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

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard.hills at immi.gov.au>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:58 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> 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


Perhaps I am further mistaken but is not the CoC that penalties for 
infractions not transmitted beyond the screen are suspended?  The point is 
that N committed an infraction with the intention of gaining by it, and 
henceforth  sought and did gain by that infraction.

regards
roger pewick