[blml] Law 21B1

[Tim West-Meads]

Sven wrote:
> 
> > South will need to clarify to me how his wish to change his call 
> > relates
> > to the MI.  I suspect that his desire to change is based on the
> > knowledge of the misunderstanding rather than the MI itself - which
> > would not be grounds for allowing a change of call.
> 
> I fully agree with the last statement here, but I shall like to hear 
> how the director can decide this and make a ruling during the
> auction without revealing facts about South's hand to the other
> players and thereby making normal play and scoring of the board
> impossible?

We have had this argument before Sven.  I believe the responsibility for 
allowing a call to be withdrawn rests with the TD.  The laws are unclear 
on whether that responsibility lies with the TD or the player.

> And what do you do if South afterwards appeals your ruling that he 
> has no cause for changing his final pass and shows overwhelming
> evidence that he indeed had such cause. 

The same thing you will do if you permit South to change his call and 
the other side later appeals that he should not have been allowed to do 
so.  I'll adjust the previous ruling as a TD error. 

> I don't care to discuss what such evidence 
> might be, that question is rather irrelevant as long as we cannot
> completely discard the possibility. 

One possibility is that that the 6S bidder has limited his hand 
previously and thus cannot hold sufficient key-cards.
 
> This is exactly the same principle we use when there is suspicion of a
> violation of Law 16A2. A Director in Norway who inspects the cards 
> held by a suspected player and then makes a ruling is likely to have > 
his director's license revoked.
> 
> Law 16 is clear on this principle, why should we not enforce the same
> principle also with Law 21B1?

In UI situations there is no immediate TD decision to be made.  In Law21 
cases (as in L25a/b cases) there is an immediate decision
needed.  If necessary the TD can take the player away from the table in 
order to hear what he has to say.  Mostly it's not going to make a 
difference because both you and I are saying something like "You may not 
change your call simply because you realise there has been a 
misunderstanding" before allowing a change immediately (as you would 
always do) or, if the player still indicated a desire to change, by 
talking to him further away from the table (as I would do).

BTW in L16 situations it is sometimes pragmatic (perhaps there are no 
hand records) for the TD to rule "Play on..call me back if.., I'm just 
going to make a note of the bidding and hand" - this doesn't create UI 
providing the hand is looked at only *after* ruling "Play on".

Tim