[blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S ..

[David Grabiner]

Ed Reppert writes:

> On Nov 13, 2006, at 9:13 PM, David Grabiner wrote:
>
>> When there is a TD at the table and the ruling is mechanical (as
>> L25B should
>> be), there is no need to call another playing TD, particularly
>> since this
>> might spoil the board for another table.  I would thus rule that
>> both sides
>> fulfilled their obligation to call the TD for an irregularity.
>>
>>> Does it matter that West is one of the club TD's?
>>
>> Yes, it matters.  If players make a ruling at their table without
>> calling
>> the TD, then both sides have infracted L9B, and when we adjust to
>> what would
>> happen with a correct TD ruling, we treat both sides as offending.
>> The
>> adjustment might then be to 3NT going down for N-S and 3NT making
>> for E-W.
>
> IMO, the *first* rule for a playing TD is that he should *never* make
> a ruling at his own table (or at his team's other table in a team
> game) if there is another TD available.

If there were a non-playing TD, I would agree, but with the other TD's 
playing, there is the risk of making the board unplayable.  When a ruling is 
automatic (lead out of turn, insufficient bid, established revoke), it 
doesn't do much harm for the TD to make a ruling at his own table, 
particularly at a club game.  L25B should have been an automatic ruling; 
West could have looked it up in the book and said, "You may not change your 
call, and the 1C bid you tried to correct it to is UI to your partner."  (He 
would then need to call another TD later if the UI might have been an issue, 
but that could wait until the other TD's had played the board.)

This still doesn't excuse West for not getting the ruling correct, but a 
non-playing TD could have made the same error equally well.