[BLML] How do you explain UIruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Sven Pran svenpran at online.no
Sun Sep 16 10:25:33 CEST 2012


> Robert Frick 
> > [Ed Reppert]
> > He said the bid was unintended. You ruled that it was intended, but
> > you present no evidence in support of that ruling. Absent such
> > evidence, your ruling is director error.
> > {Nigel]
> > Robert seems to have judged on his assessment of the weight of
> > evidence from the facts he stated.  Must he wait for a signed
> > confession?
> 
> 
> But since Ed is just disagreeing with an irrelevant part of the example,
it's
> probably easier just to change the example.
> 
> A player puts down a bidding card showing no aces, says "oops, I have one
> ace", and the opponents call you to the table. You ascertain that the
actual
> bid showed no aces. You tell the player he must ignore what his partner
said.
[Sven Pran] 
Ed is disagreeing, not with an irrelevant part of the example but with how
the Director apparently handled the most important part of the example:

The first thing the Director must judge in a situation like this is if Law
25A shall apply. It doesn't matter whether the offender said "oops", "oops,
I have one Ace" or however he acts. If his action is that of a player
discovering that he has made ha call he never intended, then the Director
shall let him change his unintended call to his intended call, and the
auction continues as if the first call and whatever associated utterings
etc. never happened.

Ed correctly calls attention to the fact that according to OP the Director
never considered this possibility, but just ruled on an unfounded assumption
that the first call was intentional when made.

The discussion in this thread is very relevant, but only after the Director
has established that Law 25A is not applicable. 



More information about the Blml mailing list