HUM or no HUM, this one is for you TD's

[TimG]

The TD gets to decide how to run his tournments. He can make it SAYC only (like McBruce does), they can limit you to one psyche (like Abalucy is doing), or no psyches at all, or psyches only in third seat. And he can define what HUM means to him. I think it is entirely approriate for abuse to stay out of those issues.

 

And the TD can tell YOU that you are not welcome, and he can (if he wants), tell you why you are not welcome, or he can simply mark you as enemy and let you guess. That is his right.

In this case, the conditions/restrictions where clearly listed in teh tournament description: no HUM. As has been discussed here, the methods hrothgar and free were playing are not HUM. The director should not change his mind mid-game and eject a pair for playing an unusual methods that is not a HUM. And, a director who includes in the description of his tournament "no HUM" ought to have taken the time to understand what qualifies as a HUM.

 

Actually, I spoke with the director after teh event (I happened to be kibitzing and want to clarify that I saw the explanation of 1♠ which contradicted his claim of no alert being made). The director referred me to a webpage with the 5 HUM test thing and said teh method was HUM. He was clearly not interpreting the criteria correctly. He just made a mistake, one that he was not willing to admit.

 

Tim

[DrTodd13]

The conditions of contest are a contract between host and player.

This is a red herring in my view, but it does raise an interesting question.

 

I don't know anything about international law but I know a bit about contract law in the UK (excluding Scotland that has some peculiarities of its own). For there to be a contract there must be (in addition to other qualifying conditions) the payment of consideration. Some of the "pay" tourneys *might* bring about a contractual relationship under UK law, but if they did then the maximum remedy for its breach would be a return of the entry fee. The free tourneys would be wholly outside of any of the remedies of contract law, and when you join a tourney you simply take pot luck as regards how you are treated.

 

But even if it fell within the jurisdiction of UK law AND was a pay tourney that qualified as a contract under UK law the refund of the entry fee would hardly restore equity for the damage caused by blackening someone's name in public. That would constitute a tort of libel (or possibly slander), for which the system of remedies is entirely separate from those developed in common law under contract.

I was referring to contract in a more general sense. I wasn't saying that kicking someone from your tournament is a breach of a legal contract with the associated liability. I was using the term contract only with respect to the ethics of not abiding by your own conditiions of contest.

 

Todd

[keylime]

I'm with DrTodd on this. Tell me privately who they were. Avoid 'em like the plague.