[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-13, 19:25, said:

So I think what should be done in matches played privately, absent some other solution in the CoC, is for the players to agree on some one person to act as director for the match.

I think can't imagine one team consenting to the appointment of a director from the other team.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-13, 19:42, said:

I think can't imagine one team consenting to the appointment of a director from the other team.

Then the TO needs to find another solution. Or maintain the status quo.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-13, 21:17, said:

Then the TO needs to find another solution. Or maintain the status quo.

The status quo is fine.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-13, 19:25, said:

My memory, poor though it may be, tells me it's not the case. I'm not sure it's needed. Law 80B2 says, in part, "The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include appointment of the Director. If there is no appointed Director, the players should designate a person to perform his functions". So I think what should be done in matches played privately, absent some other solution in the CoC, is for the players to agree on some one person to act as director for the match. If there's an appointed director, and he's not physically present, he should make himself available by telephone, and he should be the first called if there's a problem.

I cannot resist quoting from one of the books in my Library. The book is named "Bridge" and was issued in 1907. It is about the game of "bridge" preceding "Auction Bridge".

Law 98: A spectator may, by agreement between the players, resolve any question about which doubt arises.

[blackshoe]

I don't recall ever having spectators at any of the privately played matches in which I participated. As I recall it, the one time in three years we needed a ruling, the team captains came to a mutually agreeable one. I have no idea whether it was a legally correct ruling.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-15, 05:24, said:

I don't recall ever having spectators at any of the privately played matches in which I participated. As I recall it, the one time in three years we needed a ruling, the team captains came to a mutually agreeable one. I have no idea whether it was a legally correct ruling.

People who host privately-played matches should really have a Lawbook to hand.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-15, 05:26, said:

People who host privately-played matches should really have a Lawbook to hand.

They may have had one, I don't remember.