[blml] Amnesia

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads
> Sven wrote:
> 
> > Well Tim, I read this to say that what you really want is a double
> > shot!
> 
> Then you read it wrongly
> 
> > 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?
> 
> No, I want to either accept or decline the OLOOT, play the hand out, and
> receive protection from the TD if either infraction by opponents causes
> me damage.

As a director I would deny you any redress for alleged damage when you did
not end in a contract you could have reached had you used your option in Law
21B1. 

If you request redress for such damage then you prove with your own request
that you wanted a "double shot". ("Let me try one of the options, if that
doesn't pay let me scream for redress according to the other".)

> > Backing up the auction (within certain limits) is the best tool we
> > have to save a board after misinformation.
> 
> In normal circumstances it is often useful, of course it doesn't help if
> the misinformation would have affected an earlier bid than the final
> call by NOS.

I expect normally capable readers to be aware of this limitation inasmuch as
I have consistently referred to Law 21B1 rather than referring the
essentials in that law.

> 
> > 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.
> 
> It compromises it. 

HUH?

> As TD what are you going tell NOS?
> Perhaps
> a)  Any change of call you make must be based on the MI you received 

Of course. But the onus to prove that it (probably) was not based on the MI
is on your opponents, not on you.

> it is UI to you that South will be barred for one round, that opps may
> be subject to penalty card restrictions if you become declaring side,
> and that North possess the SK.

Why on earth should this be UI? Don't you know Law 16? All these items are
AI to NOS and shall be explained as such to NOS before NOS select their
choice under Law 21B1.

> Or maybe:
> b) You have the option to change your call - when making that decision
> you should take into account that..(same things)..and if you fail to
> judge correctly the impact of these things in making your decision you
> will receive no redress.

Bullshit. Once NOS has been given a complete review of what laws apply and
what alternatives they have then once they have selected their action they
have no more redress to claim from THAT irregularity.

> 
> I don't want to debate whether the stuff is UI or AI because whichever
> one decides you are putting NOS into difficult and unfamiliar territory
> after a double infraction by their opponents.

Double infraction? Oh you mean first MI and then exposed card during the
auction? But this should not cause any problems? The exposed card will have
no effect unless MI is revealed, and then only if the auction is rolled back
and resumed in which case Law 24 is perfectly clear.

Of course this will be unfamiliar territory for most players, why do you
think we have directors? His duty is to guide (all four) players finding
themselves in unfamiliar territory and to protect the interests for both
sides.

> I know good players will often handle it OK but average punters will
> feel mind-blown by the situation.

A small sidestep: It happens from time to time that I am called to a table
at the end of the play because of misinformation that had been revealed
before the opening lead. Now the NOS requests the score to be adjusted
because of this misinformation.

I invariably inform them that if they had summoned me when MI was revealed I
would have offered them their rights under Law 21B1. Failure to summon me at
that time is a violation of Law 9 and normally results in forfeiture of
their rights as specified in Law 11.

A couple of years ago I had this happen in the Norwegian masters' league, so
"class of players" has little to do with players' knowledge of the laws.

However, whenever directing I take particular care to protect the interests
of inexperienced players.
 
> Basically my primary concern here is to protect NOS.  So I rule "It's an
> OLOOT, and I'll handle it as such even the though laws are bit
> inadequate."

And you have absolutely no law applicable to OLOOT made by presumed declarer
or dummy. Yes I know you claim Law 53 and then wind yourself into more and
more complications.

> 
> I see your priority as trying to protect "the proper result".  Again the
> laws are bit inadequate but you can achieve what you want by ruling
> "It's not an opening lead" and going from there.

You cannot both eat your cake and have it. If (in desperation?) you rule
that it is not an opening lead then what alternatives do you have other than
to rule exposed card during the auction?

> 
> Perhaps the standard of players would influence which approach I would
> consider best in any given situation but given the ambiguity in law (and
> absent specific NA/SO regulation) I respect the right of a TD to take
> either approach.

The only "ambiguity" (if any) in the laws related to these matters is the
missing of an express indication that there is no mistake when the laws
contain absolutely no rule on OLOOT made by presumed declarer or dummy.

Sven