[blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?)

[Marvin French]

From: "Tim West-Meads"

> Due to an ACBL Zonal election the "reservation of rights" is not
> permitted in that Zone.  Some people believe this also prevents
seeking
> agreement about a BiT (I'm not sure about that myself).
>
The badly worded "Election" is impossible to understand. Its evident
aim was to prevent the postponing of a Director call after UI is
created, but then it says the call should be made "when they believe
there may have been extraneous information resulting in calls or
bids which could result in damage to their side."

"Resulting," not "could result," implies that the Director call is
made when a suspicious action is taken. However, that violates the
footnote of L16A2, which is *not* an option for SOs.The ignoramus
who wrote this Election didn't know that bids are calls or that
plays may be involved, not just calls, and most ACBL Directors
rightfully ignore it..

And what is this haughty announcment "reserves the right" in L16A1?
Rights don't have to be reserved, a player may call the Director at
any time.

Okay, what follows "reserves the right" are words that imply a
discussion of the possible UI has taken place (and should take
place). If the UI is denied, the Director should be called. Hence,
the recommended scenario must go like this:

"Can we agree that there is a problem here?"

If the answer is no, the Director should be called (assuming the
matter should be pursued at all). If the answer is yes, then:

"In that case there is no need to call the Director, we can do that
later if it seems appropriate." And L16A2's footnote specifies that
appropriate time.

I don't know why the ACBL had a problem with this scenario. It seems
likely that the writer of the Election was thinking that when a
suspicious action is taken the Director should be called
immediately. That was what the 1975 Laws said, but the language was
changed in 1987. Some people don't read updates.

Marv
Marvin L. French
San Diego, California
www.marvinfrench.com