inn err Ni manor

" ... must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest - with a herring!"

Law 81C3:

"The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the periods established in accordance with Laws 79C and 92B."

Jeff Easterson, extract from earlier thread:

[snip]

1.  Law §81.C.3:  This says basically that the TD should rectify any 
error or irregularity of which he becomes aware.  The question is how 
strictly this should be applied.  Let us take three situations of which 
the TD becomes aware by coincidence (and, when applicable, have not been 
noticed by any player at the table).

[snip first two questions]

3. The Td notices a revoke.

[snip first two answers]

The law seems to say that the Td should act but this seems, at 
least to some Tds, unfair.  If it occurs at more than one table but is 
only noticed at one by the Td, then it will not be rectified at the 
other tables and coincidence is the determining factor.  (The 
coincidence of at which table the Td happens to be kibitzing.)
A secondary question is, if he acts, when he should do so.

[snip]

Richard Hills:

One of the key words in Law 81C3 is "rectify". The Definitions state:

"Rectification - the remedial provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director's attention."

Now in Law 64 (Procedure After Establishment of a Revoke) nowhere in Law 64A is there any mention of rectification or remedy / redress of damage. Rather, Law 64A refers to automatic trick adjustment. Hence the Director's intervention should be delayed until the only applicable clause of Law 64 is Law 64C (Redress of Damage).

+=+=+=+=+=+

Law 20F5(a):

"A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. 'Mistaken explanation' here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require."

Richard Hills:

Recent controversies mean that I am awaiting whether the Australian High Court will promulgate a "black-letter law" interpretation of section 44 of the Aussie Constitution.

Likewise, should there be a black-letter law interpretation of Law 20F5(a)'s "in any manner"?

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

Sent from my iPad
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml