[blml] Law 21B1

[Ed Reppert]

On Dec 7, 2006, at 3:19 PM, Sven Pran wrote:

>
>
>> Eric Landau wrote:
>>
>> 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.

I'm sorry, Sven, but this doesn't make sense. In the Law 16 case, as  
Eric points out, there is no option for the director to change what  
has already happened in the auction. In Law 21 or 25 cases, there is  
such an option. One might even say in the latter cases there are  
circumstances where making or allowing such a change is *required* by  
the laws. To fail to find out whether the circumstances will permit a  
change of call seems a clear misapplication of the director's duty to  
rule in accordance with the laws.

Put it another way: it seems clear to me that the intent of Laws 21  
and 25 is to allow a player to change, under certain circumstances, a  
call he has already made, and for the auction to then proceed  
normally from the point of the change. There would then be no  
question of adjusting the score (absent "could have known"  
considerations). To fail to permit such lawful changes, and to then  
say "I'll look at it later and adjust the score if it looks like I  
should have allowed the change" is clearly, to me, director error.

When a law gives the TD a way to handle a situation (allow a player  
to change his call if certain conditions apply) then the TD does best  
to follow that law.