[blml] Law 27 - relay

[Eric Landau]

On Apr 30, 2008, at 7:01 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote:

>>> [David Burn]
>>> Any illegal call that is not accepted must, at the player's turn to
>>> call,  be
>>> replaced by a legal call. Any information arising from the illegal
>>> call  is
>>> unauthorised to the offending side, but authorised to the  non-
>>> offending
>>> side.
>
> EL:
>
>> But that is exactly what L16D says.  And, as explicitly as could
>> possibly have been written, "Law 16D does not apply".
>
> This is indeed unfortunate, but...
>
>> Am I missing
>> some other law in TFLB, not L16D, that says that information from a
>> withdrawn illegal call is UI to the OS and AI to the NOS?
>
> No. But it is the information from the CALL that is now AI, not  
> "the call
> and the IBer's explanation of what the call was intended to mean".

The problem with that is that sometimes the information from the  
call, along with the L27 ruling, will be sufficient to allow the  
players to infer what the call was intended to mean.  That makes the  
intended meaning AI, since neither the call nor the ruling can be  
UI.  Whether or not this is the case depends on factors that have  
nothing to do with the irregularity having occured (it is essentially  
a function of the OS's regular agreements).  Identical rulings in  
identical situations could cause it to be AI at some tables and UI at  
others.  That seems like something to be avoided, and the obvious way  
to avoid it is for the intended meaning to be AI regardless.

There is also the practical issue that if it is always AI, it will be  
much easier, and far more transparent (always a benefit to the  
customers), to deal with those cases in which the IBer's immediate  
instinctive reaction to having the IB pointed out gave the  
information to the table.  IME, this happens more often than not.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net