[blml] Law 21B1

[ciska zuur]

Sorry, I'm somewhat puzzled.
I agree that it would be ideal to judge immediately, in the same way as it 
is 25A or 25B. However
My problem with a direct decision is that an arbiter  in a few seconds has 
to decide whether or not a change of bid is allowed. Sometimes it really 
depends on the biddingsystem, the level of players etc. etc. To find out 
(also or even specially for a good arbiter) you need to see the cards, to 
consult the System card, to judge ets, and it is all info for the (other) 
players: Suppose, you say: NO, not allowed: partner and opps will achieve 
some info.

In 25A versus B it is much more clear. Of course there is alos a gray area, 
but not so large.

Ciska Zuur

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Reppert" <ereppert at rochester.rr.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Law 21B1


>
> 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.
>
>
>