weejonnie

I had the same problem. When I found the solution I added a note in my lawbook in law 24 to look at 16D. Would certainly be useful for the WBF to add it in officially.

To address the 1st point. NS have obviously bid game to make (after South's jump) so West's pause demonstrably suggests bidding over passing (a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative. Whether 4♠ or 5♦ si a logical alternative is of course irrelevant. Thus the contract will be rolled back (for EW only at the moment) to 4 ♥ by NS East's claim that he has no defence to 4♥ is palpably incorrect - partner could hold a singleton spade and the Ace of Diamonds (AK ruff + Ad + ruff). Partner's pause suggests that he can see no defence to 4♥ - and that is UI. (It also possibly suggests spade support, even though in this case he did not have it, which would reduce even further East's defensive prospects) To address the second point. I don't think that the action would even fall in the previous definition "SeWoG", let alone "EseoG"

The bar for 'extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction)' is set very high (even higher now 'extremely' has been added). I don't know whether there has been much case law (I can't remember an appeal in ANY of the case books - ACBL/ EBU, which was made on the grounds that a ruling that a serious error had been made was incorrect). For an 'expert' or higher, I think that failing to count trumps might be regarded as an ESE but nothing harder than that! In fact I suspect that most split scores will be based on 'gambling actions taken where an adjustment might be expected if it does not succeed'.

Well - probably 25% of the time - unless you are very good you won't know what card partner is looking for - and even if you did you would have to be able to pass the information over to him/ her. I suspect defenders would smell a rat if you kept passing the bridgemate between you.

Yes (and no) (e) If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non‐offending side has contributed to its own damage by an extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a gambling action, which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification, then:... There is no definition as to what an 'extremely serious error is' - so presumably it is up to the RA to issue guidelines for their TDs to implement - which takes us straight back to the White Book.

Well the point is, you have to draw the line somewhere - how would you define 'serious error' in terms of playing ability? If a beginner makes a beginner mistake is that a serious error? If not - when do you start considering a player not to be a beginner. The usual argument is : Is a man with 10,000 hairs bald? if not 1,000? if not 100? 50?, 40?, 20?, 10?. How many books form a library? 1? 2? 10? 100? 1000? If you put a line in anywhere than at the start the next question is : why did the removal/ addition of 1 hair/ book make the man bald/ create a library? Since this sort of definition is pretty well impossible to make - the laws make everything black and white rather than shades of grey.

First of all: the [exrremely] serious error has to be unrelated to the infraction - thus revoking, failing to play to a trick are examples. Secondly: A poor play will be very rarely described as an extremely serious error. Playing declarer for 14 cards is not counted as an extremely serious error, for instance. Now had you held both aces, failure to cash both (or attempt to) might (I say maight) be regarded as a serious error, but not failing to work out which one partner might have. Thirdly - the only other option is 'gambling' - which is now defined as taking a speculative action in the anticipation that if it fails you'll get a score adjustment anyway. That does not seem to be the case here.

Well the law may be redundant, but it is still a very useful reminder that it applies in this situation.

In particular, if declarer calls for a card from dummy when he's in his hand, dummy should nonetheless move the card for which declarer called to the played position. Legally, he has no other choice. Not true - he can ensure that dummy follows suit. The particular case I have in mind is declarer leading from his hand or dummy and a defender saying "you're in the other hand". At this point, technically the director should be called, and even dummy can do so. The director will, in almost all cases, rule that the led card be put back in the hand from which it came, and that declarer can lead any card from the appropriate hand. No he won't he will ask declarer's RLHOthe player who is next to play a card in rotation if he wishes to accept the lead (defender may not realise he has the right - no one at my club does) - only if there is no such acceptance or play will he require the lead be made from the correct hand. - Law 53A

You may laugh - but that very same discussion (verbatim) is quoted in Julian Pottage's "Why you continue to lose at Bridge" Mrs G: What are Trumps? Mr S: I don't think you can ask that question. Mr UE: True but my partner CAN ask what the contract is? Mr S (nodding) : 7♠

