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

[Tim West-Meads]

Sven wrote:
> 
> 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?

I don't think that is what I said.  For example if I hear players at a 
table discussing what to do after an IB I will go and give a ruling 
(attention has been drawn - I should have been called).

OTOH if a player makes an IB (and I notice) and nobody says anything (it 
just gets condoned) I wouldn't interfere at the time [will cross check 
for "could have known" later].
 
> 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.

Yes, that one is clear IMO.
 
> 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.

Unlike a spectator the TD has a duty to rectify damage.  Thus if I 
happen to notice a case of damage-causing MI *unnoticed by opponents* I 
believe I have a duty to "interfere" after the hand while if opps are 
aware of the MI but choose not to call me I'll assume they don't 
consider themselves damaged.

Tim