[blml] L93 Why "Director in charge"?

[Robert Geller]

But 
   (1) since under 81D the director (the director in charge, if you like) can delegate
any of his duties to an assistant, the use of  "director in charge" in L93 is
meaningless (unless L93 forbade delegation to assistants, which it does not).
  (2) the fact that "director" is used to include both the chief director
and his asistants in everyday usage is irrelevant to the law book, which should
be internally consistent.
  (3) the fact that some people did or didn't discuss this question in relation
to the 1997 laws is of interest, but doesn't change the fact that the 2007
laws should be an internally consistent document that speaks for itself.

-Bob  

gesta at tiscali.co.uk さんは書きました:
>
>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 ~    +=+
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml at amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

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