chrism

If it is LHO's turn to call, then either we have just called, in which case the Laws treat our POOR as an attempt to change our prior call, or LHO is dealer and we are covered by 30A. Pathological case: North is Dealer, East opens 1S out of rotation, not accepted. West now passes out of rotation at North's turn to call. East's opening 1S is "canceled" but Secretary Bird might choose to argue that canceling it does not alter the fact that it was bid, so now we have the situation envisaged above where West passes at North's turn after a player has bid, but West has no prior call. I would still treat this as a Law 30A situation for want of anything better.

My point was that while he certainly intended to call eventually, he might conceivably not have had any call in mind at the moment of the unintended call. Hard to do with a bidding box, but with spoken bidding it could be possible to utter the word "Pass" while absent-mindedly thinking aloud. with no intention at the moment of utterance of either passing or making any other call. Farfetched, of course, and I would hate to be the one trying to prove it.

He cannot change his call. 1. Correct. "Unintended" means that at the moment he made the call, he intended to make some other call (or, I suppose, that he did not intend to call at all at that moment); 2. In the unlikely event that such a call was genuinely unintended, rather than careless, it can be changed under 25A3 before the end of the auction period, so until a defender faces an opening lead (22)

I would be tempted to ask South why he didn't correct to 7♠, since 7♠ scores more than 7♣. Seven missing spades never split worse than 4-3-0 among opponents and partner, do they? Whether the 6♠ bid was influenced by the hesitation is immaterial. The Law does not consider motivation in this case. 1. Was there unauthorized information? Yes, North's tempo indicated uncertainty whether 6♣ was the best contract. 2. What did the UI suggest? Clearly that North had something extra, since 6♣ was the least that he could practically bid (I'm not sure that 5♠ would have initiated a 5NT sign-off even if that were a realistic option). In particular, both 6♠ and 7♣ would be suggested over Pass to someone who thinks that 6 spades headed by AKQJ is a solid suit. 3. Is Pass a logical alternative? Of course. TD ruling upheld.

17D2 does not apply directly to Board 15 since we are no longer in the auction period, but its spirit may guide us: After looking at the correct hand the offender calls again and the auction continues normally from that point. If offender’s LHO has called over the cancelled call the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender’s substituted call differs* from his cancelled call (offender’s LHO must repeat the previous call) or if the offender’s partner has subsequently called over the cancelled call. Once we are past the point of no return, the director shall award an AAS (in this case Ave+/Ave- would be appropriate). Clearly whatever the auction was, South must have made at least one call subsequent to at least one bid made by North, since North is declarer and the auction is over. As noted by others, Board 16 is unplayable and is also scored Ave+/Ave-

So the director certainly has the power to cancel an unplayed board (in addition to the explicit provisions of 15C). and 90B2 would seem to qualify as an error in procedure since it is potentially subject to a PP Edit 90B2 would normally result in an Ave- for at least one contestant, so would not be a "not played" as described here.

It is certainly convenient to ignore Law 29A but I'm not persuaded about either the legal or the equitable basis for choosing that path rather than finding a way, possibly arbitrary, to give at least one of the NOS an opportunity to accept. Clearly(?) this situation is not addressed explicitly in the Laws, but it seems questionable to deprive both non-offenders of a right granted in the Laws because both opponents have committed an irregularity.

From a recent ACBL sectional tournament (reported to me second-hand, so I can provide no further clarifications): South is dealer. Before he has called, West passes and East bids 1NT; the two calls are simultaneous to the degree that nobody at the table can say that either came first, even by an instant. After diligently establishing these facts, how should the director proceed?

Yes it did; are you looking at some auction other than the one I posted?

ACBL Swiss Teams Board 1, first board of the first round. [hv=pc=n&e=sqj2hq4dt872caq96&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2h(Weak%202-bid%2C%20no%20additional%20information)d3hd(Slow.%20No%20explicit%20agreement)p]133|200[/hv] EW are experts, semi-regular partners. This specific auction is undiscussed though they play responsive doubles in analogous auctions starting at the 1-level. NS are not regular partners. Both pairs are playing 2/1. West's double was slow (agreed). What are East's logical alternatives, and does the hesitation suggest any of them over others? East stated when asked that with some other partners the double would show 4 spades with a hand too good for a non-forcing 3♠ call, but that was not an explicit agreement for this partnership. (I will post this hand as an online poll when the Bridge Winners site fixes some server glitch that is currently preventing me from posting bidding polls).

I think that publication in the ACBL bulletin constituted such guidance. It is true that TDs were sent the guidance (just about word for word the same as the bulletin article) a couple of months earlier.

"A weighted (12C1(c)) score is also not legal for a revoke ruling." This is indeed not the case. I should have said that such a score is not permitted in the ACBL under the current guidance issued to directors. This guidance is quoted in the February 2016 ACBL Bulletin (p 30, "Ruling the Game" column): ...It is not used in adjudicating revokes, even ones involving the equity provision of Law 64C. When making revoke rulings, an assignment of tricks is made that applies to both sides. Probabilities are not weighted.

