[blml] L93 Why "Director in charge"?

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*******************************
"Continuing to do the same thing
 hoping for a different outcome."
           Einstein: definition of madness.
 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Geller" <geller at nifty.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 3:58 AM
Subject: [blml] L93 Why "Director in charge"?
 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) suddenly
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).

..............................................................................
+=+ The above fails to relate the question to, and comment
upon, the use of 'Chief Director' in the 1997 laws. I quote
a couple of extracts from my records of discussion of the
subject:
"(......................) observes that there is the possibility of
saying simply 'Director' and maintaining the distinction
between 'Director' and 'Assistant Director'.
This works technically but psychologically, given that
he is the person who arrives when they summon 'the
Director' [per 1997 Law 9B1(a)],  people do think of
the official who goes to the table as the 'Director' even
though he is actually the Director's agent. There is also
the compounded confusion that in WBF and some
Zonal events, others too perhaps, the directing staff are
designated 'Chief Tournament Director', 'Assistant Chief
Tournament Director', 'Directors', 'Assistant Directors'
and such.
     That apart (..........) says that 'Director-in-charge' is
the best option in his opinion since 'Chief Director' in
some places means the CTD of the NBO and the
wording  is consequently ambiguous. "
                                 and
"I would say three of us are in agreement, which is no
bad start. I am inclined to write it as
           'Director in charge'
since I would want the job title to be 'Director' (as
throughout the book) and 'in charge' to be descriptive
of, or qualifying, 'Director'.  And no mention in the
definitions is then needed."
...........................................................................
                                      ~ Grattan ~    +=+