[blml] Amnesia

[Tim West-Meads]

> *From:* "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
> *To:* "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
> *Date:* Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:15:20 +0200
> 
> > On Behalf Of John Probst
> > > Sven wrote:
> > >
> > >> But the auction wasn't over! The auction period ends when the 
> > > opening
> > >> lead is faced
> > 
> > Max is entirely clear that auction and auction period are the same 
> > thing.
> > The auction is *not* over until we have a faced opening lead by a
> > defender.
> > This is obvious because we still have correction of MI, roll-back 
> > and
> > continuance of auction to get through before the opening lead is 
> > made.
> > That
> > this is usually null action is irrelevant. in some of my auctions
> > opponents
> > should be mandated to roll back and double me :)
> > 
> > >
> > > In the case we have been discussing the *auction* was most 
> > > definitely
> > > over.  The *auction period* was not.  The two are different 
> > > things with
> > > the period starting before the actually auction and continuing 
> > > after the
> > > end of the auction.  The laws, IMO, are sometimes careless in 
> > > using one
> > > when they have intended the other.
> > >
> > > I note that Sven has, effectively, mentally inserted the word 
> > > "period"
> > > into Law24.  Perhaps this is right, but let us go back in time a 
> > > bit.
> > >
> > > South, West and East have removed their cards, counted them and 
> > > started
> > > to sort their hands - the auction *period* has begun for both 
> > > sides
> > > (L17A).  North, the dealer, is running a bit behind - when he 
> > > attempts
> > > to remove his cards one or more is exposed (assume they were 
> > > boxed by
> > > the previous player or "sprung-loaded" into a faulty board and 
> > > flip
> > > out).  Ok it's a result of North trying to remove the hand but it 
> > > is not
> > > his fault.
> > >
> > > Do we use L24 because the *auction period* has begun - or do we 
> > > use
> > > Law6D1 because the *auction* has not yet begun?
> 
> Of course we must use Law 24!
> 
> > > L24 seems extremely harsh on player who has done nothing wrong.
> 
> But he "has done something wrong"; He has failed to handle his cards 
> with sufficient care.

Sven, I have no interest, at this point in a player who has "failed to 
handle his cards with sufficient care".  Just work with the case I gave 
and assume that the TD has established, to his total satisfaction, that 
North handled his cards with all the care and due diligence one could 
possibly require but that (due to faulty equipment and/or the actions of 
the previous player) exposure nevertheless occurs.

If it helps assume you are directing in a club which has a rule that 
"Where the cards were boxed by a previous player the next player is 
considered in no way at fault if such a card is exposed during the 
withdrawal/counting of the hand."  (A perfectly reasonable rule IMO 
putting the blame, and any associated penalties, squarely where it 
belongs).

I agree that if it were simply a matter of carelessness I wouldn't *care* 
which law I applied. 

> And the Director must observe Law 12B.

Law12b has little to do with it - it's matter of whether one interprets 
the different terms "Auction" and "Auction Period" as meaning the same 
thing.  If one assumes the authors of the law-book  chose to use two 
terms where one would have been clearer then obviously one is forced to 
apply L24.

Tim