Lanor Fow

Asusming pass is an LA and 5H is suggested, then yes it is an illigal ruling (this type known as a reveley ruling). As we have deemed 5H to be an illigal bid (in teh situatino given by Fluffy), we can't include any part of it in the adjustment. If, though, there was a legal way to get to 5H, as there sometimes is in these cases, then it can be part of an adjustment.

amused by a comment on bloomberg about nate silver 'you hit one soft pitch down the middle and...' Don't get me wrong i'm expecting an obama victory here, and waiting up to see it (in the uk), but havign read this thread the comment amused me

Was it the same person who pyshced twice? Were the partnership in question asked how often they psyche this, or when the last time they psyched this before this match?

No rule prevents dummy speaking, in fact he is specifically allowed to say certain things (such as "No spades partner?"). There are obvoius things that he should not say ("play the ace partner". etc.) and anything negative (or loud) is likely to be against the laws. Most poeple, however, would consider it common curtosy to say something like 'Good luck partner' and 'Would you like something from the bar' is normally warmly welcomed. Dummy is not allowed to draw attention to an irregularity, but when attention is drawn to one, it is dummys responsibility, as it is of every player at the table, to call the director.

To not come back to you is poor directing in any case, regarless of whether he though you had a valid complaint or not

If, based on your agreements with your partner, your judgement tells you that the correct bid on this hand is to open, then I woudl argue this is an illigal agreement. You can't ignore the rules and ptu it down to judgement. If you are deviating or psyching then it is legal (though you will have to work to convince me of that, I won't just assume it), but if you say you used your judgement, then I will rule against you. If regulators wanted to allow upgarades for judgement, they wouldn't have worded the regulations in the way they do. The same applies, in my opnion, to NT openings where the stated agreement is the minimum that is allowed, but players 'upgrade' hands with less HCP, and the same situation with strong club hands.

The difficulty I have in seeing the two as similiar is that whilst declarer wanted (whatever he said) to play the queen of spades in the classic queen under king. Declarer never wanted to play the 2 of diamonds (regardless of what he said). That he wanted to play a card that doesn't exist makes this interesting, but not a direct corollary of the AQ situation in my opinion (for the record I'm not sure what I would rule).

Isn't one of dummy's rights to speak as to facts in the presence of the director. So assuming dummy calls the director after the fact that someone revoked has been established (i agree that the second irregularity doesn't establish the draw attention to the first, but also that in Pran's case with the comment, obvoiusly it has), are they not then able to talk about the second irregularity, despite it not having had attention drawn to it, because of this right?

I agree law 15 seems clear (i'm reading it now), what I don't agree with is it saying anything about a 10% penalty applied to automatically. It says that artificial scores are assigned to those who have been unable to play the board, but as for those who have played the board before, it states only that the second score is cancelled. Edit: It states that the director may assign a procedural penatly, but not that they have to, or always will

The EBU fielded bid regulations are designed around the CPU law. If you inform opponants of your level of discussion about a bid, and anything that coudl have led to an implicit agreements (we used to play X convention etc.), you cannot be considered to have fielded the bid, if yuor bid is consistent with what you have told them. Making a call that hedges two possible options is fine, as long as the opponants are informed if asked, that either yuo have no discussion (and the two possible optinos are based on general bridge knowledge) or that it could be those options because of X and Y. It is only going to be a possible fielding if you only tell them about one of the options, whilst making a call to cater for the other one as well.

A revely ruling is one that contains a part of something illigal. In this case if passing 2c and bidding 3c are both LAs and bidding is suggested, it might be tempting to rule 70% passing and 30% bidding 3c, but as bidding 3c is deemed to be against the laws, the ruling cannot contain any part of this. You can have rulings that contain part of the suggested contract, but only if it is got to via a non-suggested LA auction.

He can think all of this and more if there is no UI and can make any call he likes (within regualtions). As he has UI here, he has to consider other things as well. If 3NT is suggested, and there are LAs that are not suggested, and he bids 3NT, all the rationalising in the world will not stop the score being adjusted, assuming damage (I do note that rationlisation and reasoning can affect whether there are LAs). Whatever you think of N/S's actions this shouldn't affect whether you adjust or not. If N/S are guilty of something, which i'm quite sceptical of at the moment, they would perhaps be liable for a procedural penalty, but that wouldn't change if we adjust or not I don't think. If they have broken no laws and no regulations, I think your lecture would be quite misplaced. As for the alerting, I'm not sure on german regulations, but they would be correct to alert in the UK if they were not sure but intended to take it as artificial.

Did east get asked if he heard the description?

I found this an interesting one, so I gave the auction, including the insufficient bid and the pass accepting it to some freinds to get their opinoin on the next call. I didn't mention anything abotu 4H (or even that the director was called, just that the insufficient bid was accepted). Would people agree that this is the correct way to do a poll on this, or are there improvements, were one to be in a position to do one before ruling on this?

As mentioned earlier in the thread, why are you worried about a major suit game making, when you're obvoiusly not willing to sell out to it anyway?

If it's a very bad director error, do we then rule as director error (and come to the same ruling this time legally?) Don't worry I'm not serious. Agree with the other posters. When I first read it I even misread it to be a split bad score for everyone (which I disagree with as well)

and a kick under the table? :)

It's not meant an accusation, any more than applying laws that have such phrases 'May be aware' etc. The laws seem to be normally designed to allow rulings against people without accusing them of cheating. There is probably no way of telling the difference between those who are telling the truth and thsoe who aren't without any other evidence, and in a 'I remembered before I got UI' case there is rarely going to be any evidence. If I rule consistently this way then I can explain that I am not accusing them of cheating, but because there is no way of verifying their statement and poeple who would cheat could say the same, I always rule this way (worded a lot better than that of course). I'm not that experienced a director, but I thought this was the standard way of dealing with this situation. I certainly didn't come up with it myself and thought I heard it from some very experienced directors. If my approach is wrong here I would very much like to be corrected. If I am ever convinced that a player is lying to me as a director in any circumstances, this would be dealt with much more severely than applying UI laws.

Which is why you rule against anyone in a 'I realised before I got the UI' case, where there is no evidence to support that surely. To not do that would be to accuse the poeple you rule against of lying and deciding those you rule with as being honest.

PaulG is accurate. The fact that in normal play declarer wouldn't have got any more tricks is irrelevant to the revoke laws. As defenders won both the revoke trick and a trick afterwards, two tricks are tranfered. This is regardless of whether they would have won them anyway. The only time we adjust this to give equity, is when non-offenders would have got more tricks than those tranfered if the revoke had not happened.

I rule that there has been an irregularity under 9B1 in failing to call the director, and that declarer in trying to apply the law himself could have known that this irregularity would work in favour of his side, so under law 23 I rule that play continues and I will probably award an adjusted score at the end (giving defenders the Ace and consdiering what would happen afterwards). I'm also going to give declarer a PP and warn defenders about calling the director when attention has been drawn to an irregularity

The law's state that their primary purpose is to restore equity (to non-offenders is the assumption along with this). This doesn't mean that a secondary purpose cannot be to punish offenders in certain cases. The Revoke law is one that will often go above and beyond equity, but as you say, perhaps there should be a punishment for not following the play. The law writers seem to have thought so.

When i'm north (something I try to avoid) I put it in the centre of the table and see who goes to confirm. I then will pass it to them.

If your worry is UI, that is covered under the UI laws without the need for another law. As your situation doesn't damage anyone, I'm not surpised that given the Laws primary function is to restore equity, there isn't a punishment for this,

I would guess that you would get very few good directors agreeing with 4. This is just a guess as I haven't asked any.