[blml] When to late

[Ed Reppert]

On Jan 3, 2007, at 10:02 AM, Sven Pran wrote:

> And exactly how does ACBL expect their directors to handle cases  
> where the
> alleged offending side "swears to God" there was no BIT five  
> minutes ago,
> and had they known that the other side eventually would have  
> claimed BIT
> they would immediately have summoned the Director to have that  
> question
> clarified?

Precisely why I believe that in wording L16A1 the way they did, the  
WBFLC screwed the pooch, and in wording the election the way *they*  
did, the ACBL did likewise.

Perhaps L16A1 would have been better worded "When a player considers  
that an opponent has made such information available and that damage  
could well result, he may, unless the regulations of the sponsoring  
organisation prohibit, immediately announce that he reserves the  
right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the  
Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorised  
information might have been conveyed, or if the SO elects to prohibit  
reserving rights)." A strict grammarian might be able to show that  
the proposed additional wording is redundant, but most players aren't  
strict grammarians, and don't carry one around in their pocket.