Weak 2 openings

[blackshoe]

The Laws, particularly the one that allows reserving the right to call the TD later, mostly presume that the players are honest and reasonable. They make mistakes, but they are not deliberately dishonest. So a player agreeing during the auction that there was a BIT, and later denying it when the TD arrives, should not occur. It's essentially cheating.

Of course. That's one reason I said I expect it would rarely happen.

[Ant590]

The Laws, particularly the one that allows reserving the right to call the TD later, mostly presume that the players are honest and reasonable.  They make mistakes, but they are not deliberately dishonest.  So a player agreeing during the auction that there was a BIT, and later denying it when the TD arrives, should not occur.  It's essentially cheating.

Of course. That's one reason I said I expect it would rarely happen.

I've had it happen where the opponents have agreed when the director was present at the table, and then in their subsequent appeal denied any BIT. Alas despite a regular well-respected BBO forum poster chairing the appeal, this was not mentioned as a misdemeanour. I guess it's more difficult when angry players are present!

[blackshoe]

AC chair, to appellant: Did you agree there was a BIT at the table?

Appellant, variant one: No.

AC chair, to TD: Did the appellant agree to the BIT at the table?

TD: Yes, he did.

AC chair: There was a BIT. Appellant is fined one full board disciplinary penalty for lying to the AC.

 

Appellant, variant two: Yes.

AC chair: Why then do you now say there was no BIT?

Appellant explains.

AC chair: There was/was not a BIT (depending on the explanation, but it is likely that the explanation will not suffice to rule no BIT).