PeterE

Bruce, I'll try it another way ... sigh Assume first there were no revokes on this hand. But dummy still hid a spade card under the hearts. And declarer still played a spade from KJxx towards his "single" 10. But this time the second spade appears before declarer is able to ruff a 2nd spade in dummy. Declarer goes one off. According to your approach declarer now is entitled to get an adjustment from the TD in that he "certainly" would have played a spade towards his hand, if he had noticed 2 spades in dummy timely. Of course, you - Bruce - will not adjust, will you? So, the equity on this hand would have been one off, ok?? Now there is a revoke after declarer played towards ♠10. And this revoke does not result in rectification tricks via Law 64 A1 (because it was dummy who revoked). But this revoke damaged the NOS (because they did not get the 2nd spade trick). So, Law 64 C applies and says the TD should do restore the outcome that would have been achieved had the revoke not occured (not: had there been no irregularity at all). Summary: Your approach is wrong in that you want to restore equity in the moment after the last irregularity. But maybe there is no other irregularity ... :) The right approach is that you have to restore equity in the moment before the (any single one) established revoke.

... and it's even more complicated ... In San Remo at the EBL TD's Course we were told that even when the OS got an exceptional good result at the other table it should be taken into account and that in this case an assigned adjusted score should be implemented for the non-played board. If - for example - the OS got a grand making - by guessing the queen of trump - the best the NOS could have got was an even board, if they bid and made the same grand. So, -3 IMP for the OS would be not fair.

1. For the infraction committed by dummy there will be no equity! Here it has damaged declarer only and declarer is the same (offending) side as dummy is. 2. As evidence for "my" approach take two parts of WBF LC Minutes that - though not addressing this scenario explicitely - show, how Law 64 C has to applied.

I totally agree with Robin (as usual ;) ). Furthermore your (Bruce) approach is flawed, wrong and illegal. When (if) you restore equity using Law 64 C you do not restore equity of the whole hand but only at the moment of the (respective) revoke. Everything prior to that moment will not be changed.

Well, as Frances said: "Surely one of the advantages of being at your local club is that you get to know the players." ;) ;) B)

Sorry, wrong=illegal approach. The TD will never give you an option to change your call - at least he may not do it. Law 25 B is only for those cases where the substitution already has taken place. Maybe you don't like this approach - but it is the law.

OK, I agree with the first part (concerning Law 7); but then I'd follow another route. Law 14 is applicable - as the intros of Laws 13 & 14 say. So the applicable laws are L 14 A1 and esp. For the question whether partner is allowed to point out that East bid with too few cards, I'd apply So, yes, West may do what he did and, no, it makes no difference how many cards were missing in East's hand.

I recently had a case where declarer detached a card from his hand, "held" it face up and made it towards the table. At the moment the card (still in hand) touched the table, declarer changed his mind and took the card back without any pause in his move. This scenario was performed by a defender and agreed. I was very sure being told by (international) authorities in the past, that "held" in Law 45 C2a needs at least some stationary element to rule the card a played card. Now, defender at the table afterwards questioned my approach and asked me to prove it. Having found nothing appropriate in the Minutes and other regulations, I turned to a WBFLC member and asked him. His answer was that "standstill" is not part of the law and that it can't be deduced from the simple word "held". So, I decided to change my approach only yesterday ... and now I read the same (old :() approach in David's post (sigh :blink: ). Where does that approach (standstill being necessary to rule declarers card played) come from? I did not find anything in the Minutes, Grattan's 1993 commentary, Ton's 2008 commentary. Is it binding or mere a matter of (local) interpretation / regulation?

No, behaving frozen in case of a mechanical error when calling does not help the offender. Only if he changes or tries to change his unintended call, the TD might allow this (Law 25 A). There is no need to take this player off the table in this situation.

The 2007 code changed its attitude towards information being either authorized or extraneous. It gives a positive list of authorized information and declares everything else as extraneous. And Law 16 is universal and always applicable; it hasn't to be referenced by another law.

