[blml] Amnesia

[Guthrie]

[Sven Pran]
> Well Tim, I read this to say that what you
really
> want is a double shot! You apparently want to
see
> the outcome of the board before you as NOS
decide
> whether you should have taken some different
> action when it became clear that misinformation
> had been given?
> Sorry, that is not how events shall be run.
> Backing up the auction (within certain limits)
> is the best tool we have to save a board after
> misinformation. The fact that a card has been
> exposed from presumed declarer or dummy does
> not in any way reduce the value or availability
> of this tool.

[nige1]
While they are not be actively encouraged, are
"double shots" really harmful. Rarely, perhaps
they harshly punish the law-breaker and
over-compensate the victim; also the field may
incur some miniscule damaage; but almost all the
time, the double-shot allows just about adequate
redress while keeping the punishment pretty mild.

Perhaps, when the law is unclear, as here, the
director should *not* rule. He should leave the
decision to an appeals comittee in the hope that
they can establish some interim case law on the
fly.

Also, of course, the law committees should be
urgently convened to plug the gap.

The point where the auction ends and the play
begins seems to need definition.

A similar even hotter potato is "when does one
trick end and the next begin?" Does a trick end
only when its cards are turned? Alternatively,
(without making a claim) may you lead to the next
trick before all cards played to the current trick
are quitted? Assuming you are leading a top trump,
may you lead to the next two tricks (again without
making a claim or suffering a penalty card)? Just
how many tricks can be simultaneously on the go
(without a claim or penalty card)?

That both questions need legal clarification is
obvious. IMO, the answers are also obvious, even
if all that may be at stake is a Bermuda Bowl :)