage between  "Director in Charge" in L93 and
> "Director" everywhere else in the Laws and translate this differently
> from the translator used for "Director" in L1-92, or should we assume
> this is just one more instance of shoddy and inconsistent wordsmithing
> by the WBFLC?    (My money is on the latter, needless to say, but if
> there is a real difference could someone please explain this.)

FWIW, I translated the Director of the Law 1-92 as the german equivalent
of "Director" while I translated "Director in charge" as "responsible
Director".