[blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Jerry Fusselman]

Richard Hills wrote:
> Jerry Fusselman asked:
>
> >How is the [Law 16] footnoted phrase, "it is not an infraction
> >to call the Director earlier or later," interpreted?  E.g., is
> >there some doctrine of "failure to protect oneself" that kicks
> >in when calling too early or late, even though it is not an
> >infraction per se?
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> My opinion is that the footnoted phrase is the exact opposite.
>
> It removes the last vestige of Edgar Kaplan's 1960s idea that
> the non-offending side could lose its rights in a use-of-UI
> case unless the non-offending side called the TD at a very
> specific time.
>

I hope you are right.  But it is one thing to say that "X is not an
infraction," and quite another to say that "X is too little, too
late---sorry, but we can't do anything for you because you chose an
imperfect time to call the director."

(This has often been said to me in the ACBL, but I still not sure
exactly when they wanted me to call.  I now think it varied by
director.)

I think the footnote could have easily been much clearer if the
intention matched your reading.  Do you see what I mean?  Saying
something is not an infraction is nothing like saying that your full
rights are unchanged.

Jerry Fusselman