[BLML] L16B2 Interpretation

Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net
Thu Dec 17 15:24:26 CET 2009


On Dec 16, 2009, at 4:04 PM, Jack Rhind wrote:

> I think that you are right, that the RA MAY require ....
>
> It is my experience and understanding that most regulating bodies  
> are moving
> towards the recommendation that players summon the director  
> immediately. I
> see that is a good thing as it permits the director to find out what
> transpired at the table, but more importantly, speak to each of the
> non-offending side away from the table to find out if they would  
> have done
> anything differently had they been given the correct information.  
> If this
> can be done before play if the hand I think you get a better  
> insight into
> what people would or would not do. As we all know, after the hand  
> has been
> played everyone knows what they would have done.
>
> Prior to play if the non-offending side each says that they would  
> not have
> bid differently you get a better idea of what actually happened.  
> E.g. Once
> they see that they can make 4 spades over 4 heart then they all  
> want to get
> to bid it.

FTR, the thread was about tempo breaks, not MI problems, but I don't  
think it matters to Jack's point.

Which is very sensible, but not very practical.  It takes time and  
effort for the director to find out what transpired at the table,  
speak to each of the NOs away from the table, and decide what they  
might have done differently.  That's a lot of time and effort wasted  
in those (most) cases in which, after the hand has been played, the  
NOS either does not believe that there was an actual infraction (as  
often happens in tempo-break situations), or does not have a claim to  
have been damaged by it.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net






More information about the Blml mailing list