[blml] When to late

[Ed Reppert]

On Jan 1, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Sven Pran wrote:

> The main problem with a late accusation of a law 16A2 violation is  
> that of
> establishing the facts.
>
> Personally I am very reluctant to try such accusations if I feel  
> that the
> accusation has been delayed by NOS for no particular reason.
>
> If a break in tempo is not established immediately it is almost always
> impossible to have it established afterwards.
>
> On the contrary if late discoveries make it likely or even probable  
> that a
> partnership has created UI using some sort of concealed partnership
> understanding I see every reason to try an accusation of a Law 16A2
> violation on such basis within the correction period.

Establishment of a BIT has nothing to do with Law 16A2. It is a  
factor in Law 16A1, true, but that's a different story. If at the  
time of a perceived BIT, all four players agree that there was one, I  
don't see a later problem wrt that fact for the TD - unless somebody  
decides to change his story once the TD is called, and a TD should,  
IMO, respond to that firmly. What I was envisioning was a Law 16A2  
situation: your LHO breaks tempo, everyone agrees he broke tempo,  
your RHO bids, you call the TD. Where is your "substantial reason to  
believe" that RHO has taken advantage of UI? Aside from that, what  
the Hell should the TD do at that point? Well, that one's easy "Play  
on, call me back at the end of the hand if you feel you were  
damaged". So what's the point in calling the TD? Any facts he needs  
to establish can be just as well established at the end of play as at  
the time of the bid, given that all four players have already agreed  
there was a BIT.

Do you agree that a player who reserves his rights after an agreed  
BIT has done nothing wrong (assuming he's not in ACBL-land)? Do you  
feel that in such a case you might have a problem if he doesn't call  
until he's "seen" the offending hand (not that of the BITter, his  
partner's)? If you disagree with either of these, then it seems to me  
you're disagreeing with Law 16A1., or at least would prefer it if  
every zone elected to prohibit reserving rights.