He can do so if the Director is present (presumably) but not otherwise LAW 42 - DUMMY’S RIGHTS A. Absolute Rights 1. Dummy is entitled to give information, in the Director’s presence, as to fact or law. (Although I suspect this was only intended to be when the director was called when attention was drawn to an irregularity) (43A1c) Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer. (41C in part) ... After it is too late to have previous calls restated (see B), declarer or either defender, at his own turn to play, is entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled. << this is the law that allows declarer to ask what is the contract. There is nothing in it that says he must be told what trumps are.>> It doesn't say that he must ask for the information to be provided but I would have thought that (43A1c) above precludes dummy from telling him. ((HH repeatedly reminds RR what the contract is when he is playing against him)

Well if 46B5 applies 5. If declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank (as by saying ‘play anything’ or words of like meaning) either defender may designate the play from dummy. If declarer says "trump it" then I think that dummy has to play the lowest of the trump suit in dummy since declarer can be deemed to know the contract - which means he is deemed to know what a trump is since a trump is defined as : each card of the denomination named in a suit contract. If he says "Win it" then dummy has to play a trump. (We have already been to the situation of what does this mean when it is not knowm by declarer which is the actual lowest card that will win the trick). However: the word 'ruff' does not appear in the laws. Dummy is now allowed to ensure that declarer follows suit, but of course this is not quite the position.

Yes

Once you use the words 'absent-minded' it is clear that the call isn't unintended. To wit:- "A change of call may be allowed because of a mechanical error or a slip of the tongue, but not because of a loss of concentration regarding the intent of the action." Presumably when the TD goes through the 'rigmarole' of Law 27 you end up in 3NT anyway. If I were an opponent, however, I would accept the call, just in case your partner tries to read something into it.

I don't think that the TD (or opponents) has the right to insist that the least favourable card is selected. Law 67B just requires the declarer to show one card and then add it to the trick (with a revoke of course) 1. When the offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick, the Director shall require him forthwith to expose a card face-up in front of him and then place it appropriately among his played cards (this card does not affect ownership of the trick); etc. Forthwith means : (especially in official use) immediately; without delay. So this must be done before the Director can deal with the claim. Of course the requirement may very well affect the consequences of the claim statement - in which case the TD will resolve and doubtful points against the claimer (Law 70) In the case suggested (two trumps + a loser) then the loser will be added to the defective trick (unless declarer is an idiot!), one trump trick will be allocated to the defence as per law 67 calling on law 64A2 (more, in the form of an adjusted score, if Law 64C comes into play of course - and I THINK it does since the revoke is established not only by playing to the next trick after the defective one but also making a claim) and the claimer is protected from conceding any more tricks as you can't concede a trick that can't be lost by any play of the cards. (Law 71) - I assume the Director has to apply this law once he becomes aware of the situation.

He is entitled to be informed of the contract (at his own turn to play from hand or dummy), but he wasn't - he was informed (indirectly)that hearts were trumps. (He doesn't even need to ask - I am sure in at least one story HH is admonished because when he is defending against RR he takes steps to ensure RR knows what the contract is to try and reduce the effect of RRs GA.)

Not to RR it would. He would accept that the lead was in dummy but not inquire why? No doubt ChCh participated in the play by advising RR that the contract was hearts by implication - that is a PP - the question then becomes: has RR taken any action in playing the rest of the hand that is demonstrably suggested by him knowing the contract was 4♥ when there is a les ssuccessful logical altertnative play in 3NT.

Not sure how this works, obviously easier on a spreadsheet The first round - you have 10 pairs of tables sharing Is that 1 shares with 2, 3 with 4 etc or 1 shares with 17, 2 with 18 etc 1: 1-2 2: 1-2 3: 3-4 4: 3-4 .... 19: 19-20 20: 19-20 And where do boards 21 - 32 feed in?

I don't understand that - you can play a 20 table Mitchell with 40 boards (skip after round 10, 2 rounds arrowswitched if you want a single winner). Of course you would have to play 14 rounds to qualify under the 70% rule.

