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

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Robert Geller:

>There are only two places in the laws where it is specifically
>authorized for a player to attempt to prevent an irregularity
>(below).  Both refer to the same thing, namely dummy's attempts
>to prevent declarer from committing an irregularity:
>*********************************************************
>L9A2b2 Dummy may attempt to prevent declarer from committing an
>irregularity (Law 42B2).
>
>L42B(2) [Dummy] may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer.
>*********************************************************
>
>OTOH, the rest of the laws authorize a player to call attention
>to an irregularity, but do not explicit authorize a player to
>try to prevent an irregularity (see below).
>*********************************************************
>L9A1
>Unless prohibited by Law, any player may call attention to an
>irregularity during the auction, whether or not it is his turn
>to call.
>
>L9A2a   Declarer or Either Defender
>Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may call
>attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period.
>********************************************************
>
>Maybe one of the drafters of the 1997 Laws (if any are reading
>this) can explain how this distinction arose.

Richard Hills:

This distinction is ancient of days, dating back well before the
1997 Laws.  Part of the problem is that the 1997, 1987 and 1975
Lawbooks were patchwork evolutions, not fundamental redrafts, so
that this gap in Law 9 has had to be interpreted by the ABF
National Authority, rather than explicitly dealt with by Law 9
itself from 1975 onwards.

Tim West-Meads:

>>My opinion remains that the reason the laws are silent on the
>>issue is that nobody in 1997 thought it necessary to state the
>>obvious (ie that where infractions can be prevented it is
>>better that they should be.)

Robert Geller:

>Was it intentional that "attempting to prevent an irregularity"
>was not specifically mentioned in L9A1 and L9A2a (i.e., was it
>intended not to authorize this) ?   Or was this an oversight?

Richard Hills:

If the answer to this Law 9 gap was obvious, then the ABF
National Authority would not have needed to interpret Law 9.

:-)

One school of thought is that attempting to prevent an
irregularity is a special right granted only to dummy and not to
any other player (provided that dummy has not committed a Law 43
infraction which causes dummy to lose that right).

Robert Geller:

>In any case, as Tim West-Meads pointed out earlier, the lack of
>clarity could be rectified by reworded L9A1 and L9A2a to either
>prohibit or allow attempts to prevent irregularities.

Richard Hills:

If dummy has an exclusive right to any attempt to prevent an
irregularity, then it would be an infraction if declarer
attempted to prevent an irregularity by a defender.  Since in so
doing declarer is acting against their own interests, and since
declarer cannot transmit UI to dummy ("le mort"), it seems to me
that at the very least the new Law 9 should legalise declarer's
attempt to prevent an irregularity by a defender.

And, of course, declarer should be given the explicit right to
correct an attempted irregularity by dummy.

:-)

Robert Geller:

>I have a question (maybe for Richard Hills).   We've been
>discussing attempts to stop partner from making a BOOT.  How
>about a LOOT?   If pard has led face down it seems to be
>generally accepted that you can tell him it's not his lead,
>and he can put the card back in his hand without penalty.
>
>I never really thought about this before, but L41A seems to
>imply the director should be called and then he can instruct
>the player to put the face-down card back in his hand.  In
>practice, the players seem to do this themselves.
>
>But my question is of the same general nature.  Law 41A
>specifically discusses how an irregularity in the opening lead
>(still face down) can be corrected.

Richard Hills:

A face-down opening lead out of turn is not an attempted
irregularity, it is an actual irregularity, therefore clearly
covered by Law 9.  The idea of the face-down opening lead first
appeared in the 1975 Laws as an option, and was later upgraded
in the 1987 Laws to a default.  Because the opening lead out
of turn is face-down, the further irregularity of a penalty
card does not occur.

Robert Geller:

>But there's no mention in the Laws of one defender trying to
>prevent his partner from leading out of turn at a later trick.
>Do you think this should this be allowed?  Have there been any
>rulings on this by the Laws body in Oz?

ABF National Authority:

>>A concern might arise where despite the action being
>>prevented some unauthorised information is passed to partner
>>(Law 16). The National Authority expressed the opinion that
>>the director has power to take action where unauthorised
>>information is conveyed and that, in the absence of
>>unauthorised information, an attempt to prevent an
>>irregularity in the bidding is legitimate.

Richard Hills:

The above ABF National Authority ruling refers only to an
attempt to prevent an irregularity in the bidding.  But since
it based its ruling on a general principle, then mutatis
mutandis the ABF National Authority ruling should also apply to
an Aussie attempting to prevent an irregularity in the play.

Of course, most Aussie TDs are unaware of the ABF National
Authority ruling, since its minutes are merely published on the
ABF website, but not in the widely-read free ABF Newsletter.

Robert Geller:

>In any case, as Tim pointed out, if Law 9 were reworded to
>explicitly preclude or explicitly allow attempts to prevent
>irregularities this discussion wouldn't be needed.  Then we'd
>have to find something else to talk about.   Maybe we should
>hope they don't change Law 9..    :-)
>
>If my partner goes down in a cold contract by forgetting to
>count trumps, due to brain lock, I as dummy (or defender)
>have to take this as part of the game.  I don't see why if
>pard tries to bid out or turn (due to brain lock) it should be
>allowable to pipe up and save him/her from folly in this one
>instance of brain lock, but not others......   This is my
>philosophical objection to allowing the attempts to stop BOOTs
>by pard.  But if the laws were clear one way or the other then
>obviously we should all follow them.

Richard Hills:

The WBF Executive Council, at its Montreal meeting in 2002,
gave a riding instruction to the WBF LC drafting sub-committee
that ambiguity should be minimised in next year's Lawbook.

Of course, given the length and complexity of the 1997 Lawbook,
this is a Sisyphean task.  But to a certain extent blml is a
friend of Sisyphus, as blml finds stones of ambiguity that
might otherwise be overlooked until 2017.

:-)


Best wishes

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