[blml] When to late

[David Grabiner]

> From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>

>> On Behalf Of Ed Reppert
>> On Jan 1, 2007, at 5:46 AM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> > The Laws are
>> > silent on the question of  the manner in which the contestant
>> > becomes aware of a 'substantial reason to believe' (16A2).
>> > There is no restriction on this in the laws.
>>
>>
>> What of the footnote? "When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when
>> dummy is exposed." This would seem to obviate the practice (I want to
>> say "common practice" but that may be just my perception) of calling
>> the TD whenever the recipient of UI does something an opponent thinks
>> (without any evidence) he shouldn't have done.
>
> 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.

It doesn't need to be a concealed partnership understanding, just something 
which might reasonably not have been discovered at the table.  For example:

W   N   E   S
1C  P   1H  1S
2H  3S  4H  4S
X

West, who has only three hearts, forgot that E-W were playing support 
doubles.  East explains that 2H promises four (in response to a question, or 
because the raise promising four is alertable), giving UI to West.  The UI 
suggests doubling over bidding 5H or making a forcing pass which East could 
convert to 5H.  South claims 4Sx down two before the play is finished, so he 
doesn't discover the heart position.  Only when the hand records come out 
does South see that West's hand doesn't correspond to East's explanation, 
and that he might have been damaged because 5H could go down.

E-W may not have done anything wrong, but South needs to have the right to 
claim damage from UI.