[blml] When to late

[Ed Reppert]

On Jan 1, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Sven Pran wrote (in response to me):

>> 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.

My point was that when a BIT is perceived to have occurred, it is Law  
16A1, not Law 16A2, that tells us how to deal with that. At that  
point, Law 16A2 has not been invoked, nor should it be. I think what  
you're talking about is a case where a player perceives a BIT by an  
opponent, but doesn't say anything until he later discovers that the  
BITter's partner may have taken advantage. NOW the director will have  
a fine time establishing whether or not there was a BIT, I agree.

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

As Bob Geller points out, the answer to this (the time in question  
being when the alleged BIT occurs) is yes. The ACBL does so.

> 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".

Here, we are in complete agreement. :-)


Happy New Year to you, too, and to all the other list members!