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

If I may cast my vote, this is how i would have judged as a Director: West knew after the 2NT bid from South that this was a limited raise (in ♥) and still decided to pass. The only "new" information to West when he reopened the auction with his bid of 3♠ was that North did not push to 4♥ and that East had his BIT. I consider the information from North not being interested in a game contract insiginificant compared to the apparent fact that East had values sufficient to possibly making another double or to bid even at this level. So my vote is to disallow the reopening bid by West and adjust to 3♥ with whatever number of tricks North would make in that contract. regards Sven

I shall join the community that thought OP actually asked for some sort of a poll to find out what laws (if any) we (each of us the various posters) would want to change. If I am correct the question instead specifically was about the laws on claiming and concessions; I agree that some of these laws at times can seem to work badly, but I fear that changing them will best be illustrated by the saying: The cure is worse than the disease. regards Sven

Except that this situation is amply taken care of by Law 27D regards Sven

Oh? What of law 67B2{a}? You can reach Law 67 from Law 14B1 but not from Law 13. Law 14 only applies when no hand held more than 13 cards, and thus does not apply here. regards Sven

From the facts given I shall assume that the players started out with 12 and 14 cards respectively (unless evidence is provided to convince me that the defender in question got possession of one of dummy's cards at a later time). It is definitely not possible to correct the card after it has actually been played to a trick. However I feel that Law13A opens a (slight) possibility for the Director to rule, even with the card not corrected until the twelfth trick (after it had been played), that the irregularity has had absolutely no effect on the board so that the table result could be allowed to stand. Sure, the "normal" ruling will be that the irregularity may have affected the auction and/or play, and then Law 13B or 13C kicks in depending on whether the irregularity is discovered before or after play ends. regards Sven

Law 12 applies whenever the Director considers awarding an adjusted score; this law instructs him how he shall proceed. It instructs the Director when awarding an artificial adjusted score to give at most 40% (A-) to a side at fault. Here both sides in case were at fault, therefore the correct ruling would be A- A- without any question about "damage". Law 14 specifically applies "When one or more hand(s) is/are found to contain fewer than 13 cards, with no hand having more than 13". That is not the case here. For our case Law 14 specifically directs us to Law 13, and there is no way you can get from Law 13 to for instance Law 67. So sorry: The fact that there was a defective trick is superseeded by the fact that two players started off with 12 and 14 cards respectively, so you must apply Law 13 and not Law 67. regards Sven

I mentioned Law 13C for the possibility that the play (technically) had ended (e.g. because of a claim), otherwise Law 13B. Either law should result in the same result: A-, A- because we have to sides both at fault. Law 13A (leading to assumed "normal" play) is available if, and only if the Director judges that the irregularities will probably not have (essential) influence on the result. (Even then may the Director afterwards rule Law 12.) Law 14B (possibly leading to for instance Law 67) is available only when one hand is deficient and the other three hands are correct. regards Sven

In your original post you stated: "The play was fantastically simple: declarer took ten tricks then lost three in 4♠ and the play could not possibly have been affected." My comment was based on this statement so that Law 13A was applicable (together with Law 7B2). Now you state that the declaring side gained as a result? Could you please give the correct account of the irregularity? Declarer made ten tricks in 4♠ after dummy had failed to count his cards correctly. In the post to which I replied a score of eleven tricks for declarer's side was the ruling. I consider anyone who infracts, makes ten tricks, and gets adjudjed to have made eleven tricks because of the incorrect counting of cards has "gained from his infraction." OK, If I now understand you correctly your statement is that declarer gained, but from the (incorrect) ruling rather than from the irregularity itself? I stand by my first response: Law 13A applied, correcting the two involved hands did not have (or would not have had) any influence on the play, and the table result (4♠=) stands. As for who committed irregularity: Both the player with 12 and the player with 14 cards must have violated Law 7B2, the evidence is that they in fact held an incorrect number of cards. regards Sven

In your original post you stated: "The play was fantastically simple: declarer took ten tricks then lost three in 4♠ and the play could not possibly have been affected." My comment was based on this statement so that Law 13A was applicable (together with Law 7B2). Now you state that the declaring side gained as a result? Could you please give the correct account of the irregularity? The alternative is of course that Law 13B or Law 13C applies, either one would result in A- to each side as both sides were at fault for not complying with Law 7B2. regards Sven

Frankly I think there is something rotten with a regulation that places the burden and responsibility for measuring out the 10 seconds delay on the player that must wait instead of on the player that announces "stop". The skip-bidder's LHO should have his 10 seconds for consideration without being distracted by also having to observe the timing. It is the player that announced "stop" who also should announce "continue" (or words to that effect, or take back the stop card) when he considers the time is out. That is how we do it in Norway, and this procedure makes the problems I notice being discussed in this thread virtually non-existing. regards Sven PS.: LHO is allowed to call immediately once "continue" is announced, but he is not considered creating UI if he still uses his full 10 seconds when "continue" is announced before (approximately) 10 seconds have expired. I have never experienced that particular issue to cause any problem.