RSliwinski

§57C will be changed from 2007: C. Declarer or Dummy Has Played 1. A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his partner if declarer has played from both hands, nor if dummy has played a card or has illegally suggested that it be played. A singleton in dummy, or one of cards adjacent in rank of the same suit, is not considered to be played until declarer has instructed (or indicated*) the play. 2. A premature play (not a lead) by declarer from either hand is a played card and may not be withdrawn. to 2017: C. Declarer or Dummy Has Played 1. A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his partner if declarer has played from both hands. However a card is not considered to be played from dummy until declarer has instructed (or otherwise indicated*) the play. 2. A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his partner if dummy has of his own volition prematurely selected a card before his RHO or has illegally suggested that one be played. 3. A premature play (not a lead) by declarer from either hand is a played card and if legal may not be withdrawn.

Well, I think that the law 80B2(e) gives the legality to the screen regulations. For those who are to lazy to look it up, it states that The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include: to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance with these laws, together with any special conditions (as, for example, play with screens – provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied).

The minute 5 of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee held in Philadelphia PA, 8th October 2010 is relevant to the problem. 5. Asked to determine who should respond to the question “Is it my opening lead?” (see Law 20C1), the committee observed that all players at the table are responsible for ensuring that a correct reply is given. The Director may deem silence when a reply is made to constitute assent. Regulations may provide for situations when playing with screens.

Strange reading of the law. What the footnote to 25A says is “A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error.” There is no condition that the way he become aware is not by UI. Quite contrary. Law 25A is more specific than law 16 so it takes precedence over it. Of course partner's remark is illegal and should result in issuing a PP.

Well, i wrote "of course" because I thought it was obvious. It does not make any difference whether Souths puts cards down before he calls the director, I introduced the easier case when no cards are put down by South since I thought that everybody would agree that in that case TD is to use 47E1. If you need references, look in ACBLs Duplicate Decisions, page 55. If you want an argument here is one: Law 54 refers explicitly to Law 53. So Law 53 applies in case of OLOOT. Law 53 states explicitly that Law 47E1 overrules it. Thus 47E1 applies also to OLOOT.

Pran claims that "Law 47E concerns the general case of a lead out of turn while Law 54A only applies when the lead out of turn is also an opening lead. Already that alone makes Law 54A more specific than Law 47E". This can´t be true. Imagine situation similar to OP but where South does not expose his hand but calls TD directly. Should TD rule according to 47E1 or should he offer South the choices mentioned in 54? Of course the former. Futhermore Pran wants to use 47E2 to support his solution but this law applies only when there is misstaken explanation of an opponent's call and play. In OP there is a case of misstaken information about whose lead it is. So we use 47.E1. I recall this case as one of the exercises at a EBL TD course led by Ton Kooijman. The solution was the one proposed by blackshoe and campboy.

I think the following Minutes of the Law Committee are relevant. Minutes of a meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Beijing on Friday, 10th October, 2008. 3 […] 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. (An “alternative” call is not the same call with another meaning – for example, if the reply to an opponent is that “5D shows diamonds preference”, any reply to a further question “what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?” is given voluntarily and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.) Minutes of Laws Committee meeting in Sao Paulo on Friday 4th September 2009. 7. A previous minute of the committee (10th September 2008, re Law 20F1) had been questioned. The law states that in response toquestions during the auction and play a player is entitled to be told about “calls actually made, relevant alternative calls not made, and relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding”. The minute had clarified that an ‘alternative’ call is not the same call with a different meaning. Thus if systemically after 4NT a response of 5D shows preferred minor the response here to Blackwood is not an available alternative call systemically and the player has no entitlement to information as to what it would mean. Mr. Weinstein was inclined to the opinion that since a player is entitled generally (Laws 40A1(b) and 40A2) to know the opposing partnership’s understandings arising from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal, when asking questions during the auction and play he should not be restricted by the terms of the specific Law 20F1. The Secretary was of the opposite opinion. The meeting engaged in a lengthy discussion and the Chairman decided that the subject should be continued when the committee reconvened. Minutes of Laws Committee meeting in Sao Paulo on Tuesday, 8th September 2009. 13. The committee returned to the matter regarding Law 20F1 that was the subject of its minute dated 10th October 2008. After further discussion it was agreed to abide by the 2008 minute.

I think the situation with COOT is similar to LOOT. Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee held in Philadelphia PA, 8th October 2010 16. The words “next in turn” in Law 55A were considered. The chairman had informed an enquirer that the ‘next in turn’ refers to the LHO of the offending hand and this had been disputed. The committee confirmed that the LHO of the offending hand is meant. Observation was made that Law 53A has the effect of moving the turn to the left of the lead out of turn and it remains there unless and until that lead is rejected.(my underlining) So by analogy, Law 29A has the effect of moving the turn to the left of the call out of turn and it remains there unless and until that call is rejected.

I was little to quick to answer. TD must must award an artificial adjusted score on the next board but not stricly speaking because of 16C2(d). He must do it because the condition for letting the bidding continue on the next board which is mentioned in 17D3, is not met.

If you rule the first board as fouled, what averages do you give and does the different coloured backs make any difference? 40%-60%, Laws 17D and 12C2, different coloured backs make no difference. Do you allow the second board to be played? No, 40%-60%, Laws 16C2(d) and 12C2.

Sure, i am aware about that 47D but I still cannot understand that you can infer any description from how to correct a revoke at trick 12 from a simple statement in 62 D that a revoke on trick 12 must be corrected. The natural reading is to correct according to the rules for correcting (i.e. 62B) but this wrong when it comes to established revokes so you may be right that the word "correcting" in 62 D is not to be interpret that way. Anyway as long as it comes to non-established revokes we get the same result by using 62B with addition of 62D2 (which is just a clarification that 16 D apples).

[hv=pc=n&s=shad2c&w=s2h2dc&n=s3hd3c&e=shdakc]399|300[/hv] South is in a ♠ contract. He plays ♥A, West revokes by ruffing with ♠2, South plays ♠3 from dummy and East ♦A. Now West discovers his revoke. TL is called. How is revoke to be corrected? There is not sufficient guidance in 62D even if we were to buy your story that "Law 62D clearly states (without going into details) that the offender must substitute his last card for his offending card played so that the offending card will become his play to trick 13". Where in 62D is the permission for South to change the play of ♠3 from dummy? No, we have to go to 62B to find it. So your statement that "Law 62B is not the correct Law to use (for any purpose) on a revoke in trick twelve" seems to me incorrect. And the question about penalty cards or the like as specified in Law 62B is completely harmless as there is only one card left in each hand.

You were little to fast, Sven. Law 62 B is the correct Law to use for correcting all non established revokes even for non established revokes on trick twelve. But what Campboy had showed is that it cannot be used for correcting established revokes on trick twelve.

Sorry for an unnecessary reply. I did not see yours.

But Campboy's remark is directed towards 62 B which describes how to correct a revoke. The description seeems also to me not to fit the case when the revoker has already played to 13th trick. 62 B. Correcting a Revoke To correct a revoke the offender withdraws the card he played and substitutes a legal card. 1. A card so withdrawn becomes a major penalty card (Law 50) if it was played from a defender’s unfaced hand. 2. The card may be replaced without further rectification if it was played from declarer’s (subject to Law 43B2(b)) or dummy’s hand, or if it was a defender’s faced card.

What is the problem? 44.C. In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws. 41.D […]Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy. 41.D states that it is declarer and not dummy who plays dummy’s cards. 44C states an absolute obligation for the players who are playing to a trick. Dummy is not playing to any trick. So 44C does not obligate dummy to anything.

Maybe it is beside the point but would not North ensure the trick for partner's jack of hearts if he called the TD? If North calls TD and does not accept the LOOT and the declarer then chooses to enter his hand and plays a heart through North and later finesse or plays an honor from the dummy and then finesse, North may claim that this play was influenced by his (Norths) non acceptance of the LOOT. After all, if North held Q-x-x in hearts he would (unless it was Sven) gladly accept the LOOT. And if he held Q-J alone he would probably also accept the LOOT and later claim that dropping the jack on the second round was also influenced by his acceptance.

There have been quotes of the WBF Law Committee Meeting from 2000 but I am surprised that nobody has quoted a more recent item 10 of the WBF Laws Committee meeting in Koningshof on 20th October 2011. Here it is: 10. The committee discussed what is understood by a “mechanical error’ in using a bidding box. The term applies to the case where the player intends to call ’x’ and thinks ‘x’ but his fingers inadvertently pull out ‘y’ from the bidding box. As an example: North East South West 1H P 2C P P where 2C shows Hearts support and is invitational. This Pass by North was most probably intentional (i.e. not mechanical) and so can not be changed.

But this is not a situation which we discuss. The situation is that I have already bid 2 spades over RHOs 3 hearts. So now it is up to TD to make the decision and he has to ask me about my intention. Did I mean to open the bidding with weak 2 spades or did I accept the 3 hearts bid and made an IB of 2 spades. I of course meant the second and that what I tell him so he will apply 29 A. saying that I wanted to open the bid with 2 spades is a lie which is of course very easy to detect - who would open with weak 2 spades holding strong hand with spades.

What I prefer is beside the point ( and actually I would prefer to accept BOOT and then if my LHO does not accept 2 spades change it to 3 spades, which would not barred my partner - instead of opening weak 2 spades). What you suggest is that I should lie to TD when he asks me about why I bid 2 spades.

Really? I am the dealer and my RHO makes a BOOT by bidding 3 hearts. I do not notice that this was a BOOT but i mistakenly think he opened with 2 hearts and with my strong hand with lots of spades I bid 2 spades. Why should not 29A apply? (It could also be to my advantage since we play weak 2 majors).

You are wrong. The OP is constructed more cleverly than you think. The only time South instructed a defender to lead anything is at the first lead,when South instructed West to lead a small heart. Now it not true tat then all the rest of West heart's are no longer penalty cards - Law 51 B applies not to West but to West's partner i.e., if East had any hearts as penalty cards, he could pick them all up - but he does not have any hearts!. In the rest of the play the opponents never have to lead, so there is no application of 51 B. Thus all the defenders' cards not yet played remain penalty cards.

Ok, I will try again. philadelphia_2010. See item 3.

Well, it is not in the law book but it is in the Minutes of the Law Committtee. See Philadelphia, October 8, 2010 , item 3.

I think you should consider The Minutes of a meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Beijing on Friday, 10th October, 2008. Law 50E ‐ Mr. Di Sacco asks that examples be provided of the application of this law. A distinction must be made between the requirement that the player must play this card and information that the player has the card. Initially the underlead from K Q J x to partner’s A x is allowed, but subsequently the Director may decide that 50E3 applies. Mr.Bavin observes that the player must convince the Director that he has not gained from the information that the player possesses the card. This continues the WBF Laws Committee decision made in previous years.