Re: inn err Ni manor

"We want ... a shrubbery!"
[dramatic chord]

New 2017 Law 75B1:

"When the partnership agreement is different from the explanation given, the explanation is an infraction of Law. When this infraction results in damage to the non-offending side, the Director shall award an adjusted score."

New 2017 Law 75B3 (an apparent restatement / paraphrase of the "in any manner" Law 20F5(a)):

"The player's partner must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues and if he subsequently becomes a defender, he must call the Director and correct the explanation only after play ends. If the player's partner is to be declarer or dummy he must, after the final pass, call the Director and then provide a correction."

Richard Hills

In my opinion, reading the new 75B1 and 75B3 together demonstrates that an accurate explanation to an opponent's later enquiry does NOT count as a correction of partner's earlier misexplanation.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

Sent from my iPad

> On 31 Aug 2017, at 5:46 PM, Richard Hills <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> " ... must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest - with a herring!"
> 
> Law 81C3:
> 
> "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the periods established in accordance with Laws 79C and 92B."
> 
> Jeff Easterson, extract from earlier thread:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 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).
> 
> [snip first two questions]
> 
> 3. The Td notices a revoke.
> 
> [snip first two answers]
> 
> 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.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> One of the key words in Law 81C3 is "rectify". The Definitions state:
> 
> "Rectification - the remedial provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director's attention."
> 
> Now in Law 64 (Procedure After Establishment of a Revoke) nowhere in Law 64A is there any mention of rectification or remedy / redress of damage. Rather, Law 64A refers to automatic trick adjustment. Hence the Director's intervention should be delayed until the only applicable clause of Law 64 is Law 64C (Redress of Damage).
> 
> +=+=+=+=+=+
> 
> Law 20F5(a):
> 
> "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. 'Mistaken explanation' here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require."
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> Recent controversies mean that I am awaiting whether the Australian High Court will promulgate a "black-letter law" interpretation of section 44 of the Aussie Constitution.
> 
> Likewise, should there be a black-letter law interpretation of Law 20F5(a)'s "in any manner"?
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Richard Hills
> 
> Sent from my iPad
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml