Re: Claim Ruling

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:08:05 -0700 (PDT), David Flower
<DavJFlower@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 18, 1:40?pm, blackshoe <blacks...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 18, 3:45?am, David Flower <DavJFlo...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

This is a clear application of L70E2 which allows the Regulating
Authority to specify an order in which the Director may deem the suit
played. As the word 'may' is included in the Law, it clearly allows
the Regulating Authority NOT to supply an order. In the latter case it
is clear that no one has specified that the suit be played from the
top down.

No one has specified that the suit not be played from the top down,
either.

But, by allowing the Regulating Authority latitude in this respect,
L70E2 clearly implies that if the order is not clarified by the
claimer at the time of the claim, then the Laws do not specify one.

I don't think that is the correct interpretation. Doesn't the first
course of action demand that the director understand the intent of the
claimant?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Claim Ruling
    ... Authority to specify an order in which the Director may deem the suit ... It may be unjust, but its the Law. ...
    (rec.games.bridge)
  • Re: Claim Ruling
    ... Authority to specify an order in which the Director may deem the suit ... As the word 'may' is included in the Law, ...
    (rec.games.bridge)
  • Re: Claim Ruling
    ... Authority to specify an order in which the Director may deem the suit ... As the word 'may' is included in the Law, ... claimer at the time of the claim, then the Laws do not specify one. ...
    (rec.games.bridge)
  • Re: Claim Ruling
    ... Authority to specify an order in which the Director may deem the suit ... As the word 'may' is included in the Law, ...
    (rec.games.bridge)
  • Re: Claim Ruling
    ... Authority to specify an order in which the Director may deem the suit ... As the word 'may' is included in the Law, ...
    (rec.games.bridge)
Loading