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

[Ed Reppert]

On Jun 12, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote:

> The difficulty, Alain, is that in Marv's Zone one is forbidden to
> reserve rights (including, in the opinion of some, seeking agreement
> that UI has been made available) thus anything in 16A1 is irrelevant.


This is not a Zonal election, it's a Sponsoring Organization election.

The wording of Law 16A1 seems very clear to me:

"When a player considers that an opponent has made such information  
available and that damage could well result, he may, unless the  
regulations of the sponsoring organization prohibit, immediately  
announce that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the  
opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the  
fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed)."

So, if a player believes that UI exists, *and that damage could well  
result* (emphasis mine) he may reserve his rights, unless the  
regulations of the sponsoring organization (see below) prohibit that.  
If the SO elects to prohibit reserving rights, then the player  
should, instead of reserving rights, call the TD *immediately*. The  
ACBL has, however, gone a bit further in their election, which reads  
"at ACBL sanctioned events, competitors will not be allowed to  
announce that they reserve the right to summon the Director later.  
They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there  
may have been extraneous information available to the opponents  
resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their  
side." They are saying, in other words, that the player should *not*  
call the director immediately, but should wait until the recipient of  
the UI has taken an action that could result in damage. This means,  
in practice, that one is not supposed to attempt to establish that  
there has been a BIT (or whatever) at the time that happens, but only  
later, when an infraction may have occurred. I believe this to be an  
error for two reasons: (1) delaying the determination will make the  
TD's job more difficult, and opens the door to "you failed to protect  
yourself" rulings, and (2) the opponents lose their right to dispute  
the alleged conveyance of UI at the time of its occurrence, but must  
instead also wait until *use* of it is alleged. This is not in  
accordance with the wording of Law 16A1, in which the election  
pertains only to the reserving of rights by the putative NOS, and  
does nothing to modify the rights of the putative OS.

Regarding who makes the election: the ACBL has stated, many times,  
that at club games, the *club* is the SO for purposes of the laws.  
ACBL clubs may therefore elect to *allow* reserving of rights.  
Perhaps they should do so. I know that the ACBL also calls the Unit,  
District or other organization (such as an area organization within a  
unit) which holds a Sectional, Regional or other tournament "the  
sponsoring organization". If this means, for example, that a Unit  
Tournament Committee, as the sponsoring organization for a Sectional,  
may elect to allow reserving of rights then, again, perhaps they  
should do so.