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

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads
> Sven wrote:
> 
> > I read your statement to say that if the Director while accidentally
> > watching the play like any other spectator becomes aware of an
> > irregularity happening or about to happen he shall take immediate
> > action and interfere with the activities at that table in order to
> > prevent or rectify the irregularity?
> 
> I didn't see a universal need for *immediacy* in Grattan's comment.
> Obviously if attention has already been drawn I'd take action because
> the TD should be called.  However, the last time I saw a revoke (which
> went unnoticed at the table) I waited until the provisions of L64b4 had
> expired and then rectified the board by adjusting under L64C.
> 
> NB, I saw the revoke because I was, in my role as TD, checking that play
> at that table wasn't falling behind the clock (or maybe waiting to put a
> board on the table).  The nuances are such that I'm fully behind Grattan
> in saying that the TD is NEVER a spectator while on duty.

Do I understand you correct that in your opinion the TD shall never
interfere with activities at the table in an attempt to prevent an
irregularity (except when the very purpose of his presence at the table is
to assist the players in correct procedures), but that he shall execute the
relevant procedures afterwards regardless of how he became aware of an
irregularity?

This implies that he for instance shall not in any way react on a revoke of
which he becomes aware in any other way than by being summoned to the table,
until after the provisions of Laws 64B4 and 64B5 have expired.

I fully agree with such opinion which in my view is just another (and maybe
better) way of describing that the director has the role of a spectator when
he notices events in the room without being summoned.

Regards Sven