[blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Manuela Mandache:

[snip]

>>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.

[snip]

>>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.

Sven Pran:

>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".

[snip]

>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.

[snip]

Law 76B:

"A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or
mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by
request of the Director."

Law 72B3:

"There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent
infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see
footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation)."

Richard Hills:

Because of the existence of Law 72B3, I think that Sven Pran
does not go far enough in advising the silence of the lambs.

I suggest that any spectator (TD or otherwise) must _not_,
during the correction period, point out that a revoke has
occurred.

For those who quote Law 81C6 "Director's Duties and Powers -
Errors", note the word "normally" in the prologue to that
Law.  It is not "normal" for a TD to wear a second hat as a
spectator.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285