[blml] club director torment

[Eric Landau]

On May 8, 2008, at 4:03 AM, <gesta at tiscali.co.uk>  
<gesta at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> From: "Robert Frick" <rfrick at rfrick.info>
>
>> Hmm, I can read through 8 years worth of minutes of meetings of Law
>> Commissions/Committees. Sorry to say this, but I have not seen a  
>> WBFLC
>> opinion (or whatever) that I liked.
>>
>> Maybe I shouldn't be spending all of today running my
>> obsessive-compulsive-perfectionistic programs and trying to figure  
>> out if
>> there even is a right ruling or how I would find that out. Maybe I  
>> should
>> just take for granted that if I make a ruling, a higher up will  
>> probably
>> judge it "wrong" and there is nothing I can do in advance to avoid  
>> that.
>> Maybe no one really expects club directors to do anything more  
>> than apply
>> their own interpretation of the laws.
>>
>> Or, as you all know, the laws are pretty good, but they aren't  
>> great, and
>> there is no good way of handling the ambiguities.
>
> +=+ No grief Bob about not liking a WBFLC opinion. It is a rare
> opinion that does not meet with 'dislike' on the part of some people.
> We live with that.
>         Take the law step by step. When a Director is summoned to
> deal with an insufficient bid the first duty lies upon his  
> shoulders. He
> must tell the players at the table what the law is. He ought to  
> tell them
> about the LHO's option to accept or not accept, and that when LHO
> has decided the offender will have options. He should tell them about
> 27B1(a) and (b) , about 27B2 and that replacement with a double or
> redouble is only permissible if it meets the requirements of 27B1(b).
> (It will help the Director if he thinks about his task beforehand and
> works out the simplest way for him of stating the law adequately to
> the players. I suspect that numbers of TDs will start by telling  
> LHO of
> his options and that if he rejects the IB the offender will have  
> options
> some of which will place restrictions upon his side.  If LHO asks for
> more information about offender's options he is entitled to it. ) When
> he has stated the law he should ask the LHO to decide whether to
> accept the IB or not.
>         Only after LHO has decided not to accept the IB does offender
> have any options and he does not have to select an option until he has
> options. He may need to be reminded again what they are. My advice
> is to work out beforehand the easiest way for you of accomplishing all
> of this.

That is a formula for achieving Bob's dystopia, in which "directors  
[do nothing] more than apply their own interpretation of the laws".   
ISTM it should be up to our RAs, or some higher authority, to "think 
[] about [the] task beforehand and work[] out the simplest way for  
[TDs] of stating the law adequately to the players", and to  
communicate it to the TDs within their jurisdiction.  That might  
actually prevent our winding up with every club having the functional  
equivalent of its very own version of L27.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net