Jeremy69A

The problem with not using precedent is that rulings are inconsistent and as has been found in more august areas of the law than bridge law precedent has its place.

When you x 1NT and then bid 2S on the next round which part of your hand hadn't you shown?

It's nearly always the player's fault for not checking although I have seen cases where the players were specifically told to sit in th wrong direction by the director. Assuming this is not the case it is normal for the match to be scored as less than 15-15 or whatever a draw is. When it happened twice in the last European championship it was thought the score would be 12-12 but there was time(just) for the matches to be replayed which is what happened.

Not quite as clearcut as all that perhaps except in the minds of Americans.

With the WBF, moving away from sea shells would be a start!

Although the EBL have taken credit cards for a while and did so in Poznan for example the WBF have been awkward and refused in Sao Paulo in 2009. There is some hope they may have entered the C20th if not the C21st.

Not working at present!

Although a direct match is a common way to split, in tournaants such as the Brighton Teams where you may need to split a tie amongst more than two teams for a place in either of the two finals they use Swiss Points i.e. the results of your opponents. Ever since I won a 4 way split tie I've considered this method to have some merit. :D I've also played in a Swiss in La Baule where after round 2, in addition to your vp score, you automatically had this amount added and shown on the ranking list round by round which seems to me a good idea.

Clearly no-one had told me the rules in this situation!

Feel free to denigrate the regulations but it is bizarre IMO to speak with such certainty without even bothering to check. This is not new. A strong artificial opening in EBU land needs to meet any ONE of three criteria 1. 16+ HCPs 2. The extended rule of 25(add HCP to length of two longest suits) 3. 8 clearcut tricks(and there is a definition) AND the HCP normally associated with a one level opening bid If it does not it is illegal to agree to open it whether it is a 2C opening or a Strong Club or diamond. I play a Strong Club and do not feel handicapped. The same minima apply by regulation but, of course I would open a balanced 18 count 1♣ and would not dream of opening it 2♣. The problem, at least the way the L&E currently see it(elections coming up next month!), is one of inadequate disclosure with players using the word "strong" inaccurately to put opponents off intervening in auctions.

This advice seems flawed to me. As others have remarked if you put your card face down and tell everyone you are thinking about the whole hand you have just told partner that you have no choice to make in the card you play. The EBU's advice in this respect (published in its White Book) is If you take your time to plan and then play your card there is no problem unless you are intentionally trying to slow the game. What is important is that your actions with a singleton and without should be the same.

Would this not be showing demonstrable indifference to the stop regulation? If you play against me I would rather you called quickly after a "stop" than sang to me! B-) I played in a ACBL national for over a week recently in all sorts of games and came across no home grown player who used the stop card or said "skip bid" but a. if you did they generally respected it b. I found no problems with their tempo at all (which, to be honest, surprised me a bit)

Perhaps we need another poll on how gullible users of each browser are.

I think that prior to this season in KO matches it was not technically legal to have duplimated boards although if both captains agreed there would never be a problem. There is now a condition written into the regulations for EBU KO matches that specifically authorises this(Regulation 16) if both captains are in agreement. For congress events it is as stated already i.e. Law 6E4 permits it.

And so it will be if you print it out! B-)

Thank you for the germ of an idea! :lol:

And long may he continue to be. He would never have behaved in that way; too much of a gentleman whatever his thoughts. Well it was by the Appeal Committee in Poznan! Experience on the L&E has taught me that even if one doesn't agree Grattan is always worth listening to.

Well it's true he is dead and in such circumstances it would be churlish to hold a grudge. If you ask me F2F I'll tell you who he was.

And do the bidding box regulations cover positions where the auction has ended without a final pass? There was a school of thought that the auction had not finished but if so there will be millionsw of unfinished auctions out there!

I think I expressed myself sufficiently clearly. He went and told my wife that I was very arrogant not to realise I should defer to his vast experience(so I probably got through). As he is now departed from this planet we will forgive him. One of the things I hate most on appeal committees are those who think it is the time and place to change the law or the regulations rather than apply then in as fair a away as possible.

If the hesitation is indeed devious then: Step 1 is to explain to the player that this is not acceptable and also upsets other players. Step 2, if he choose to ignore Step 1 or argue you are infringing his human rights is to adjust, if the circumstances merit it, and issue a PP. Step 3 is to invite him to play his future games in the park or the local William Hill's rather than the club.

what did the other 10 do?

Indeed it made a selection of the Laws & Ethics Committee froth at the mouth when it was said. Current English guidance is that these rulnigs are not acceptable(doesn't stop them all from happening of course.) I did a ruling at the Easter Festival a while ago and one of the committee wanted to give just such a ruling. When he was told he could not do so he railed at the stupidity of the law(or at least it's English interpretation) and roundly told off both me and my other appeal committee member for not deferring to a senior European figure(in his estimation anyway)

He may have done but that does not give it the force of law. The problem here is that a. I think most people feel that 10 tricks is equity b. the law book seems to support them c. Various committees in Beijing and San Remo have given what they think is flesh and I think is confusion to the law d. No-one is clear as to which pronouncements are binding e. the law is an ass when a situation like this can happen and then eminent directors and bridge lawyers can't agree on the result. Roll on 2017 and yet another change to the revoke law. It's all very well to talk about the laws being designed for equity rather than punishment but when equity is denied to the non offending side as it was here we haven't got things right. I confess I suggested to the appellant that the committee would need to be clinically insane not to overturn the TD's decision. I'm not convinced I was wrong about this! :)

I meant North. If North makes a face or comments concerning his 4♠bid and Soiuth acts on the UI then there maybe an adjusted score and possibly South will pick up a penalty if it is a gross use of the UI but to give UI by making a face or noise espeically when there has been a misunderstanding is a hanging offence in my view.