Re: Las Vegas 2014 case N4

 If the Director had been called in time, North would have been allowed to
change his pass.  By failing to call the Director, N-S jeopardized their
right to benefit if that had mattered; North cannot now say after the fact
that he would have pulled the double to 5D.  Law 10B would apply in that
case; North declined to call the Director to change his call at the right
time, and the Director lets that choice stand.  And this is necessary, as
North would get the table result after a 5D bid, rather than the most or
least favorable likely result.

While Law 20F5 says that a player must call the Director when correcting a
misexplanation, this doesn't happen in practice, so I would not
automatically deny rectification for failure to call the Director.
Instead, the relevant law is 11A: the right to rectification may be
forfeited if the non-offending side does not summon the director.  This law
says "may", so the Director should allow rectification if the same result
would occur had there been a timely Director call.

If the Director had been called at the end of the auction, he would have
taken South away from the table.  Would South have said, "I would have bid
4S" or "I would have made a forcing pass" (leading to 5D by North and then
a 5H save by West)?  The Committee ruled that he would, which is a
reasonable conclusion.


On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 6:21 AM, ken.johnston <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Could the Director have allowed the last pass by non-offenders to be
> changed had they been called?
>
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Herman De Wael <[email protected]>
> Date: 19/02/2018 10:39 (GMT+00:00)
> To: blml <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas 2014 case N4
>
> I don't have time to look it up.
>
> But if it was about damage during the bidding, I agree with the appeal
> committee. There should be no reason to call the TD immediately if you
> know that he cannot change anything at that precise moment. That should
> be like "reserving your rights".
>
> Herman.
>
> Richard Hills wrote:
> > In this case the declaring side had misinformed the defending side
> during the auction. The declaring side corrected their misexplanation at
> the end of the auction. But neither side summoned the Director (as both
> sides were obliged to do) until well after the conclusion of play.
> >
> > Hence the Director refused to adjust the score, citing Law 10B. On the
> other hand, the Appeals Committee ignored Law 10B without giving any reason
> for doing so, therefore adjusted the score.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Richard Hills
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>

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