kevperk

I don't think this is that uncommon that the club level.

He meant opp - opponent

Actually, correcting the Bridgepad data is not that difficult to fix, but most don't know how.

When this (picking up bidding cards) came up at a tournament at which I was directing, what I thought was that I was going to do is decide whether I believed that if the player in question had been playing online, and at this point, would they be sitting there wondering why the hand had not proceeded to the play period. When I used to play online, I have had opponents finally write "oh, I thought the auction was over, didn't realize I had another bid" when in the passout seat. I believe that playing face to face, they would have picked up the bidding cards.

An ACBL director friend of mine who is also a very good player told me he no longer uses the stop card so that he can almost always get his bid on the table before his LHO. :lol:

I was directing in the same room at the time. I saw the hand. Declarer had 4 "sure" tricks. Do you think that the score cannot be adjusted in this case? And I also know from the conversation that was relayed by the table director that both sides knew that declarer would not lose all of the tricks.

The say one did not knowingly accept the concession all of tricks is like someone says they did not knowingly buy stolen property, when the merchandise is being sold out of the back of a van,at a price 10% of retail, in a dark alley, by someone looking over their shoulder. Again, anyone who accepts ALL of the tricks "knows" that they are not due ALL of them, come on. The declaring side was the one that was bidding. They have to have a majority of the values, even if not a majority of the trumps. They were passed in a cuebid, so were trying for slam. Again, I am not saying that one is required to check every claim/concession. I am saying, in a case like this, I think it is totally appropriate to adjust the score and access a procedural penalty. I have sympathy for the person in this situation, we have all be there. And I have sympathy for the other side, not wanting to say anything, knowing the state of mind of the declarer. But I don't think this is appropriate behavior by the declarer, and I think the other side has a responsibility to not condone it.

Then let's agree to disagree.

There is a difference between verifying and accepting a concession of ALL of the tricks. In the case at hand, surely no one would believe that declarer would not take a single trick.

Law 71(2) for the adjustment of tricks, and Law 72B(1) for not making any attempt to determine how many tricks were incorrectly conceded.

If my opponents conceded all the tricks, I sure would look to see if that is the case, and feel anyone who shrugs their shoulders and accepts deserves to be ruled against. To say neither defender knows may be true, but that is a cop out. I do know that the hand was scored with the declarer making only the tricks that would be made regardless on the play.

No one has mentioned the misinformation. Fourth seat would probably pass the hand out with the correct info.

I have found it takes 50% longer to deal to the non-fliptop boards. I can do up to 8 sets in an hour with the fliptop and 4 otherwise.

Sorry, you missed my point. I thought you were saying there was a contradiction in the laws about calling attention to your own irregularity. I was saying there was no contradiction. And I was saying that I don't need Law 9A4 to be changed to point that out.

The laws say you have an obligation to give your opponents the correct information of your bids, through the alert procedure and answering of any questions. That obligation does not cease just because you didn't do it in a timely manner, or correctly. The moment you realize, you must fulfill your obligation. The laws require you to call the director, not to point out the irregularity, but to deal with the MI and UI issues arising for the lack of promptness, or incorrectness. The fact that this calls attention to the irregularity is not the same as calling just to call attention to the irregularity. I know I am not alone in not needing Law 9A4 to point this out.

Ok. Still, Law 36A says the the auction proceeds as though no irregularity had occurred.

I think the answer is, again, it is a simple Law 36A case, which says, in part "(the auction) proceeds as though there had been no irregularity." If there had been no irregularity, there would be no UI.

Blackshoe, the law quoted said offender's partner must pass. The ruling made at the table and condoned by you had the offender passing. I believe the correction to 2 hearts must stand, and partner is barred.

There are regional supervisors who were reporting to the CTD, who in turn reported to higher ups in the office. It was determine that it was unnecessary to have the added step in the hierarchy.

This is located in the scoring program used by ACBL - ACBLScor. I believe the Chief Tournament Director in 2008 was Rick Beye. As a tournament director in the ACBL, I have been aware of this regulation.

There is one further point to option 3. If it is determined that 4NT is conventional, then it is true that partner is barred, but the fact that the pair are able to play in 4NT, which would not otherwise be possible, and this could damaged the the NOS, so Law 23 empowers the director to adjust the score.

Yes, luck does play a part in whether infractions cost or not, but this is the only case I can think of where the luck has to do with cards in other suits. I too think it is best to follow the rules, but, in this case, there is a clause - "unless declarer's intentions are incontrovertible" that seems to apply in this situation. If it is certain which card declarer would play if he were to reach to the board and play the card himself, it seems this is the card that should be played to the trick.

That is what I meant when I said the 3 of spades would be led. Of course declarer would be asked to clarify, and he would clarify that he meant the 3. My point is, it seems silly to rule based on whether declarer is lucky enough to not have the rank named in another suit.

So, if declarer had said "2 of spades" we would have the 3 of spades led, but because he said "2" and thought spades, we don't. Or, if there had not been another 2 in dummy, we would also have the 3 of spades led. I do not believe I would rule this way.

Opponent alerted because they thought they thought they were supposed to. Without knowing the auction, it is unknown whether it is alertable. If not, it is wrong, but no more unacceptable than doing anything against the rules and regulations, unless it was intentional. Acceptable has nothing to do with it.