RMB1

Why is establishing a revoke an irregularity? Is it irregular for the offending side to play to the next trick?

From that BBC link: "I'd rather be playing bridge than making a bad movie".

I don't think jallerton was asking in a club context: he has been playing in Tromso in the European Championships. In a club, unless West manages to says he wishes to accept the lead before declarer "leads" from dummy, East/West will have "accepted" the lead from dummy.

(I was aware that the ruling was easier when dummy (and East) "followed suit".) I still think declarer's card has not been withdrawn and the premature play by East accepts the lead out of turn (but there is no law covering premature plays which are revokes). Whatever happens, the director should consider Law 23 - declarer could know that appearing to lead from dummy might get East to play and compromise the defence. If dummy's card is a revoke, it must be corrected and East can change his card. I would rule that in changing his card, East can (should) wait for West to play to the trick. If dummy does not have a heart, then dummy's play is legal (if premature), East has revoked. This revoke must be corrected but I would "designate otherwise" (Law 50) and the revoke card does not become a penalty card I would let West play to the trick before East corrects If sight of the revoke card damages the defenders I would apply Law 23

Dummy has illegally drawn attention to an irregularity and should be warned/penalized. Lead out of turn by declarer has not been rejected so the card has not been withdrawn. Dummy has played out of turn, so that card cannot be withdrawn (Law 57C2). The play from East is premature and accepts the lead out of turn (Law 53B) but is not subject to penalty (Law 57C1). All cards played so far should be put "in the played position" and West plays second to the trick but plays the fourth card.

Depends where you put the comma: a comma before "or" would be less ambiguous, a comma before "for" would be more ambiguous.

I'm sure everyone knows the answer to this one, but the wording seems ambiguous. ... But what if the lead of the wrongly led suit is REQUIRED by declarer, and the defender cashes the Ace of that suit? Is he required to continue with another round, or can he switch? Basically, does the "for as long as he retains the lead" apply to both parts of the sentence, or only the second part? It may be ambiguous, but we have always read it that "for as long as he retains the lead" only applies to the second part. I guess "we" means EBU TD practice and training.

+1 to what gordonTD said (twice :)) In what sense is two UI problems a 'Simple Rulings' ? If you allowed a "don't know" / "don't understand" answer to the third question, you might get more answers to the first two.

OMG I just made a similar suggestion in an email to gordonTD: anything that looks like a Pass is (defined by bidding box regulation to be) a Pass; if it was not intended as a Pass apply Law 25A.

(I wonder what response I gave to Cyberyeti) I think what agreements apply to an OBOOT (whether it counts as first-in-hand or nth-in-hand (n>1)) is a matter of partnership experience/understanding. Whether (say) third-in-hand agreements apply if there have been two passes or if opener is dealer's partner is for a partnership to define/understand. In most cases a partnership will not know, because it depends on what opener thought was going on. In the OP, I suggest that the correct announcement/explanation is "12-14 in first, 15-17 in third, no understanding of which applies". I don't think there was any misbid to field and I don't think there was any unauthorised information from opening out of turn once the call had been accepted.

Concealed Partnership Understanding: used for a psyche/misbid which is in fact a hidden/undisclosed agreement

It would be good if you said this from the outset so that some of us could stop reading. :) The secretary of the Laws and Ethics committee can help if you are considering such an appeal.

Why does it matter is sexual orientation is innate or choice? Most people choose who they sleep with, who they live with, who they marry. Why do we care if some people are going to choose people of the same sex (or sometimes people of the same sex)?

At the time, I think we were persuaded that there was no logical alternative to East bidding hearts (I was always going to show the seventh heart). Note that this was before the latest law book: the EBU interpretation of logical alternative was still 70%/30% rule.

The OP was not at the table and is reviewing a 12 year old appeal. The OP is saying that we should adjust on the basis that South knew the explanation and the agreement; Frances may be suggesting that if it is more favourable to the non-offenders, we should adjust on the basis that South discounted the explanation when he knows the real agreement.

Godwin

... and I thought the original case was a mother ruling at her son's table (shows what I know)

The procedure is to avoid the appearance of bias where ever possible. If it is a book ruling it should be possible to read the law from the book and it not be relevant that the TD is related to one of the players at the table. Otherwise, there are a number of options: get someone else to act as TD for this ruling consult with another TD before giving the ruling (perhaps at the end of the session) rule against the player you are related to (advising them of their right to appeal)

Showing your age paulg :)

+1

Under the previous law (Law 12C3:1997 "vary an adjusted score to do equity"), there were a variety of ways of calculating the adjusted score. My local experience was weighting the scores for various results on the board, as now envisaged (if not explicit) in Law 12C1(c):2007. But we did see European appeals committees just give a match-point or IMP score - sometimes the scribe would "reverse engineer" the weightings of two possible outcomes from the adjusted score. What Rik is doing appears to be the second approach above: assigning a score which does equity without worrying about the precise weightings. I think this a still a ruling under Law 12C1(c) (not Law 12C1(d) or Law 12C2) and is therefore an assigned adjusted score (not an artificial adjusted score).

lamford wouldn't be the first to post a ruling question (even a composed one) when they think they knew the answer; and he won't be the last

Especially if the cards he drops are not clubs.

I had a UI case from hesitation in the play where I adjusted the score and was upheld on appeal. It was a long time ago (15-20 years) and the details are hazy. mamos was TD i/c and dburn was the AC. Early in the play, East played low slowly in a suit he might have nothing in and South (declarer) won. A trick or so later,South lead a trump and West went up with the ace (in a position it would be normal to duck) and crossed to East's trick(s) in the suit East had hesitated on (where this was not the obvious suit to switch to). I adjusted on the basis that there were logical alternatives to West's plays and gave declarer more tricks.

That would be remarkable. 67% (of those who voted) voted to stay, on a 64.5% turnout; that is about 43% of the electorate.