Help
"Could have been" does not mean the same as "was". The law is phrased in a way that means that the director doesn't have to consider actual intent or actual knowledge.
Insufficient bid with screens ACBL national tournament
#21
- Andy Bowles
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,993
- Joined: 2007-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2012-July-20, 03:11
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
#22
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,667
- Joined: 2006-May-18
- Gender:Not Telling
Posted 2012-July-20, 03:19
The Pednatic thread is in Simple Rulings, Andy. it is clear that this is all in the opinion of the TD. Obviously if you are unaware but the Director decides you are then Law 23 applies. It does not apply for the given clause if the passing of the infraction was inadvertent (in the opinion of the Director). Is this not what we were talking about? I am not sure what nitpicking about what is the truth and what the TD thinks is the truth has to do with your original question on whether Law 23 applies regardless of inadvertency.
(-: Zel :-)
#23
- Andy Bowles
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,993
- Joined: 2007-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2012-July-20, 05:09
Zelandakh, on 2012-July-20, 03:19, said:
The Pednatic thread is in Simple Rulings, Andy. it is clear that this is all in the opinion of the TD. Obviously if you are unaware but the Director decides you are then Law 23 applies. It does not apply for the given clause if the passing of the infraction was inadvertent (in the opinion of the Director). Is this not what we were talking about? I am not sure what nitpicking about what is the truth and what the TD thinks is the truth has to do with your original question on whether Law 23 applies regardless of inadvertency.
I'm not being pedantic, I'm not nitpicking, and I have said nothing about either "the truth" or "what the TD thinks is the truth", except to say that both are irrelevant. I'm treating Law 23 both as it is written and as it is interpreted by every competent director anywhere in the world.
If you pass an insufficient bid through the screen, that is an irregularity. It's an irregularity regardless of whether you knew that it was an irregularity. Law 23 has three conditions: you commit an irregularity, you benefit from the irregularity, and you could have known that you would benefit in this way. All of these conditions are met by the act of passing the insufficient bid through the screen.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
#24
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,611
- Joined: 2009-September-15
- Gender:Female
- Location:London
Posted 2012-July-21, 13:21
Zelandakh, on 2012-July-20, 03:19, said:
The Pednatic thread is in Simple Rulings, Andy. it is clear that this is all in the opinion of the TD. Obviously if you are unaware but the Director decides you are then Law 23 applies. It does not apply for the given clause if the passing of the infraction was inadvertent (in the opinion of the Director). Is this not what we were talking about? I am not sure what nitpicking about what is the truth and what the TD thinks is the truth has to do with your original question on whether Law 23 applies regardless of inadvertency.
It was suggested that you reread Law 23. It is clear that you have not done so.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein