[blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Robert Geller]

Dear Tim and all,

This discussion has been very helpful for me in understanding the issues
involved and I thank you and Ton and everyone else who's contributed
to this discussion.    I agree completely with your suggestion (below)
for an enhancement to law 9 although I would suggest that such an 
enhancement should either clearly allow the forestalling of an irregularity
such as an impending BOOT (or else a clear statement that trying to forestall 
such an irregularity 
is prohibited except in cases where a law specifically allows it) so 
TDs everywhere in the world will have a clear statement of what the law is,
and treatment of this can be made uniform.

I think one problem the next version of the laws should correct is that
in the 1997 laws and all previous versions spoken bidding is still treated
as the mainstream, and bidding boxes aren't mentioned at all,   But I suspect
that as of 2006 bidding boxes are by far and away the majority, written
bidding is second, and spoken bidding a small minority.   That (presumably)
being the case, the laws on bidding ought to be based primarily on bidding
boxes, with secondary provision for written and spoken bidding.

-Bob

Tim West-Meads さんは書きました:
>Ton wrote:
>
>> This sounds as another example of a problem created in blml and not 
>> at the bridge table. 
>> 
>> If north has to call and south picks a card form his box, regardless 
>> what kind of card it is and how he keeps it, may be he just touched
>> it even, this action is an irregularity. And any player at the table
>> may call attention to it, at any stage.   
>> 
>> What is wrong with acting like that and having laws saying so? 
>
>I don't see any problem with acting like that and there would be no 
>issue if the laws *explicitly* stated that such preventative action was 
>permitted.  While I'm of the opinion that such actions are legitimate 
>(although as with other legitimate actions *capable* of transmitting UI) 
>others, misinterpreting (IMO) the WBFLC minute, are of the belief that 
>any such action is illegal.  This becomes an "at the table" problem 
>rather than merely a BLML one when TDs start ruling differently on the 
>same facts.
>
>Thus an enhancement to law9 along the lines of 
>Forestalling an irregularity.
>With the exception of dummy (see Law42/43) any player may attempt to 
>prevent an irregularity by any other player (such has by saying "it is 
>not your bid/lead").  All players should be aware that both the 
>forestalled/partial irregularity and the act of intervention may create 
>UI.
>
>Would clarify the matter for everybody.
>
>Tim
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml at amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml