Lanor Fow

I'd have ruled slightly differently. Given the board is unplayable, I'd have thought we need to assign artificial scores. In this case, with both sides being directly at fault, I'd assign ave-/ave-. This assumes we can't substitute a different board in, and have the other table play it in time, which would be my preferred solution. In this case I might assign a PP to both sides.

Not sure about authorities other that the EBU, Campboy, but 'generally' the EBU has specified top down in the white book: "8.70.5 Top down? A declarer who states that they are cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash them from the top, especially if there is some solidity. However, each individual case should be considered. Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the jack has not gone. It would be normal to give them three tricks since it might be considered not ‘normal’ to play the 5 first. However, with 754 opposite void it may be considered ‘careless’ to lose a trick to a singleton six. 8.70.6 Different suits If a declarer appears unaware of an outstanding winner, and a trick could be lost by playing or discarding one suit rather than another then the TD should award that trick to the nonclaimers. Example Declarer has three winners in dummy and must make three discards. They appear to have forgotten their J is not a winner. It is ‘careless’ that they should discard some other winner to retain the J"

[hv=pc=n&s=shat7532dat542c53&w=sq9875hj9dqj86ca6&n=saj6hk86dk73ckt87&e=skt432hq4d9cqj942]399|300[/hv] South was declarer in 5♥X doubled Tricks went: 7♠, A, 2, 3♣ K♥, 4, 2,9 6♥, Q, A, J 5♣, A, 7, 2 6♣, K, 4, 2♦ K♦, 9, 3, 6 At this point declarer lead the 3♦ and when north showed out, showed his hand and said I have to give you two diamonds. Defenders put their hands away, as did declarer, when Dummy points out that declarer only has to give up 1 diamond. Director is called at this point. How do you rule?

If you want an opinion on the legalities of the situation, then you shouldn't have been allowed to take back your bid after your partner has called. As both your relisations of the misclick were after your partner had called, legally, neither can be retracted. The factthat you realised you hadn't opened 1H the second time doesn't seem to be based on UI, so you shoudl be allowed to know. The fact that partner has spades is UI, and so spade bids look to be suggested by the UI. In my opinion 3NT seems to be a logical alternative, so I'd rule 4S back to 3NT. That said, assuming a slightly different situation, had you realised before your P called, you would have been allowed to change it if you attempted to do so as soon as you realised your error (under law 25). The law is silent on what happens if you replace your unintended call with another unintended call. I imagine law 25 can be applied again and another correct allowed.

Awarding 60/40 or 55/45 via 12c1{c} I think would be a Reverly ruling. A play where there is UI can't be partly legal.

I probably should. At the moment I shuffle the cards before looking at them in ebu congresses when I don't know they have already been played. This has got me both strange looks and comments from oppos. (edit to clarify) - I do this because the only cards out of place for me with the ebu new cards are the aces. Moving just the aces tends to give away quite a bit of UI

Ahh I missed the 1H being odd, I retract most of my post then.

Is a potentially short diamond in a strong club system really that bizarre? Even it it is quite unusual, we are talking a main even in a large congress. I can't remember last sitting down against a pair at the Brighton swiss pairs who didn't have a convention card (occasionally you see wbf cards rather than EBU, but even this is unusual). The EBU cards have a section on the front for both basic system and agreements opponants should note. Are NOS really meant to assume that opponants, not having an agreement to a not particually unusual bid (which they could have easily found out about and discussed before the round had they not already discussed such situations) telling NOS they do have an agreement will not correct this at the proper time? Moreover does it become NOS's own fault that they assume OS have not broken the laws if misinformation becomes apparent later?

In the spirit of the 'Stop' procedure though you woudl imagine it should start after the explination. If the purpose is to allow time to think, one can hardly begin to do this before the bid is explained (if you need it explaining). Some explinations, moreover, may take a substantial part of the ten seconds. I would be loath to rule a hesitation if a play bid after 15 second after a stop bid, nine of which were taken up by the explination of the bid.

90/10 I was taught it's normal to wieght sympathetically to the NOS

I'm taking this post as containing no sarcasm, as I'm sure you wouldn't suggest hiding agreements from opposition to try and get them to a worse place, or an alert system that deliberatly makes it unclear, to help get them to a worse place.

I thought one of hte key questions that shouldn't be asked is what the meaning of the 8♣ is. I know that they have to give their agreements, including information about when they swicth from primary to seconardary signals, but they don't have to tell you what a particular card means. I would be interested for more experienced directors than I to correct me if I am incorrect in this, with regards to whether partner will use attitude or suit preference. I also beleive that the regulations on protecting onesself are stronger in the US than the EBU, the following is the EBU reference: "It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side’s interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled." Which speaks about obvoius cases and implausable explinations, when not putting ones side at risk. I'm not sure it applies in a situation where the misinformation is whether the primary method is count or attitude. That said, if the signal is going to be suit preference whether they play count or attitue as the primaryu method, there is no damage.

Pran, when delcarer claims and shows his hand, we do not consider double dummy lines for defense based on the fact that that can now see declarer's hand, we only consider normal and irrational plays based on the information they had before they saw the hand. Why would we rule differently when defence claim?

It depends on the intention of the defender. If the intention was to lead, then the director got it correct. As you say law 56 refers to law 54D, whilst 54 is about opening leads out of turn, the specific part refered to can be applied to a non opening lead, as is obvoiusly the intention. As such the card becomes a major penalty card. Note also thet law 53 also applies, decalarer is allowed to accept the lead. If the intention wasn't to lead the card, then it's treated as an exposed card, and depending on the cirucmstances may become a major or minor penalty card.

How can an act that by the laws curtails play, be seen to be communicating with partner about what parnter should play? Play is stopped.

It's a badly worded law, as any TD who goes to a table and returns with no evidence must have gone to the wrong table. Surely the implication though is with equal evidence we rule MI.

I'm not sure, Rik, that the assumption should be that the TD will go wrong, which significantly strengthening the evidence needed would seem to imply. I think it's much more likely that the deicsions will be right, and fall into neither of your categories if the TD is allowed to use judgement, rather than have strict criteria for evidence. There is already an instruction on which way to go if unsure. Whilst this might get a few of the worse types of mistake, it would imo get many less mistakes than your suggestion. At the top level your idea might work, as there is usually enough evidence to go on, but in the UK probably only half the room at any average club night will have convention cards, and most of those won't go into much detail on sequences. Do all of these poeple therefore autoamtically get ruled against? From what i've read I gather that the convention card situation is worse in the ABCL. I've heard of the dutch (i think) regulation to automatically rule against ghestemesque misbids as misinformation, and I don't like that either. By removing TD judgement you again seem to get a lot of objectivly incorrect decesions. I'm not a fan of the idea of penalising "convention disruption". At the top level, again, it might work (although I am in full agreement with Hrothgar that you cannot apply it only to certain sitatuations deemed to be unusual conventions, but across the board), but at the club level, where mistakes are common in all areas of the game, including forgetting systems, this would frustrate and put off many poeple (imo), and at the beginner and novice level it would be even worse.

This seems horrific. Instead of coming up with a result, simplified or complex, that seems to be correct, the directory has looked at the final scores and come up with an arbitary result designed to change these? The director can't even have been certain that the 30% of this and 20% of that would have changed anything, given he didn't even calculate it. At least one person on this thread would have given no adjustment due to no damage, which would have not have been the same final standings. In a small club I could understand either not having a scorer who knows how to, or a programme that allows, wieghted scores, but in a county final this seems unacceptable.

They already have the time of the 'stop' to process the information. I assume that if this was not adheared to, the OP would have said (and there wouldn't have been an agreed BIT), so the BIT sounds like it's over and above the 10 seconds, which I dont' think is normal for someone with no problem.

I think Pran means, when it's unclear, don't claim (play it out)

IT's not a question of picking the worst reaonsable line single dummy, that's not what the laws require us to do. If there is a normal line leading to a less favourable result then we adjust to that. If you don't like that, the solution is easy. Give a statement when you claim.

Im' not sure that just because he can't count, we also have to assume he's blind.

I couldn't find it mentioned other than in the definitions, neither the laws or white book seem to expand on that. I may have been asked the question by the same person as Vampyr, as when I gave that answer originally they seemed very unconvinced.

I think I know the answer to this, but I'd value opinions. Bidding goes 1♦-1♥-1NT -1♠-1NT You're called to the table and rule that the 1S has been accepted, and the auction continues. P-P-P Who is declarer?

Given that the person who 'coudl have known' is the one who would have been on lead anyway, and so could have chosen the diamond lead anyway, I don't see why 23 should apply. If the argument is that when revoking he could have known that the penalty card he would now be forced to lead could be the one to break teh contract, i'm finding this a bit far fetched. The Rabbit defense term, I assume, refers to the character rueful rabbit from the Mollo books, a character who would accidentally (often by missorting, or dropping cards) find masterful plays, or hte only play to work, however unlikely.