chrism

The OP was about as clear as the players were. The defender did not specifically recall whether the dropped card was H6, but (1) the deck contained 52 cards at the end of the deal, of which exactly one was a H6 (I cannot vouch that the remaining 51 were all distinct, but nobody complained about the board for the rest of the session); (2) defender followed (the whole table recalled) to a H trick early, but when the quitted tricks were examined during the ruling, no card was present for that trick. It is therefore a very strong inference, though perhaps not quite as certain as death and taxes, that the H6 was played early, knocked off the table into the player's lap, restored to her hand, and subsequently led.

Indeed 67B3 applies, though pedantically the ♥6 was placed among the quitted tricks - it was just removed from them subsequently and recycled. Operationally equivalent, of course.

A curiosity from yesterday. A defender played H6 to an early trick. At some later point, an opponent pointed out a face-down card in that defender's lap, which she restored to her hand, leading it to trick 8 (declarer and dummy followed, partner ruffed). After trick 9 was complete, I was called to the table because that defender had 5 cards remaining while everyone else had four, which is when I managed to reconstruct this sequence of events. Not a particularly hard ruling, 67B1(b), but odd because the defender had no other heart, so the rest of the table had followed to a suit not led, and the defender had revoked by leading a card she didn't have in her hand. Perhaps more interesting if the error had been found while trick 8 was still in progress.

I recall the same issue a few years ago at the Gatlinburg regional tournament. As a result of an erroneous ruling by the director (me, unfortunately), one board in a 3-way match was ruled by the DIC as +3 IMPs to each of the teams involved. The third team, learning of this at the first break, was concerned that their result could be affected even though they were not in any way involved in what happened. Fortunately in that case the assigned scores ended up having no effect on the outcome of the matches.

I have tried it, and NP can indeed be given as one of the special scores. A frequent use for the asymmetric "Special" scores in ACBLscore is when a table has played the wrong board. Rather than editing the entire movement, what happens is often as follows: Pair A played board 99 against B, but should have played it against C, while D should have played it against B In ACBLscore, special-score A versus C as "{A's table result} / Ave+" and special-score D versus B as "Ave+ / {B's table result}" (If circumstances permit scheduling the board to be played between D and C in compensation, the Ave+ scores can be replaced by that table result) I can imagine that some directors might prefer to consider the board as "not played" by D and C, though I cannot immediately think of circumstances that would legally justify doing so. ACBLscore provides the means to do that.

3: Misinformation, both from misexplanation of the agreement and from the failure immediately to alert a conventional control bid (not a "cuebid") below the level of 3NT. As noted above, you shouldn't just use the name of a convention, but if you do, you had better be sure that you are playing a universally known "vanilla" version. The ACBL Alert procedures include but defines "cuebid" explicitly as as opposed to "control bid", defined as . The alert procedures are silent on the alertability of control bids, but I would expect them to be alerted by default (delayed until after the auction when so required), since nothing that I see in the alert procedures exempts them.

You would have to avoid violating 74C5, which forbids "looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player’s hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card" ... I would not want to play a method that relies on Old Black Magic table feel if I could see my partner. It raises too many questions when you consistently guess right, however ethically you actually play it. The method is also not usable if sitting North/South behind screens.

(d) ... but the greatest risk is sharing with the wrong table. If it isn't feasible to preduplicate a second set of boards, you might get the players to table-duplicate boards the first time they have been played. Of course, that is also a recipe for disaster if players aren't reliable at this distinctly error-prone process.

(d) Yes :-)

(b) Yes. There are 18 table webs for 26 boards in play or 24 boards in play, 2-board rounds. Normally there are two sets of boards, but one set can be shared, though different table-pairs share in different rounds so it's a lot of chaotic board movement and scope for error. A rover can be added to either movement but the bump pattern is very irregular. I have the rover movement for 26 boards but I don't think I have it for 24. Of course the 26 board movement can be truncated to 12 rounds if necessary. Easier would be 2 9-table Mitchells sharing between sections with a rover in one section, 8 or 9 three-board rounds, though that doesn't meet your single section requirement.

The possible downside is that if declarer had indeed forgotten about an outstanding trump (or some other spanner in the ointment) and was in consequence about to fall short of the claimed number of tricks, it may be possible to diagnose and avoid the problem because the defenders are not conceding. Declarer may also be able to resolve a 2-way guess by claiming and seeing which defender does not concede. While those problems may not be unsurmountable, they add complexity - in particular the requirement for a claim statement and the continuation of play in strict compliance with the statement. That seems to bring us close to the 2017 Laws with optional continuation of play after a claim.

I agree. Presumably NS -3 IMPs would be awarded as the artificial adjusted score. Would you consider a PP in addition? Or a PP in conjunction with an AAS of 0 IMPS to both teams or -3 IMPs to both teams?

If my interpretation above is what actually occurred, then the auction was never completed (neither South nor West actually intended to pass, and picked up their bidding cards only in recognition that they believed the auction had already ended). Perhaps they should have been suspicious, however, since it should have been North who raised the screen on completion of the auction if he had indeed passed (if I understand the procedure correctly). I would cancel the board and give some consideration to a PP for North for failing to follow proper screen procedure, which was the root cause of the problem.

Unless the players are playing musical chairs and the screen is on a lazy Susan, it sounds as though paragraphs four and five should read: North places a double card on the tray and East passes. Now North pushes the tray half way through the screen. South and West infer from the half way position of the tray that 1NT has been passed out by North. So South and West pick up their bidding cards. North and East also pick up their biddings cards.

I would rule this as a director error; West gained the AI that South wanted a spade lead as a direct consequence of the unfortunate failure to remain up to date with the elusive wrigglings of Law 26. Treating both sides as non-offending, EW keep their table result of +100 and NS get +630 (if we consider that a spade lead is overwhelmingly likely) or a weighted sum of +630 and -100 if a diamond lead is thought likely enough to be included.

In the absence of any table action or partnership history suggesting that North has forgotten the transfer agreement, South is free to guess that he has done so and to pass (minus the inappropriate comment). If North was actually exploring for a grand slam in diamonds, so be it.

Move 9 NS to 1 EW and play an 8 table double-weave, in this case. More generally, going from having a sit-out pair to a full movement by losing a pair, you can turn the movement into a Blackpool with an irregular board sequence. Adding a pair to a full movement can be done with a bump.

Law 64B3: There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke ... if the revoke was made in failing to play any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table, including a card from dummy’s hand. So we can only restore equity, if necessary, not award an automatic rectification to the defenders.

Cricket has its own version of double-shot prevention on a No Ball (and I don't mean the literal "Hitting the Ball Twice" :) ) - you can still be Run Out. Apologies for straying off-topic, and for speaking complete gibberish to anyone that has no knowledge of cricket.

The redouble occurred prior to the infraction, so it isn't relevant whether or not it is wild or gambling.

One reference explaining the 1/8 guide is this article by Ross Moore

SET (F9 key) followed by 2 Change Number of Rounds Played

Well, maybe not since play has already ceased. It seemed like justice though.

I agree that the revoke is not established. However, in that case all of the defenders' cards are now penalty cards, since this is not a 68B2 disputed concession. Unless it can credibly be argued that declarer could have known this might happen, he can take full advantage. Club underlead, followed by the diamond finesse and a club discard - 5S making 5.

Your ruling, your ruin, or are you simply rueful?