[blml] a matter of moment

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Manuela Mandache
> Subject: [blml] a matter of moment
>
> Hello all,
>
> South, declarer in 4S, won the 7 first tricks and lost T8 to East's DK.
> The
> remaining cards:
>     -
>     -
>     Q864
>     8
> Q8      -
> -       Q
> A7      5
> Q       JT7
>     963
>     -
>     T9
>     -
> East leads the CJ, South ruffs with the S3 and West overruffs with the S8.
> For some reason, TD is near and sees the revoke.
> 1. TD sais to West, "You still have Clubs." West plays the CQ to T9,
> H8 is a MPC and South wins his 10 tricks. NS mark 4S=.

It is highly improper by the TD to interfere with the play at this moment.
He now has prevented the revoke from becoming established and that is none
of his business.

> 2. TD shuts up, the card play ends and no player noticed the revoke.
> Before they mark, TD draws their attention to it, applies L64A and EW
> get a two tricks penalty. NS mark 4S+1.

Even at this time it is highly improper by the TD to interfere. The time
limit specified in Laws 64B4 and 64B5 has not expired.

> 3. TD shuts up further more, still no player notices the revoke. NOS
> declares to the next board or the turn ends and now TD draws the
> attention to the revoke, applies L64B4 or 5 and C and the result stands.
> NS mark 4S-1.

This is the correct procedure, except that the table result shall not stand
automatically. The Director shall apply Law 64C and assign an adjusted score
if he finds this necessary to "restore equity". Here the table result
represents indeed equity so no adjustment is warranted.

> I have been taught TD should follow point 3: L81C6 is applied in the least
> interfering way possible. Nevertheless, ISTM that none of the three
> scenarios contradicts the laws, so there are three perfectly legal
> possible results.
> I am either dead wrong or not, but extremely puzzled anyway. Can you help
> me out of this state? (I can hardly imagine being the first one to walk
> this path, but with no thread name it is difficult to find something in
> the archives.)

What you have overlooked is that TD did not become aware of the revoke in
his capacity as Director but in his position as a spectator. So initially
the relevant law is Law 76. Only after the time limit applicable in Law 64B
has expired should TD apply his duty under Law 81C6: "to rectify an error or
irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction
period established in accordance with Law 79C."

Regards Sven