Re: Two questions

In your case 1:
Situation 1 - the Director should immediately take possession of that card, but he should not take any other action whatsoever until some player raises the alarm that a card is missing. Once he has a board containing only 51 cards he should first of all verify that the card found indeed belongs to that board and that all four hands are correct. He should then proceed with the relevant activity on card(s) missing from a board.
Situation 2 - the Director should stand ready to take action if attention is drawn to the irregularity in a proper manner, but else remain silent.
Situation 3 - the Director should not take any action whatsoever until the time period specified as available for the players to rectify a revoke has expired. After that period he should apply Law 63C.

In your case 2 one must remember that it is never an irregularity when correct procedures result in UI given to partner, but it is an infraction of law if partner uses such UI.
Aside from that your case is mainly a matter for local regulations.

-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] På vegne av Jeff Easterson
Sendt: Wednesday, 16 August 2017 17:37
Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List <[email protected]>
Emne: [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.  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


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml