[blml] When to late

[Robert Geller]

The ACBL position (see excerpt below) is that the director 
must be called when the hesitation occurs.
This seems unnecessary to me.   All you should have to 
do is turn to the opponents and say "There was a break 
in tempo, right?" and if they agree then the auction can
proceed and you can call the director if (when you later have
seen all the hands) you think there was action that might
have been based on UI.

-Bob

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://bridgehands.com/Laws/ACBL/Duplicate/DD/General_Laws_Governing_Irregularities.HTM#16
Extraneous information from partner: After a player makes extraneous information available to his partner by an 
action such as a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unmistakable hesitation, unusual speed, special 
emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or any other action that suggests a call, lead or plan of play, the 
partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could have demonstrably been suggested 
over another by the extraneous information. If the director is called before the recipient of the unauthorized 
information takes action, he should instruct the recipient to ignore the information and tell the opponents to call 
him back after the play if they feel the opponents have gained an advantage.

1. At ACBL sanctioned events, competitors are not allowed to announce that they reserve the right to summon 
the Director later. They should call the Director when they believe that extraneous information could well result 
in damage to their side. (San Francisco NABC, Fall, 1996.)

2. When a player feels an opponent has taken action that could have been suggested by such information, he 
immediately calls the Director to the table. After ascertaining the agreed facts, the Director requires that the 
auction and play continue, reserving the right to adjust the score if he considers that the result could have been 
affected by the unauthorized information.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



>> 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".

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