[Cascade]

L81C5

"to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of
the non-offending side."

What is meant in this law by the qualification "for cause"?

[peachy]

Completely unnecessary filler words that have no meaning as they are written. One who requests waiving, has some reason (cause?) for requesting it. Trying mindreading of the law writers, I would expect it means something like excluding some causes such as *the infractors are my friends and I want them to have a good score.* or some equivalent to that like *I always forgive my opponents on Thursdays*.

[PeterE]

"for cause" is meant for instance in regard to disabled players, where the infraction may be caused mainly by the inability (or difficulty) to follow normal procedure(s).
"for couse" is a moreorless "impartial" approach and has nothing to do with mindreading.

[aguahombre]

Waive what? I can understand waiving penalty. I cannot understand waiving rectification. Last time I looked, "rectification" means making it right. Maybe some of the intellectual elite can explain how it can be ok to not rectify, against the NOS' self interests, in a game where other pairs or teams are involved.

[blackshoe]

I suspect that what is meant is "rectification for cause", meaning that there is a legal basis for rectification, but that the contestant wishes to waive that rectification. I do not think "for cause" is intended to apply to the reason for the waiving.

The case where, for example, a disabled player drops a card, or revokes, because of his disability, would be a good one. There is a legal basis for rectification, the laws do not recognize disabiity as a mitigating factor, but the NOS can ask that the TD waive the penalty under this law.

Note that it is up to the TD, not the players themselves, to grant this waiver.

[RMB1]

The whole-scale replacement of "penalty" with "rectification" has lead to some strange phrasing in the new laws. Some instances are just plain wrong. The multiple occurences of "without further rectification" do not really make since.

[dburn]

"For cause" is a legal phrase that means more or less what it says.

In some legal systems counsel in cases tried by juries may challenge the appointment of any juror either peremptorily (without giving a reason) or "for cause" (giving a reason why the juror is likely to be prejudiced and thus unfit to try the case). There is usually a limit to the number of peremptory challenges, but any number of jurors may be challenged "for cause".

A "for-cause audit" takes place when someone has reason to believe that something dodgy is going on; it is distinct from a regular (say, annual) audit or a random audit.

As used in Law 81, it means that the Director cannot waive a penalty unless he does so "for cause"; he may not waive the penalty just because he feels like doing so, or even just because the non-offending side has asked him to do so. Usually, as Peter says, the "cause" is that the infraction was not bridge-related but a function of a player's temporary or permanent impairment. The Director must bear in mind Law 12B2:

Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 said:

The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

[peachy]

PeterE, on Mar 27 2010, 06:28 PM, said:

"for cause" is meant for instance in regard to disabled players, where the infraction may be caused mainly by the inability (or difficulty) to follow normal procedure(s).
"for couse" is a moreorless "impartial" approach and has nothing to do with mindreading.

If that is what it means then it would in effect mean the NOS has the burden of asking for waiving, or asking for accommodating a disabled person. This doesn't make sense to me, a disabled person should be accommodated with reasonable assistance without the NOS side asking.

[lamford]

RMB1, on Mar 27 2010, 07:25 PM, said:

The whole-scale replacement of "penalty" with "rectification" has lead to some strange phrasing in the new laws.  Some instances are just plain wrong.  The multiple occurences of "without further rectification" do not really make since.

Since when? And there is a lead out of tense there.

[blackshoe]

Let's not get too focused on the disabled here. First, in many places (England is one such, I think) there are national laws that require "accommodating a disabled person" outside the rules of a game. In such cases the TD must comply with the national law, and that will override the question of whether the NOS asked for a waiver. Second, the (bridge) law is more general — there are other "causes" for which a TD might grant such a waiver, when asked (I can't think of any other causes for which he should waive rectification on his own hook, but maybe there are some). The question is then "what causes are reasonable"? The law does not say, so it's up to the discretion of the TD, at least until the NBO, ZA, or WBF issues an interpretation or regulation restricting or clarifying that discretion.

[bluejak]

I do not see the fuss. "for cause" means you need a viable reason for doing it, not just deciding on a whim, and applies in many situations. If a fit player drops cards on the table there is no reason for a TD to do otherwise than make them penalty cards. If however, he drops them because a waiter jogged his elbow now the TD has a reason to do otherwise, and will judge whether the reason is adequate.

[peachy]

bluejak, on Mar 28 2010, 01:19 PM, said:

I do not see the fuss. "for cause" means you need a viable reason for doing it, not just deciding on a whim, and applies in many situations. If a fit player drops cards on the table there is no reason for a TD to do otherwise than make them penalty cards. If however, he drops them because a waiter jogged his elbow now the TD has a reason to do otherwise, and will judge whether the reason is adequate.

Still, it is the NOS that has to request the waiver, according to how the law is written. Right?

[bluejak]

Without having time to look it up I had the impression that there was another Law or so that uses the term. But I agree the one cited Law is only if the other side ask for it.

[dburn]

bluejak, on Mar 28 2010, 01:57 PM, said:

Without having time to look it up I had the impression that there was another Law or so that uses the term.  But I agree the one cited Law is only if the other side ask for it.

Law 91B reads:

Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 said:

The Director is empowered to disqualify a contestant for cause, subject to approval by the Tournament Organizer.

The phrase "for cause" does not appear elsewhere in the Laws, and as with Law 81, its use here indicates that the Director needs a sound reason to disqualify a contestant.

I imagine that the Director could instruct a non-offending side to waive a penalty, and if they refused, apply a procedural penalty under Law 90B8 that would have the same net effect on the scores as if the original penalty had been waived. One rather hopes that such extreme measures will never be necessary, however.

[peachy]

dburn, on Mar 28 2010, 02:45 PM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 28 2010, 01:57 PM, said:

Without having time to look it up I had the impression that there was another Law or so that uses the term.  But I agree the one cited Law is only if the other side ask for it.

Law 91B reads:

Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 said:

The Director is empowered to disqualify a contestant for cause, subject to approval by the Tournament Organizer.

The phrase "for cause" does not appear elsewhere in the Laws, and as with Law 81, its use here indicates that the Director needs a sound reason to disqualify a contestant.

I imagine that the Director could instruct a non-offending side to waive a penalty, and if they refused, apply a procedural penalty under Law 90B8 that would have the same net effect on the scores as if the original penalty had been waived. One rather hopes that such extreme measures will never be necessary, however.

But, as the Law is written, NOS must request it.

I see nowhere in the laws that TD has the right to instruct, let alone insist that a NOS waive a penalty or rectification. I agree it would be crass not to ask, in case of severely disabled player or a bumping waitress for example. But it is a slippery slope to read something into the laws that is actually not there.