[blml] L93 Why "Director in charge"?

[Robert Geller]

Peter Eidt writes:
>> 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.
->
Perhaps you are correct.   BUT.....
   (1) In any big tournament (like the ACBL NABC tourneys) there are so many 
tables in play that the "Director in Charge" doesn't handle appeals but rather
the "Director in Charge" delegates appeals to a specialist assistant.
   (2)  Please note that there is NOTHING in L93 that requires the Director
in Charge to PERSONALLY handle appeals.  This is because L93 does not
have any specific prohibition on the use of 81D (which allows any task
to be delegated to an assistant of the Director in Charge).  Therefore
the use of "Director in Charge" in L93 as it now stands is completely
meaningless.
   
My working assumption is that (as seems to be the case generally) the WBFLC
simply drafted L93 in isolation, without considering
the use of "Director" as it appears in the remainder of L1-L92.   Can anyone
from the WBFLC comment on this?
 
>> 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".
->
Yes, at the moment the Japanese working version is the same. If we
just translate L93 in isolation this is obviously correct.   But in the
absence of a provision forbidding delegation to assistant directors
(i.e., a provision that L81D can't be used for any of the tasks assigned to
the Director in charge by L93) this makes no sense, and from a global 
standpoint it seems correct to use "director" rather than "director in chief"
in the translation of L93.


Sigh, why couldn't the WBFLC have done a more careful job?
 

-----------------------------------------------------
Robert (Bob) Geller,     Tokyo, Japan        geller at nifty.com