Re: Two questions

----- Mail original -----

> De: "Jeff Easterson" <[email protected]>
> À: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <[email protected]>
> Envoyé: Mercredi 16 Août 2017 17:36:52
> Objet: [BLML] 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.
agreed 

> 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.
in a game the rules tell what is fair, there are no superior ethical principles 

> 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.)
it's not because it's not possible to sanction every infraction that one should not sanction anyone. 

> A secondary question is, if he acts, when he should do so.
in 2. i think he should not act because the next player is entitled to accept the play out of turn, be it deliberately or not 
in 3. the opponent must be given the opportunity they are also entitled, to wait for the revoke to be established. only afterwards he should act. 

> 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?
alerts are designed to signal partnership understandings; when there is no PU, ther is no basis for alert and partner will not be surprised that his non-discussed bid is not followed by an alert! 
jpr 

> 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

-- 
_______________________________________________ 
Jean-Pierre Rocafort 
METEO-FRANCE 
DSI/D/BP 
42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 
31057 Toulouse CEDEX 
Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) 
Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) 
e-mail: [email protected] 

Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr 
_______________________________________________

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