McBruce

The ACBL Lawbook has Law 35 divided into subsections A, B, C and D. The two subdivisions of Law 71 are in fact part of a single sentence which could be reasonably set up without any subdivisions at all.

I'm still looking for the normal line of play that leads to twelve tricks. Declarer captures the K♦ with the ace at trick one, runs five club tricks pitching a spade and two diamonds from his hand, cashes the jack of diamonds and three hearts, ending in hand with two small spades and the 8♦. To keep a spade guard, East must pitch the nine and ten of diamonds and declarer's 8♦ is a winner. If East keeps a high diamond, the spades fall when played from the top.

BOARD #11 [space]N NORTH [space] [space]Jul [space]9 [space] [space] [space] [space]RESULTS OF BOARD 11 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]S K3 [space] [space] [space] Evening [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]H K84 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]SCORES [space] [space] [space]MATCHPOINTS [space] N WEST [space] [space] D T8652 [space] [space]N EAST [space] [space] [space] [space] N-S [space] E-W [space] [space]N-S [space] [space]E-W S JT964 [space] [space]C QJ5 [space] [space] [space]S AQ2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]400 [space] [space]3.00 [space] 5.00 1 vs 8 H 6 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] H AQJ [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]400 [space] [space]3.00 [space] 5.00 2 vs 10 D 974 [space] [space] [space]D SOUTH [space] [space]D KQJ [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]150 [space] [space]6.00 [space] 2.00 3 vs 2 C K987 [space] [space] S 875 [space] [space] [space]C T643 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 420 [space] [space]0.50 [space] 7.50 4 vs 4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]H T97532 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]200 [space] [space]5.00 [space] 3.00 6 vs 7 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]D A3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]140 [space] [space]7.00 [space] 1.00 7 vs 9 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]C A2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]420 [space] [space]0.50 [space] 7.50 8 vs 1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]100 [space] [space]8.00 [space] 0.00 9 vs 3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]400 [space] [space]3.00 [space] 5.00 10 vs 6 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BOARD #12 [space]V NORTH [space] [space]Jul [space]9 [space] [space] [space] [space]RESULTS OF BOARD 12 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]S 976 [space] [space] [space]Evening [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]H KQT [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]SCORES [space] [space] [space]MATCHPOINTS [space] NAMES D WEST [space] [space] D AJ865 [space] [space]N EAST [space] [space] [space] [space] N-S [space] E-W [space] [space]N-S [space] [space]E-W S 8542 [space] [space] C A6 [space] [space] [space] S QJ3 [space] [space] [space] [space] 2220 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]8.00 [space] 0.00 1 vs 8 H 8652 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]H J93 [space] [space] [space] [space] 1440 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]2.00 [space] 6.00 2 vs 10 D K4 [space] [space] [space] V SOUTH [space] [space]D T972 [space] [space] [space] [space]1470 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]6.00 [space] 2.00 3 [space]vs 2 C 532 [space] [space] [space]S AKT [space] [space] [space]C J87 [space] [space] [space] [space] 1440 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]2.00 [space] 6.00 4 vs 4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]H A74 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]1470 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]6.00 [space] 2.00 6 vs 7 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]D Q3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 1440 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]2.00 [space] 6.00 7 vs 9 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]C KQT94 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]1440 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]2.00 [space] 6.00 8 vs 1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 1440 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]2.00 [space] 6.00 9 vs 3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 1470 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]6.00 [space] 2.00 10 vs 6 In round 2 of a nine round game, I was called to the table where Board 12 had just been played. Declarer North had played 6NT and received a low diamond lead from East, queen, king, ace. When the clubs broke North claimed thirteen tricks without a line of play, but with cards back in the slot the defenders recounted and came to only twelve. When East admitted to holding the QJx of spades, TD was called and North-South appealed that no competent declarer could come to only twelve after that start. Tensions rose and eventually North pulled out his hand and slapped it face up on the table... ...not realizing in his excitement that his hand was already on the table face up and he had removed the Board 11 North hand and slapped it on top. Of course, previous players had cooperated by shuffling green-backed cards into both decks. Luckily, it was easy to reconstruct the deal. Or so we thought. Seven rounds later, in the final round, South declared 3♥ and midway through the hand, East led the six of clubs through declarer and around to dummy's holding of...QJ6! A quick peek by North into his Board 12 hand revealed the five of clubs and they unswapped it. Side note, just to add to the coincidence: between the two incidents involving these boards, I entered the player-dealt deals into our computer using a program I wrote. The user removes the West, South and East hands one by one and enters the cards in them into the machine, so you can leave the traveler in the North slot. It then deals the remaining cards to the North hand. So (of course) I did not catch the swap. (Neither did six more rounds of players!) So: 1) Does the first North get to make 1470 on Board 12, based on section 2 of Law 71? Or is there a normal line that doesn't lead to thirteen tricks while East gets squeezed in spades and diamonds? 2) Is there another possibility other than Board 11's 5♣ swapped with Board 12's 6♣ that I have not considered that has some degree of probability? 3) Is the swap at all likely to affect any results on the board, given that nobody noticed it? Most played 3NT by East on Board 11, and the extra six of clubs might not have appeared at all before a claim. On Board 12, the five of clubs is in declarer's hand at most tables and is led towards the dummy as declarer cashes dummy's suit. Defenders will be looking ahead to discards once declarer plays a second club and they know the suit is breaking. 4) Is there a Law that covers this situation? 5) Is it just the ACBL Lawbook that divides Law 71 into section 1 and 2 instead of A and B?

Hasn't happened; just something I thought about after a difficult game. A pair is loudly discussing the deals with enough detail and volume to disturb other players. After a stern warning or two, is it legal to give them a DP or PP of, say, half a board, while also saying that if they can get through the rest of the game without another incident the fine will be rescinded, but increased dramatically if there is another incident? The rationale here is that the threat is not going to work as well as the carrot.

ACBL Sectional. North opens 2NT. East passes. South places the 2♦ card on the table. Almost immediately (1 second maximum), North announces 'transfer'. But even more immediately, West has passed. TD is called at this point by East. 27A1 says that "any insufficient bid ... is accepted if [offenders LHO] calls." 21B1a says that a call made can be changed (as long as partner has not subsequently called) "when the TD judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent...failure to alert is deemed misinformation." One law says the insufficient bid is accepted once LHO makes a call. The other says that the call can be changed if there is misinformation. Which prevails? Should we even give a West who passes before an auctioneer could say "transfer" a second shot?

In our Unit, we run two single-session IMP Pairs games out of four sectionals a year, both on Friday evenings as the companion game to the first session of a three-round KO. I run the occasional IMP Pairs game in the Wednesday evening games that I run at the club. Scoring such a game is simple in ACBLScore -- set up the game normally, then type SET and choose option 9 (Change Scoring Method) and then choose option 3 (Average IMPs). The machine will prompt for a Maximum IMPs Swing with a default value of 24, which is fine -- you might choose something smaller to reduce the effect of freak hands, but in practice I seldom see more than one or two swings of 14 or more in a game. It's my impression that IMP Pairs is far more popular than matchpoints in the main bridge club on BBO, but I don't know why. Regulars at club games have played matchpoints all their lives except for the occasional Swiss Teams and will be unfamiliar with a scoresheet where zero is average, so some announcement should be made at the start of the game about the scoring system when everyone is listening. I usually remind people that big scores will affect your result much more than in matchpoints, and that team game strategies apply rather than matchpoint strategies. But overall it is still just bridge, and frequently at the club I discover that the winning pair has not heard the announcement and thought they were playing matchpoints. I'm not sure it is any more or less important to select any specific movement in IMP Pairs. The argument that some boards are more swingy than others, so all pairs should play exactly the same boards seems a bit flawed to me. As in matchpoints, where the scores on a board average to 50%, the average of all scores in IMP Pairs average to zero. But it is always desirable to have pairs play mostly the same boards, and I suppose it would be better to avoid a 15-18 table Mitchell, where pairs play quite different sets of boards -- but that is also true for matchpoints. One advice I would give would be to avoid it for two-sessions, or if you must make it a two-session event, make it a qualifying/final setup and not a playthrough. For some reason, players at the lower end of the table leave with a much more negative reaction to their score in IMP Pairs than in matchpoints. If you are third-last in a 26-table field with 37.6% in matchpoints, you will come back and try to play well in the second session and get an session award, or perhaps even make the Flight C overalls with a big second session and some luck, and if you don't you'll just chalk the day up to bad luck. But if you leave for the dinner break with an IMP score of -97.62, somehow it feels like the worst game ever to most players and they will remember the experience and avoid IMP Pairs for the rest of their days. Setting the game up as a qualifying and final means that the pairs who did poorly in the first session can come back and start at zero in a consolation game in the second. It also makes your final session a much bigger test of skill and you will find that the final will contain most of your best players, as well as a few pairs who will mark it as a major achievement to have qualified for the final. It does mean that you need to abandon stratification in the main event (you can stratify the consolation game). Our Unit runs a two-session unstratified matchpoints qualifying/final pairs game once a year and has discovered that adding a separate 0-750 game in the first session increases the overall attendance. Many players with 0-750 will avoid the big game without strats, but are content to join those in the stratified consolation game in the evening.

If this is the case, then it should have been explained to North before he made his bid. This is the lesson of this thread for me: I know I have been guilty of not explaining the UI/AI in BOOT/POOT situations. It makes for a far more difficult time giving a ruling if the players feel you've held something back.

The only warning players get comes when The only decision is whether the behavior meets the guidelines. The policy does say that the director should be called immediately when a violation occurs. As written, I do disagree with the policy. But in this part of the country at least, nobody has heard a ZT pre-game announcement at a tournament in five years. I believe it would be a much improved and more effective program if TDs had the option to smooth things over when somebody makes a joke that someone else gets miffed over. As written, the policy gives TDs no leeway when someone misinterprets a joke for rudeness. Our local version (which I developed) uses instead the phrase 'unquestionably unacceptable behavior' and allows a TD the option of diplomacy when an incident doesn't quite get to that level. Quite often one can establish that a comment was misinterpreted and the commenter is genuinely sorry that it happened. Under ACBL ZT, this is a DP if the TD is called and frustration if there is no TD called. In our Unit we encourage the TD call, find out exactly what happened, and give a simple warning when we can see that no harm was meant and the person who caused the situation gives an apology for the misunderstanding. (Players can complain later if they feel a TD has gone too far in playing down an incident.) But the original point was that the gloating was alleged after the fact. There's really no way to reasonably judge something like this unless the TD is called at the time. With the passage of time, the versions of the incident change so much that it's impossible to judge. That's why I use the phrase Full Tolerance to describe those who choose to let an incident go without a TD call, then later claim that Zero Tolerance didn't work for them. If you practice FT, of course ZT is going to fail.

Just updating this one. I restored the lost two VPs to the non-offenders and gave myself a "ruling without merit" penalty. :)

If the TD decides that North's 2♥ call was based on UI and ruled that Pass is a LA, what is the next step? The TD must now judge what the outcome of the deal might be if North passes. I don't doubt that E-W will almost certainly get to 6♠. I do doubt very much that South will elect to lead a heart away from KJT8 against a slam without any reason for so doing. Without a heart lead, what chance does declarer have in 6♠? 100%: declarer will pull trumps and establish a diamond winner to take care of the losing heart. So I rule 1430 to E-W. How many teams walk out as a result? I recommend a lengthy suspension for all of them to the appropriate committee of the tournament organizer or regulating authority. As for the gloating, I think it needs to be serious enough to elicit a call from an offended player at the time. I'm all for Zero Tolerance if done correctly: call the TD if you are made uncomfortable, and we will decide: perhaps a penalty, perhaps a warning, perhaps a discussion and an apology will be the result, depending on what took place. But don't expect much if you choose to practice Full Tolerance and put up with it at the time, only to complain about it later.

6 minutes -- pretty good! :(

[hv=n=sa8haq7da954ckj76&w=sq97642hk852djc32&e=sj53ht94dt86cqt98&s=skthj63dkq732ca54]399|300|[/hv] Both JACK 5's double dummy solver and the Linux double-dummy solver claim that North or South can make twelve tricks in notrump here against the best defense. It routinely happens when a defender leads a heart or a club, but double dummy defenders know to lead spades when in. So, where are the 12 tricks if defenders lead spades whenever they are in? I see no squeeze that forces East to guard hearts and clubs; even leading the jack of hearts from the South hand doesn't transfer a menace; the eight of hearts is still a guard after West covers. What am I missing? Inquiring minds (who are still under the impression that I'm smart enough to teach 'em) want to know. (Serves me right for including hand records with double-dummy makes...) :(

I'm beginning to see your point (and I agree with everything said and not quoted in your latest post), but my difficulty is still in applying the concept of equity to a line of play that we have decided is virtually impossible. Equity is -100 at the moment before the revoke, yes, but this 'equity' is based on an impossible line of play after an earlier infraction. However, I can see that it is a reasonable interpretation of 64C to find equity for the revoke(s) and adjust the table score to that, then go back and find equity without dummy hiding the card, and then adjust to whichever is best. I think that this is flawed in that it considers a line of play that would never take place without the initial infraction: I'd rather take the infractions in chronological order and decide which lines are likely continuations and decide equity that way. A ferry went down in the middle of the night off the coast of British Columbia some time ago, resulting in the death of two people who were not found by the crew and were not evacuated. Our major story today is that the person who was on the bridge at the time has been charged with criminal negligence in the two deaths. There is no thought at all in looking at the way the search for passengers throughout the ship was handled once the evacuation order was given. It is the initial infraction that counts.

I'm not trying to be inventive or contrary, I am trying to understand your approach. But I don't see that I am giving N-S a trick that they did not make, as David says: the table result was ten tricks. But more importantly, I don't understand why a line that would never be considered, absent the first irregularity, should even be under consideration when we determine how to restore equity for subsequent infractions.

The NHL reseeds in every playoff round, not just after the first. Of course, they have two separate playoffs, an East playoff with eight teams and a West playoff with eight teams. But if the #1 seed goes down, the team that knocked them out always starts the next series on the road. If you don't reseed, the concept of "taking over a seed" is a bit of a misnomer. What seeding does is to decide the starting positions and set the path of teams you may play on the way to the final. You don't actually become the #1 seed by knocking out the #1 seed: you simply play the teams that the #1 seed would have played. In a competition where you play to determine seedings, like the NHL or NBA, it makes sense to re-seed after each round. The top seeds have played 80+ games to earn the right to face the lowest-ranked team. In fact, it might be taken even further, allowing top-ranked teams to choose their opponents from the bottom half, so you can avoid having to play a team that has "got your number." But in a bridge competition, seeds are decided on what -- past performance and masterpoints? Maybe in this sort of competition it makes the most sense to set the brackets with your seeding process and just start playing.

Not quite. In your hypothetical, the non-offending side is entitled to have the likely result had dummy tabled 13 visible cards. If for some strange reason that is two off, that's what the adjusted score is. We get a table result, then we consider the irregularities and the non-offending side gets a better score or the same score, based on what would have happened without the irregularities. In the original case, I did not look at the situation from the point where dummy tabled only 12 visible cards with a view to adjusting in favour of the declaring side. The table result was 10 tricks; I was looking to see if the result would be different. Law 64C only tells us to award an adjusted score; it does not say to 'restore the outcome had the revoke not occurred.' Once we're directed to Law 12, we must consider all irregularities, not just some.

