Re: Could have known

Le 20.05.2016 17:57, Richard Hills a écrit :
> Law 73F may not be invoked unless there has been an infraction of one
> of Laws 73A to 73E. Since the infraction is a Law 50 penalty card,
> Tony Musgrove is correct in stating we should be discussing Law 23,
> not Law 73F.
> 
> If it is legal for the Director to consider ruling a Law 73F adjusted
> score, then "could have known" is an easy hurdle for the Director to
> leap. But a Law 23 adjusted score requires the Director leaping a much
> higher hurdle:
> 
> "an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity
> that this could well damage the non-offending side"
> 
> In my opinion "could well damage" is significantly different in
> meaning from "could damage". Thus, if I was the Director I would not
> adjust the score.


Yes, that's it. It is much more plausible for a  remark or variation of 
tempo to be intended to decieve than for an insufficient bid or a 
revoke, if only because in the latter case there is a severe penalty and 
it might backfire.

Also, speaking is not part of the game, contrary to playing a card, 
making it a bit more suspect.

Or, to express it differently, Herman's scenario features a deliberate 
action, whose effect on opponents is much easier to predict when it is a 
remark than when it is a revoke.

For those reasons, the lawmakers have decided on a limit which,in 
Richard's feelings and in mine, is quite different.

Best regards,

   Alain
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml