[BLML] Meretricious and a Happy New Year

Adam Beneschan adam at irvine.com
Tue Dec 15 01:00:53 CET 2009

Nigel wrote:
> For many infractions there's no director call. Neither side is under an 
> obligation to call attention to an infraction. It is not in the 
> interests of law-breakers to do so. Their victims often don't notice the 
> infraction. Often they are out of contention. Sometimes, they just can't 
> be bothered to call the director.
> I feel that the laws should mandate a director call from any player who 
> is aware of an infraction: even if he is not in contention; and even if 
> he is the perpetrator.

Be careful about how that's worded.  There are probably tons of
technical infractions being committed constantly that don't have an
effect on anything.  On rec.games.bridge, we're talking about how some
players who want to pass out after a non-pass is followed by two
passes will simply tap the table to indicate that they're passing and
the auction is over.  This is probably an infraction, but a
meaningless one.  A law that requires us to call the director for
*every* infraction would not only drive directors crazy, it would also
drive everyone out of the game who already thinks the game is getting
so unfriendly that it's no fun any more.

Or say that declarer wins a trick, and LHO revokes on the trick, then
declarer realizes he has all the high trumps and claims.  So the
revoke is meaningless because the other side wasn't going to win any
tricks anyway.  Do you want to require a director call?

Make it "The laws should mandate a director call from any player who
is aware of an infraction that could reasonably affect the result on
the board", and maybe it would be worth considering.

                                -- Adam

More information about the Blml mailing list