[blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Nigel Guthrie asked:

>Why do the laws enable a player to accept a bid out of
>turn or an insufficient bid? Why give options to a
>player, who is not declarer, as to how he may deal
>with an opponent's irregularity? It's this kind of
>unnecessary sophistication that permits a legal guru
>to gain advantage from agreements about regulations.

Richard Hills replies:

Before the 1975 Lawbook, Nigel's desired lack of
sophistication did exist.  If a non-offending player
decided to call the director, in some cases that player
had fewer options than if that player had blithely bid
on due to failing to notice the irregularity.

But I submit that it was the pre-1975 situation which
benefited the legal gurus who had memorised the Laws,
since they knew when extra rights were gained by not
summoning the director.

Nowadays these are fundamental Laws ->

Law 9B1(c):

>>Summoning the Director does not cause a player to
>>forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be
>>entitled.

Law 9B1(d):

>>The fact that a player draws attention to an
>>irregularity committed by his side does not affect
>>the rights of the opponents.


Season's greetings

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285

Your Rights at Work
worth voting for