[blml] club director torment

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*************************
"True luck consists not in holding 
the best cards at the table,
 Luckiest he who knows just when 
to rise and go home."  [John Hay ]
"*************************
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] club director torment


> 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.
> 
+=+ There will be seminars. In England these will go down to club level. 
The advice will be available. We cannot guarantee that every TD will find 
her/his way to it. We cannot guarantee that every NBO will organize 
seminars to the same extent. But in the past, helped on by willing winds, 
advice has surged like a tide to reach most of the beach. Why not again 
this time?
                                             ~ G ~   +=+