Re: inn err Ni manor

On Mon, 04 Sep 2017 03:28:52 -0400, Richard Hills <[email protected]> wrote:

> Fifth paragraph of the 2017 Introduction:
>
> "The trend, begun in 2007, to give Tournament Directors more discretion in enforcing the Law has been continued and attempts have been made to clarify interpretations. The Committee intends to prepare a separate official Commentary, containing examples to help in this respect."
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> Sir Bedevere, in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail, used logic to demonstrably suggest that a witch had exactly the same weight as a duck. Then he used his largest scales to assess a putative witch.
>
> Pending the publication of the official Commentary presumably the 2008 minutes of the WBF Laws Committee have lame-duck lingering validity. That is, there is an "overriding requirement" to give an accurate explanation in response to an opponent's enquiry despite Law 20F5(a) [or despite the new 2017 Law 75B3].

We know. An expert was kibitzing two of his clients, one of them gave an incorrect explanation of the other's bid, and he asked me if he should correct. I happily said yes and was thankful for that minute. Overriding, right?

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