Two questions

There has been a discussion (and conflicting opinions) among the 
experienced TDs in our federation of two points.  I'd be interested in 
the opinion of blml members.


1.  Law §81.C.3:  This says basically that the TD should rectify any 
error or irregularity of which he becomes aware.  The question is how 
strictly this should be applied.  Let us take three situations of which 
the TD becomes aware by coincidence (and, when applicable, have not been 
noticed by any player at the table). 1. The Td sees a card on the floor. 
2. The Td sees the declarer (or other player) lead from the wrong hand. 
3. The Td notices a revoke.
In the first case there is unanimity; the Td must take action, play is 
not possible with 51 cards.  But there is disagreement in the other two 
cases.  The law seems to say that the Td should act but this seems, at 
least to some Tds, unfair.  If it occurs at more than one table but is 
only noticed at one by the Td, then it will not be rectified at the 
other tables and coincidence is the determining factor.  (The 
coincidence of at which table the Td happens to be kibitzing.)
A secondary question is, if he acts, when he should do so.

2.  During a complicated lizit (bidding sequence) a call is made and the 
partner does not know if it conventional or natural.  It has not been 
discussed by the pair.  No matter what he does (if he alerts or does not 
alert) it will possibly give UI to his partner who now knows if his bid 
has been understood in the way he intended it. Should he in such a 
situation alert or not alert?
The basis of the problem is obviously that the bid has not been 
discussed so it seems reasonable that if UI is given and used and 
affects the result the pair should be prepared to accept an adjusted score.

I'd be interested in the opinions of colleagues in both of these cases.  
Thanks,  JE

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml