[blml] Amnesia

[Tim West-Meads]

Sven wrote:

> 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. 

Fine, but after the OLOOT by declarer I don't get an option under L21b1 
- it is too late.  I have been denied the option by declarer's OLOOT not 
by any action of my own so I am entitled to protection.

> 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".)

Why would I scream?  A simple request for a ruling because declarer's 
OLOOT prevented my recovery should suffice.

> > > 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.

Of course I know L16.  But L21b1 specifically requires that the change 
of call be based on MI.  It is by no means automatic that one is allowed 
to base one's change of call be based (primarily) on the penalties OS 
will be under due to the OLOOT.

> 
> > 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.

So what?  If the penalties associated with the OLOOT *are* to be taken 
into effect when deciding whether to change call then choosing there 
will be no redress if one gets that decision wrong.

> 
> > 
> > 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? 

Or first the MI, then OLOOT by declarer/dummy.

> 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.

Agreed it only matters in the tiny fraction of cases where there is both 
MI and OLOOT by declaring side.  In the (still rare) cases where there 
is no MI then the auction was totally over anyway and one is simply 
dealing with an OLOOT.

 
> 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.

The primary duty is to apply the laws as best they apply - the secondary 
duty is to protect NOS.  Protecting the interests of OS are a lesser 
concern.
 
> > 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.

That's just shoddy directing.  The primary responsibility to summon the 
TD quite clearly rests with OS (there is absolutely no ambiguity in 
L75d2).  If you want OS to gain from failure to make a required TD call 
carry on doing so.

And yes, I'm aware of L9 but OS have infracted by giving MI, infracted 
L75d2 *and* infracted L9.  There's no way I'm going to let OS benefit - 
so if a L21b1 roll-back would have prevented damage I will be awarding 
an adjusted score.

Tim