I hope that the OP had a generally good evening at a club. As Skid Simon said (WYLAB), there are going to be players of all abilities and there will alomst always be someone whose skills are at a level commensurate with the OPs. The TD is there primarily to ensure that everyone has a good time and that the laws of duplicate bridge are strictly obeyed. (It says so, so it is so). It was thoughtful of him to give advance warning of the possibility of having to be called away. The problem the OP may have had, primarily, is that when you play online, you can't revoke (I don't see why the software cannot be programmed to allow this, to better replicate real-life situations), so you don't find out the problems it can cause. Although the partner may not be happy that the OP asked whether an opponent had revoked, as TD they should a) have known that he could; b) be happy that they aren't going to have to look at the Equity position and that their partner has the chance to play the contract with correct information; and c) shouldn't have shown any reaction - this seems, understandably, to have upset the OP somewhat (The term 'poker face' also applies at bridge). For many (mainly male) players, the aim is to take advantage of any legitimate chance to win and once you are in that mindset then anything that happens that reduces those chances will meet with disapproval With regard to 'entitlement' of tricks, a revoke often means that the non-offending side gets to miscount the hand. This can cause the hand not to be played optimally so the laws, instead of forcing the TD to work out what would have/ might have happened had the revoke not taken place, simply assign 1 (if the revoke card did not win the trick) or 2 tricks (if it did) that the offending side won from the moment of revoke - with the proviso that in exceptional cases more tricks can be awarded. (In previous versions of the laws, the penalties were much greater.)

One movement that comes to mind would be an appendixed Mitchell - 13 tables in the loop and 5 as the appendix, sharing. (EW up one, boards down one, NS down 2) NS sit at tables 1-5 and EW at tables 14-18. NS play at tables 14-18 instead of 1-5 i.e. 7 - 18 - 16 - 14 -12. The problem is that there is a lot of movement which in a tightly packed room would cause problems. (You play 12 rounds only). I haven't checked it, but you could also possibly run it with 12 tables in the main loop, with a share and relay (make sure the share isn't one of the pairs of tables already sharing) The advantage of this is that the shared tables are close together and fixed - however there is nothing to stop you creating more than one appendix to suit the actual physical dimensions of the room. (NS sit at one of the tables and EW at the sharing one.) I know scorebridge allows you to create bespoke movements (and upload them to Bridgemates) - not sure about EBUscore/ ACBLscore etc.

Can we just rule under Law 72C? Do we discriminate between the Rabbit's Guardian Angel and the Chimp? If we rule under 72C (or 12) presumably we can award a weighted score (60-40) or whatever. Mind you, I am amazed SB didn't ask to see the Rabbit's hand knowing what he does about him. Then there is law 84, which looks the best option. D. Director’s Option The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12).

And since my pedanticometer is at a high level, it could also be preceded by bids out of rotation that are rejected.

It would not be illegal per se BUT any information from a withdrawn IB is UI for the OS - so couldn't be used. It is perfectly reasonable for the TD to try and find out what the IB would have meant had it been made in the circumstances the IB player thought existed when making the IB. The TD then allows the player to make a sufficient bid/ call to convey the same information without penalty. (This is abridged - everyone here knows what I mean - just skipping the formalities). If he can't do so then he should make a call that would be in the side's best interests, knowing partner will be silenced. The TD should offer guidance as to whether the replacement call will be accepted by him as a call that allows the auction to proceed normally.

So is the general concensus that e.g. a Blackwood 4NT does not specify any denomination? Law 18 A. Proper Form A bid designates a number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six), from one to seven, and a denomination. (Pass, double and redouble are calls but not bids.) Note the word is 'designates', not 'specifies' - which is lucky otherwise you could never make an asking/ relay/ conventional bid that does not specify a denomination. It would seem to me that if the IB does not specify any denomination e.g. a precision club then the lowest call that doesn't specify any denomination would be acceptable. Thus if you made an insufficient call of 3♣ after e.g. 2NT - 3♥ 3♣, then you could replace it with 4NT (if you have no other bids in between that did not specify any denomination) even if the purpose of the call is different. ---- "“Or else it doesn't, you know. The name of the song is called ‘Haddocks' Eyes.’” “Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?" Alice said, trying to feel interested. “No, you don't understand,” the Knight said, looking a little vexed. “That's what the name is called. The name really is ‘The Aged Aged Man.’” “Then I ought to have said ‘That's what the song is called’?” Alice corrected herself. “No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The song is called ‘Ways And Means’: but that's only what it's called, you know!” “Well, what is the song, then?” said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered. “I was coming to that,” the Knight said. “The song really is ‘A-sitting On A Gate’: and the tune's my own invention.”