[blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

The Committee:

>>>Secondly the Committee made certain that all requirements were
>>>met for North being allowed to change his call.

Roger Pewick:

>>I wonder if this question was answered correctly?
>>
>>If I am not mistaken. a player is permitted to ask a question
>>at his turn to call; also, once the auction ending pass has
>>occurred, declarer  [as distinguished from dummy to be] may
>>ask.
>>
>>As such, N would not be able to raise any question until after
>>the hand, with the consequence that it would be too late to
>>change a call.

Law 80E:

>A sponsoring organisation conducting an event under these Laws
>has the following duties and powers:
>
>to establish special conditions for bidding and play (such as
>written bidding, bidding boxes, screens - penalty provisions
>for actions not transmitted across a screen may be suspended).

Richard Hills:

All screen regulations suspend the penalty for the action of a
player asking a question of their screen-mate when it is not
that player's turn to call.

But Roger raises an interesting question.  If the deal had been
played without screens, then two infractions would have
occurred.  As well as the misinformation infraction by East it
seems that the presumed dummy, North, has infracted Law 41B by
asking a question

How should the Director rule in this hypothetical non-screen
case with two offending sides?


Best wishes

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