"Most favorable result is +11 tricks on finesse ♦10. Of course lack of entry might be a huge problem but seems reasonable OR split result, +10 tricks NS, - 11 tricks EW". Since declarer did not choose to finesse in diamonds after the revoke, I can see no reason to think that he would do so without the revoke. I agree with Pran, 4S making 4. A split result (12C1(e)) is not legal in determining equity after a revoke, and indeed is no longer to be used in the ACBL under any circumstances. A weighted (12C1(c)) score is also not legal for a revoke ruling.

If board-sharing with 2-board rounds is not acceptable, then the Sheffield movement above, truncated to 8 rounds, looks to me as if it would work (I don't understand Vampyr's comment, but perhaps I'm just being slow). An alternative for a TD not in possession of that movement is to split into 2 sections, a regular 9-table Mitchell and an 8-table Blackpool, sharing boards as appropriate between the two sections.

Create an appendix table. The pair that was sent home instead sits as a stationary east-west and the pair bumped by the rover plays against them, sharing boards with the table they were bumped from. Or if conditions of contest allow, shuffle and deal boards 33 and 34. Surely better than sending a pair home.

That's what happens when I post in the small hours. for 12D read 12C2(a).

Law 13 – Incorrect Number of Cards A. Director Deems Normal Play When the Director determines that one or more hands of the board contained an incorrect number of cards (but see Law 14) and a player with an incorrect hand has made a call, then when the Director deems that the deal can be corrected and played the deal may be so played with no change of call. At the end of play the Director may award an adjusted score. B. Adjusted Score and Possible Penalty Otherwise when a call has been made the Director shall award an adjusted score and may penalize an offender. C. Play Completed When it is determined after play ends that a player’s hand originally contained more than 13 cards with another player holding fewer (but see Law 13F), the result must be cancelled and an adjusted score awarded (Law 86D may apply). An offending contestant is liable to a procedural penalty. So if play has not been completed and the director judges that the misplaced cards had no bearing on the auction and play to that point (progressively less likely as the deal comes closer to an end, of course) 13A allows the card to be corrected and play completed. Otherwise the deal is cancelled and the director can award either an assigned or an artificial adjusted score. Assuming that the 14 and 12 belong to the same partnership, an artificial score would almost always be Ave+/Ave- (3 IMPs at teams); if there are credible predictions of likely bridge results, then the director could instead assign a result or weighting of results as defined in Law 12C1. This would be pretty rare, but maybe if the 14-12 hands were defenders, passing throughout the auction and following throughout the play, for example, it might be possible. The "at least" in 12D(Edit)12C2(a) does not give the director discretion to vary the percentage for Average+, in my understanding. It refers to the protection that Ave+ gives a side the better of 60% or their actual percentage for the session (or IMP equivalent), as specified in 12C2(c). Law 86A allows IMP artificial adjusted scores to be varied at the discretion of the Tournament Organizer, but I read that as referring to a blanket redefinition applying to all events, not a case by case variation.

I would argue that if dummy didn't trust declarer to count the hand accurately, neither should the director!

It would probably be disallowed, but I would only describe it as "unethical" if he knew better. Next time he does it, it will be unethical.

Resequencing would be my preferred solution. There is a slight danger, especially if the players are using pre-printed table mats to guide the movement, of the wrong boards being played in a later round, so if I chose to change the movement I would also print out guide cards for all pairs confirming the movement with the adjusted sequence of boards. Of course, there is a chance that the correct board set includes a board with the same dealer and vulnerability as the one begun in error; in that case I would be strongly tempted to swap the deck in play into that board and use the original scheduled sequence.

Once a Major Penalty Card, always a Major Penalty Card. This seems to be implicit in 50B: A single card below the rank of an honour exposed unintentionally (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card - no other way is specified that a card can become a minor penalty card. The frivolous might argue for picking up the remaining penalty card and then accidentally dropping it, but I think even SB would have a hard time arguing that one.

What is the alleged irregularity? When was the director called? (Edit: cross-posted with pran)

I agree completely - exploration of the boundary cases, inconsistencies and ambiguities of Laws and regulations is worthwhile, and these fictionalized thought experiments are a valid (and often entertaining) way to explore. I am quite shocked that a moderator would deem them inappropriate. Are we to lose every voice that is considered (by someone) too persistent in following an agenda? If so, the forum will be impoverished, and ultimately lonely.

Also, in case it isn't clear from "The 3♠ stands as the first bid of the auction", if NS become the declaring side in a spade contract, North will be declarer even if South is the first to bid spades after the insufficient bid is accepted.

On reflection, and thinking about the earlier Michaels case, I would say that "no agreement" is the correct explanation. In the Michaels case, bidder believed A, explainer explained B, and all the world would have understood "Michaels" as B.