[BLML] Back to the Future
hildalirsch at gmail.com
Fri May 29 07:46:06 CEST 2015
Steve Willner asked:
"How could L16C2a be applied retrospectively?"
Law 16C1, the precondition for Law 16C2(a), states that "the Director
should be summoned forthwith". In my opinion "forthwith" is not defined as
"after all the auction and all the play".
Furthermore , if the Conditions of Contest specify two fields with two
winners, then the Director should not arbitrarily amend the CoC midway
through the session by creating one field with one winner due to the
arrow-switch of one board at one table.
But it seems that Steve Willner has an even more radical idea, retaining
separate North-South and East-West fields while arrow-switching one board.
You cannot eat your cake and have it to.
I agree with Stefanie's argument that under such a radical ruling
North-South have played the arrow-switched board in a direction zero other
North-South have had a chance to. Likewise for the other East-Wests. Hence
the radical ruling has zero relevance to the concept of mutually exclusive
North-South and East-West fields.
Indeed, it seems to me that the radical ruling is not merely a poor ruling,
but also an illegal ruling. In addition to Law 87 (Fouled Board) there is
Law 78A (Matchpoint Scoring), which requires valid comparison of scores to
On Friday, May 29, 2015, Steve Willner <swillner at nhcc.net
> On 2015-05-28 3:22 PM, Richardt Hills wrote:
> > let us assume that external UI occurs before the start of the auction
> > and let us also assume that the Director is not summoned until the end
> > of play. Is it legal for the Director to retrospectively apply Law
> I don't think the question even makes sense. How could L16C2a be
> applied retrospectively?
> If you want an analogy to the "scoring question" thread, imagine the
> Director is called in advance and determines that North-to-be has
> (through no fault of his own) seen East's cards. Can North then take
> the East seat, South the West seat, etc.?
> Unless there's some special case, such as the NS and EW fields grossly
> differing in strength, I don't see why not.
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Blml