[blml] Cut the mustard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

David Grabiner:

[snip]

>Even some "must"s aren't treated as serious violations.  If partner
>misexplains or forgets to Alert one of my calls but damage appears
>unlikely, I will normally say, "There was a failure to Alert; 3D
>shows X.  Please call the TD if you think there was a problem."  That
>is a violation of L75D2, which says that I must call the TD, but a PP
>for failure to call the TD in this situation is unlikely.

Richard Hills:

If David Grabiner was the putative declarer or putative dummy issuing
this home-grown Law 75D2 ruling after the auction, but before the
selection of the opening lead, and if I was the TD, then a PP from me
for David's Law 9B1(a) infraction would not be likely, but be certain.

:-)

While David's opponents may not discover until the end of the deal
whether or not the misinformation caused damage, the opponent last to
pass has the right to reconsider that pass in the light of the correct
information, pursuant to Law 21B1, and David has failed to inform that
opponent of their Law 21B1 option.

Tsk, tsk.  Although in my misspent youth as a Secretary Bird I made
the identical mistake, since the cross-reference to Law 21 is in Law
75D1, but not in Law 75D2.

:-)


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm