[BLML] L16B2 Interpretation

pop-server.san.rr.com mfrench1 at san.rr.com
Wed Dec 16 23:16:30 CET 2009

From: "Eric Landau"

> On Dec 16, 2009, at 3:46 PM, pop-server.san.rr.com wrote:
>> L16B2:
>> When a player considers that an opponent has made such 
>> information
>> available and that damage could well result, he may announce, 
>> unless
>> prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that 
>> the
>> Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the
>> Director later.
>> Does this mean that the RA may require that the Director be 
>> called
>> in lieu of an announcement, or that the Director be called with 
>> or
>> without an accompanying announcement?
> Either.  Based on the words of the law, the announcement may be
> "prohibited by the RA", and, separately, the RA "may require that 
> the
> Director be called".  Marv's alternatives are for the RA to do 
> both,
> or only the latter, respectively.  The first of these, IMO, makes
> more sense, and is likely to be what the lawmakers intended, or at
> least expected.

Probably right. If the lawmakers intended one but not both, they 
could have written "(which may require that the Director be called 

A simpler election would have been a sentence at the end of L16B2 
saying that the RA can require a TD call by the other side if the UI 
is denied. The existing "election" seems to say that the RA can 
require a TD call whether or not the UI is denied. I doubt that any 
RA would require a TD call if there is agreement on the UI, even 
though the ACBL did so in the 2007 Laws (which was properly ignored 
by players and TDs)..

The existing election permits an RA to require a TD call for no 
reason other than the existence of UI. Since UI is not an 
infraction, that is wrong. The only legitimate purpose for requiring 
a TD call by the aggrieved side is to provide a mediator for 
fact-finding when UI is denied.

Marvin L French
San Diego, CA

More information about the Blml mailing list