pran Posted March 17, 2019 Report Share Posted March 17, 2019 The information is that the North player has an opening bid and it is unauthorised because Law 31B1 says so.31B1 doesn't say so directly, but I take your point.It does indeedOffender’s partner may make any legal call at his proper turn, but Law 16C2 applies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 17, 2019 Report Share Posted March 17, 2019 No. It refers to Law 16C2. It's that law that says directly that the information is unauthorized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted March 17, 2019 Report Share Posted March 17, 2019 No. It refers to Law 16C2. It's that law that says directly that the information is unauthorized.And exactly what is the legal difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 18, 2019 Report Share Posted March 18, 2019 For Law 31B1 to directly make the withdrawn call UI, it would have to say explicitly "the withdrawn call is UI". It doesn't say that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 18, 2019 Report Share Posted March 18, 2019 For Law 31B1 to directly make the withdrawn call UI, it would have to say explicitly "the withdrawn call is UI". It doesn't say that.Frequently the laws say things by cross-referencing some other law that says it, to avoid redundancy. For all intents and purposes, saying "See 16C2" is the same as saying "the withdrawn call is UI for the OS". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted March 18, 2019 Report Share Posted March 18, 2019 For Law 31B1 to directly make the withdrawn call UI, it would have to say explicitly "the withdrawn call is UI". It doesn't say that.And exactly what is the legal difference? To be more specific: What difference does it make for the way the Director shall handle the situation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted March 18, 2019 Report Share Posted March 18, 2019 Frequently the laws say things by cross-referencing some other law that says it, to avoid redundancy. For all intents and purposes, saying "See 16C2" is the same as saying "the withdrawn call is UI for the OS".+1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 18, 2019 Report Share Posted March 18, 2019 What Barry says is true, and in answer to Sven, it makes no legal difference. Well, there's this: If it is incumbent on directors to explain their rulings when they make them (as it should be, else how are players to know whether to appeal?) then simply saying "it's UI because 31B1 says so" isn't good enough. In explaining a ruling, IMO you have to follow the links: "31B1 refers us to 16C2, which says that information from withdrawn calls is unauthorized to the offending side". Pedantic of me? Perhaps, but I stand by it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.