[blml] Law 21B1

[Sven Pran]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]
> On Behalf Of Eric Landau
> Sent: 7. desember 2006 16:15
> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 21B1
> 
> At 06:30 AM 12/7/06, Sven wrote:
> 
> > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads
> > >
> > > In Law21
> > > cases (as in L25a/b cases) there is an immediate decision
> > > needed.
> >
> >I just do not see any sensible reason why this is important in L21
> >cases but
> >not in L16 cases.
> 
> Because in L21 cases, the TD must decide immediately whether to permit
> a change of call per L21B1 (i.e. whether "it is probable that he made
> the call as a result of misinformation given to him by an
> opponent").  L16 offers no analogous possibility for "rolling back" the
> auction; the available remedies for infraction are limited to adjusting
> the obtained score after the fact.

And why do you think Law 16 is written this way? My point is that exactly
the same reason for writing Law 16 this way is relevant also for Laws 21 and
25. And exactly the same procedure of postponing the decision to allow or
reject a particular call under law 16 can be applied on the similar question
under the other laws.

We do not interfere during the auction or play if such interference is
likely to disclose particulars about a hand to the other players but instead
adjust afterwards if we find that such interference had really been in
order.

Sven