[blml] When to late

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of 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 has everything to do with Law 16A2, in fact BIT is (in my experience) the
most common cause for UI and L16A2 is the very law that deals with using UI
from partner. Remember that creating UI is no violation of law, using UI is.

> 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

Of course not, in that case the fact has already "been established".

> - 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? 

At this time, NONE! You don't need TD to establish facts because BIT is
confirmed already, and you don't need TD to rule because nobody can so far
tell if there has been a violation of Law 16A2.

> 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 experience any authority stating that TD must (or should) be summoned
at this time? I don't.

> 
> 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.

I don't even think that any player ever needs to "reserve his rights". At
the time of an agreed upon BIT the facts are established, and when he sees
the cards of the suspected offender he has his opportunity to summon the TD
and request a ruling. This right cannot vanish on the ground that he did not
"reserve his rights".

Regards Sven (and by the way: A happy New Year to you!)