Sven Pran

Well, you say that, but I never look at the times. I have no idea whether my time is set correctly. I rather suspect (since I've done nothing to set it) that it isn't. More annoying to me is that I've not found a way to veiw people's real names (assuming they have entereed them). There's at least one person I'm 90% sure I know who they are (and have therefore met in person)... but I can't check Matt Well, from what I have found out your profile is set to CSTDST (Central Standard Time with Daylight saving time in operation). (I can't help you with real user names) regards Sven

Yep. I haven't noticed this before, but I can see from the quote line in the quoter's comment what his local time was when I submitted the message he quotes! When I saw the confirmation from Blackshoe it told me that he quoted a message I posted at 05:10 AM which of course was his local time. Knowing that my local time was 11:10 AM when I posted it I also know that the time difference between us is 6 hours. Funny, but logical. However, I felt a bit dizzy when figuring this out. Can this have any practical use? regards Sven

But a user who has set his profile incorrect will usually complain that the forum keeps an incorrect clock. Eventually he will learn that in order to get correct times on messages he must have his own profile correct. Example: Blackshoe wrote that the timestamp he saw on his own message posted at 5:30PM (his own local time) was indeed 5:30 PM. Here the timestamp on that post is 11:30PM; the timie difference between me and ESTDST is precisely 6 hours. My local time now is 11:10 AM so I shall expect Blackshoe to see my message timestamped 05:10 AM regards Sven

It also gives examples, which include "KQJxxxx = 4 tricks, KQJTxxx = 5 tricks". However, these differ from the same examples in the L&E minutes of February, which give 5 and 6 tricks respectively. Barring a trump promotion, those in the minutes seem to be correct. Is this an error in the OB? Looks to me as if it must be. I am puzzled about the OB calculation of "clear-cut" tricks here. KQJTxxx with partner void and the second best suit break should give 6 tricks, not 5, and KQJxxxx should give 5, not 4 tricks? In each case there are only 6 missing cards and the second best break must be 4-2 so there cannot possibly be more than one loser in the first case (the Ace) and two losers in the second (the Ace and Ten). Please enlighten me? regards Sven PS.: Trump promotion together with a bad break is such a coincidence that I woudn't calculate so pessimistic.

Oh dear, oh dear. North has given misinformation, that is almost for sure even without his "confession". But the mistake does not appear malign to me; if they have a transfer system on then 2♠ is quite naturally a transfer to 3♣ which possibly (depending on agreements) can be passed or corrected to 3♦. So far so good. But what on earth was in East's mind when he completely spoiled the board with his absolutely improper action? This action warrants a penalty at least corresponding to the adjustment East/West otherwise would be awarded. And as for adjustment: Artificial adjusted score is not an option for the director; a result has been obtained on the board. OP further refers to Law 75 and asks about consequences. I agree that under normal conditions the Director should try if he considers East/West to having been damaged by misinformation, but here I would consider Easts action so horribly illegal that I would deny him any redress at all. (Call it a procedure penalty if you like). Whether North/South should keep their table score is a separate question, but again I tend to rule that this score was mainly a result of East's activity and only a minor consequence of the misinformation. Others may disagree, I shall not argue. In a real case I would have discussed the situation with at least one other qualified director. regards Sven

I did indeed rule L27B1(a), but pointed out that the replacement call also satisfied beyond any doubt the requirements for ruling L27B1( b ). L27D must be tried whenever the Director has ruled L27B1 - either ( a ) or ( b ); that was one reason for pointing out that the replacement call satisfied L27B1( b ) in such a way that the IB could not have assisted in reaching a top contract. Regards Sven

This sounds like an easy one when you write: --a bid of 3♥ in this pair's system actually shows a near-opener with hearts and is intended to counter psyches From that description 3♥ is in fact not only "natural", but also an even more precise call than the IB. The IB would probably have told partner of a hand with at least 6 HCP and 4 hearts; the replacement call tells partner of a natural near-opening hand with hearts. I do not see how without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different (Law 27D), so in my opinion there was no reason for adjusting the result. regards Sven

After seven tricks had been played. What does that indicate? Sven

This is the solution I would use, but as it has been stated that it was impossible to reconstruct the play (sufficiently to identify the led suits in the tricks to which dummy has failed to play cards) I must rule Law 12C2 (no result can be obtained). It is unbelievable to me that it could be impossible to reconstruct the play of the five and only tricks played on a board in progress and I suspect that the players involved may have been in a rather peculiar state (not fit for playing bridge). However, handling dummy's (and his own) cards is the sole responsibility of declarer and I resent any suggestion on ruling foul (also) on defenders here. regards Sven

No, I do not find that. OP wrote: I observed that I had 6 cards in my hand and dummy had 8. As far as I can figure it out the story-teller had exactly the correct number of cards he should have after seven tricks had been played, but dummy had two cards in excess. This conforms with everybody starting off with thirteen cards and dummy somehow had failed to play to two of the quitted tricks. I still consider the declaring side all (and only) at fault. regards Sven

OP said nothing to indicate that any player started off with an incorrect number of cards? Quote: After 7 cards are played it was discovered that dummy had only played 5 cards. To me this means that there remained 8 instead of 6 cards in dummy when 7 tricks had been played and that dummy had only 5 cards quitted at this time. Sven

Declarer is playing dummy's cards; dummy is just handling them on declarer's orders. Did nobody at the table, not even declarer himself care how dummy handled declarer's orders? Why was it impossible to reconstruct the few ttricks played when the irregularity was discovered? Sounds to me as if the players were either a: (half) asleep, or b: drunk? As for a ruling: The way the situation is described, and it being impossible to reconstruct the play, I shall rule the board unplayable with the declaring side fully at fault. (Law 12C2) regards Sven

To bring this down to brass talk I understand that the law in question is 68B2 (and nothing else): 2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it. I see good reasons for this exception in one specific situation from the general laws on claims and concessions. I also see good reasons against it. However, I still fear (as I have already written before) that a removal of Law 68B2 will be a cure worse than the disease it is supposed to cure. Sven In the subject case there is the premise that the TD has ruled in accordance of law. The principle of appearances suggests that it was illegal for claimer to claim. It follows that the principles under examination are the created entitlement to claim and the created entitlement to have contested claims litigated forthwith. The matter resolves upon the realization that if there is no entitlement to litigate a disputed claim [such as a claimer cannot know that his claim will be litigated if disputed] there can be no fundamental right to claim [where so-called claims are in fact superfluous mental exercises]. I am really sorry, but I do not understand a single word of what is tried to be expressed here ;) Probably my own fault :blink: Sven

I do not know ACBL regulations, but in Norway we have adopted the WBF suggestions and it seems to me that your system would be permissible here provided you change the 1♦ opening bid to require at least 13 HCP. It would be then grouped along with for instance Vienna. As described your system would only be permissible in the most top class events like national championships etc. regards Sven

To bring this down to brass talk I understand that the law in question is 68B2 (and nothing else): 2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it. I see good reasons for this exception in one specific situation from the general laws on claims and concessions. I also see good reasons against it. However, I still fear (as I have already written before) that a removal of Law 68B2 will be a cure worse than the disease it is supposed to cure. Sven