What is the alternative ?? Throwing eggs on them ? :huh: :wacko: :mellow:

So, it's UI to partner, AI to opponents.

Ahhh, that's tricky :D TD's decision sounds like a Law 12 C1c ruling. Ok, that's easy. But how did the TD reach Law 12 C1c ?? If he did via Law 12 A1 then it is ok. But if he did via Law 16 B, he might have problem, if his name is not Grattan :D because then his decision would be a so called "Revely Ruling" in England. Law 16 B1a says "... the partner may not chose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." One party argues that - as taking advantage of the (re-)turned card is an infraction - it (finding the right lead) could not be a part of a weighted score. The other (Grattanese) party argues that Law 12 C1c allows the TD to include every action together with its a priori probability when doing equity. I can see merits in both views and I'm not sure which view to follow and therefore I seek clarification in San Remo ...

Emphasis in quotes are mine ... It does not read "... he has to pass ..." The red part is a necessary condition to judge the chosen bid an infraction. So, as long as the cosen action (bid) could not demonstrably have been suggested over Pass, the player in question may chose it. And Merry Christmas to you as well as to all the others outside :)

mmmh ... all right, but ... declarer has to substitue ♦A with any of his spades :blink:

I'm quite sure that in Germany at least 1/3 of all players in the top leagues (1st and 2nd division, together 30 teams) do not know all the implications of law in case declarer lead from the wrong side. They simply don't bother to learn the rules and call the TD if it happens - and they have a problem then - or they do not call the TD and live with the outcome.

Take this simple rule as a rule of thumb: You either apply rectification tricks or equity - never both. The TD first transfers applicable tricks (if any - Law 64 A) and then investigates, whether the outcome still has damaged the NOS. If so, he applies Law 64 C (the equity rule) instead of Law 64 A and/or B. So, the answer to your case is 2♦ -1.

After thinking more than 3 minutes about my (bidding) possibilities I suddenly recognized, that - independent of my final decision - the requirement of "pass" being an LA were more than fulfilled. The definition of LA is part of the Law, see Law 16 B1b. It is not open for different jurisdictions to define that (but they might interpret "significant proportion").

astonishing, appalling :( ;) :)

Yes, in Germany it is. It's forbidden to alert 2♣ Stayman - if promising a major - after 1NT opening 3♣ (normal) Stayman after 2NT opening 2♣ as strongest opening bid - as long as there's no hand typ with less than 11 HCP included "classic" semi-forcings in ♠, ♥ and ♦

no, not against A, A, A, AK987654 ;)

I fear Sven is caught by a misconception here. A scorecard - IMO what Al and our moderators meant (?) - is one's personal sheet of paper to note one's own boards in order to check the official scores afterwards and / or to memorize those boards afterwards at the bar. A scoresheet - IMO what Sven meant - is the sheet of paper travelling together with the board in order to note the results on it. I cannot believe any jurisdiction to allow dummy to look at the scoresheet before play has ended. A scorecard is not that dangerous.

For me the "timing" of (the time when making) the claim here is crucial. Why did declarer not claim after cashing 1 round of trumps and seeing they behave?? At that point I would have accepted the missing statement as obvious. Now I would most probably decide against the claimant and rule 12 tricks, unless declarer can managed to persuade me of his (certain) knowledge of the outstanding trump.

My first reaction was, like Ed, #3 with the same argument. But after thinking a little bit more about it, I now vote for #5 :) As we have a special agreement after a 1♣ opening it is normal to assure opponents' methods. So, if I read on "their" SC - and I'm not totally sure, it's the SC of my current opponents - that 1♣ may be short and they did not announce it that way, I'm going to point to this discrepancy: "Sorry, I just looked on your (?) SC; doesn't short club need an announcement, Sir?". I will try to emphasize this discrepancy rather than showing interest in the ♣ suit - if possible.