[blml] When too late

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Eric Landau
> At 03:17 PM 1/5/07, Sven wrote:
> 
> >I have never understood this thread to be a dispute on a contestant's
> >right
> >to request a ruling by the Director and do indeed hope that I haven't
> >given
> >that impression?
> >
> >My intention has all the time been to focus on the problem for TD in
> >giving
> >a ruling on UI when the reason for UI has not been established and then
> >eventually an allegation of a Law 16A2 violation is presented. That
> >was also
> >how I understood the kernel of the original question that started this
> >thread.
> >
> >When requested to make a ruling on opponents' alleged violation of Law
> >16A2
> >but where the complaining side has failed to secure their case by
> >establishing agreement of BIT (or whatever action may have created UI)
> >and I
> >find it impossible to establish facts of UI, I invariably dismiss the
> >complaint unless they can show reasonable cause for not securing
> >evidence in
> >time (as specified in Laws 16A1 and 16A2 footnote). I honestly believe
> >that
> >this is the only possible way a serious director can rule.
> 
> That is just fine, and entirely proper, and Sven should keep doing
> it.  But Sven doesn't work in the ACBL.
> 
> What do you do when the opponents' indisputable "reasonable cause for
> not securing evidence in time" is that their Zonal organization has
> explicitly forbidden them from doing so?

Except that I never work under such Zonal organizations I request players to
never "reserve their rights" which is forbidden but to politely ask their
opponents: "Do we agree that this and that happened now" which cannot be
forbidden.

Regards Sven