[blml] club director torment

[Guthrie]

[Robert Frick]
Meanwhile, new laws....if a player makes an insufficient bid, shoots out 
a contract barring partner, and gets a top because of a 5-0 spade break, 
then the director adjusts using 27D, who on this list is going to 
support that director? My worry is that I will be the only one.

[Stefanie Rohan]
This is a toughie. We are all so used to the idea of an IBer taking a 
bash at the final contract and winning or losing thereby. It always 
seemed so fair.

However, 27D seems pretty clear about the matter, so I will support that 
director with you.

[TNLB L27D1]
If the insufficient bid is replaced, except as 27C1 allows, by any bid 
or a pass the offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to 
call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply and see Law 23.

[TNLB L23]
Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been 
aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the 
non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue 
(if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards 
an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an 
advantage through the irregularity*.

[nigel]
Stefanie and Robert are usually right but I feel here they may have 
misinterpreted L27D1 and L23 above (if I have the latest version)

IMO the TBFLC intended that the application of Law 23 be contingent on 
the director's opinion that the offender could have known *at the time 
of his irregularity* ...

Common sense says that a bad suit break or whatever does not fall into 
that category. IMO the director, Robert, and Stefanie should all rule 
"Rub of the green".

IMO law 23 is applicable when, for example, the offender's replacement 
call seems designed to mislead opponents.