[BLML] Law 16B2

pop-server.san.rr.com mfrench1 at san.rr.com
Wed Dec 9 01:09:58 CET 2009


When the ACBL did not choose its previous 1997 "election" to this 
law, requiring an immediate director call, can they now do that? I 
was under the impression that elections not taken when publishing 
means they may not be taken later. However "(which may require that 
the Director be called)" seems to permit the current ACBL policy, 
which is to require a director call or risk losing credence if the 
call comes at the end of play.

Look at San Diego Appeals case 8. To save you time, South balanced 
vs a raised heart opening with 3D, holding KQ7654 diamonds and 
nothing else. North had passed over 2H with 9654 AKQ A9 A642.

At the end of play East-West called the TD, claiming that North had 
hesitated over 2H. The TD ruled BIT and adjusted the contract to 2H.

The bidding chart shows (1) for the pass to 2H, identified below as 
"Break in tempo--alleged to be five seconds." N-S did not attend the 
AC meeting (very unwise) and South told the AC there was no 
hesitation, saying it took at most three seconds for North to pass.

AC:  After completition of play.....They decided that there must 
have been a hesitation.

I doubt that they said that, but it echoes what an LC  member told 
me at the NABC, which is that a pair may claim an opposing BIT at 
the end of play when they see that a doubtful action was taken. 
Therefore players are advised (his words) to call the TD immediately 
when they detect UI.

AC: When there is a BIT that might provide unauthorized information, 
players are encouraged to either call the director or get 
confirmation of the BIT from the opponents right away. By delaying 
the director call, East-West considerably weakened its claim of a 
tempo break.

To call the TD when there is no infraction doesn't seem legal to me, 
but that doggone footnote to L16B3 (It is not an infraction to call 
the Director earlier or later) seems to permit it. The 1997 footnote 
made pretty clear that there must be evidence of an  irregularity, 
which can only come at sight of dummy or at the end of play. Now 
it's just end of play, very good, but spoiled by the footnote.

I am very frustrated with all this, especially since the ACBL LC 
didn't  like my UI Guide because it failed to recommend an immediate 
director call. I so wanted to have a guide that the LC would endorse 
so I could ask Mike Flader to do a column based on it in the ACBL 

Must I go along with the ACBL LC on this and include their 
recommended policy in the UI Guide, or is that policy contrary to 
the Laws?

Marvin L French
San Diego, CA

More information about the Blml mailing list