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

[Robert Geller]

The minutes of the WBFLC on 24 Aug 1998 contains the following statement:
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_lcmn.htm
******************************************
8.	Actions authorised in the laws
The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was 
stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions if not expressly 
forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope 
of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not 
specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction 
of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play.
******************************************

Considering the first part of the above WBFLC statement (through ".... not so;")
the actions queried below (stopping partner from making an insufficient bid or
a bid out of turn) are not authorized by the laws and are therefore not proper
procedure.   Therefore it seems clear those unauthorized actions shouldn't be 
allowed.    (They are probably also "gratuitous information under 73B1.)
That being the case, the use of the info my the partner (in stopping short
of committing an infraction based on the extraneous info) was an infraction.  

The question is how this should be dealt with.   The warning to partner is
not authorized information.  Had it not been for the UI partner would have
committed an irregularity, but that hadn't yet taken place, if I understand
correctly.   In that case maybe a ruling of AV+/AV- is most appropriate
(with PP?).

-Bob

richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes:
>ABF National Authority minutes, Friday January 27 2006:
>
>[snip]
>
>Preventing Insufficient Bid
>
>The following question was referred to the National
>Authority at the instigation of Laurie Kelso.
>
>  Does the National Authority have an opinion on the
>  following two scenarios:
>
>  a) In a slam investigation auction (using written
>  bidding) a player bids 5NT (king ask) and as his
>  partner begins to write down "5" he calls out "stop",
>  thus preventing partner from making an insufficient
>  bid.
>
>  b) The dealer (using bidding boxes) sees his partner
>  begin to remove a bid (not a green "pass" card) from
>  the box, where upon he reaches across and prevents his
>  partner from getting the bidding cards any more than
>  half-way out of the box. (Please assume that the
>  intervention occurred before the point where
>  regulation defines the partner's action as a call).
>
>  Are the above actions permitted or not permitted
>  (legal or illegal)?
>
>The National Authority noted that the only reference to
>"preventing an irregularity" in the Laws of Duplicate
>Contract Bridge 1997 is found in the laws which refer
>to attempts by dummy to prevent an irregularity (Law
>9A2b(2) and Law 42B2). Such attempts are legitimate.
>
>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.
>
>[snip]
>
>
>Best wishes
>
>Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
>National Training Branch
>02 6225 6285
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml at amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

-----------------------------------------------------
Robert (Bob) Geller,     Tokyo, Japan        geller at nifty.com