The result obtained at the table is ten tricks to N-S. E-W have spotted several irregularities: Dummy not placing 13 cards on the table in full view, in accordance with Law 41D, and declarer ruffing several rounds of spades in dummy while the 4♠ was hidden. Now, I was under the impression that the missing card appeared as declarer was leading the last trump from dummy, but I may have been mistaken. If the missing card appeared as declarer was trying to ruff the last spade, the revoke needs to be corrected and declarer loses a second spade trick, and the result at the table is nine tricks. I'll find out when I see the players involved this week. But the issue here is how do we adjust for equity if the missing spade only appears after the revokes have been established? Clearly we need to adjust according to Law 64C, because Law 64B does not allow the defense any penalty tricks for declarer revoking in dummy. So we're back to Law 12. This is where I take a different view from most others: I think that it gives the non-offenders too much of an advantage if we take each irregularity separately, and give them the best of three or four possible lines: --What's the table result? --What's the expectation if dummy tables 13 visible cards? --What's the expectation if the missing spade is discovered when declarer tries to ruff the second round? --What's the expectation if the missing spade is discovered when declarer tries to ruff the third round? --What's the expectation if the missing spade is discovered when declarer tries to ruff the fourth round? That's five ways for the non-offenders to gain based on one inadvertent mistake! I'm uncomfortable with that. I think the way to proceed is to give them the table result or equity after a 13-card dummy appears, whichever is best, resolving doubtful points in favour of the non-offenders, of course.

I understand the discomfort, having had to deal with it from the non-offending side. :) (They were surprised and frustrated but did not argue as some seem to do on prinicple...) I guess another way of stating my opinion on this is that I simply do not believe the play, including the revokes, are relevant, once it becomes clear that declarer will surely take a different line seeing all 13 cards in dummy. As soon as we discover that declarer has made a play (low from KJxx towards Tx, needing one loser) that would never be made without the original infraction, the resulting infractions (the later revokes by dummy) become part of a line that is impossible except that dummy put down 12 cards and nobody noticed. So if we apply 12B ONLY to the revoke, I think we are outside the bounds of equity, where the non-offenders get the benefit of the doubt but don't get to profit from things that will never happen in reality. I think that we should certainly consider all possible lines from the point of the first infraction, but in this case the first infraction makes the revokes impossible! I'm still, of course, looking for a way to come up with a better score for the non-offenders, but once we eliminate the first infraction and find that declarer has a crucial choice that is about 2-1 in favour of one option, well, virtually every declarer will go the same way there. I've even considered what happens after dummy puts down 13 cards correctly and the defense decides to switch from clubs in order to give declarer fewer clues; but even in this case, it's immediately clear to any fairly good declarer that clues are needed about the outstanding high cards and there are many ways to go about getting them: playing on clubs first, ruffing some diamonds, pulling trumps to see which defender is short (and may have fewer HCP than expected). It's almost certain that declarer will make this contract except for dummy's infraction. It's a rather strange case, not a ruling I expect to see again soon. Not often that you are unsuccessful at finding some plausible line that results in a better score for the non-offenders.

You can probably do this if you ask the TD (preferably in advance), bring a thumb drive, and go in with the expectation that you may not always be able to get the files you want right away. TDs often have a fair bit to do during a session and especially following a session: sometimes there is not a lot of time. It may seem as though it is a quick copy, but consider what happens if a TD is rushed and copies the wrong file. Accidents happen! Now, if this becomes popular, Memphis (or Horn Lake MS, now) may have to devise a system where hand record files can appear on ACBL.org shortly after each games scheduled ending time. We certainly can't have dozens of people requesting the deals each session! But this wouldn't be too difficult. I think the deals are generated in advance and assigned to tournaments as requested by Directors-In-Charge, with each set given a five digit code. Each such set could be placed into a database along with a date and time for public release. However, even this is prone to errors: at a recent tournament, we accidentally distributed copies of the Friday Evening hand records in Sections A and B, while a set for Saturday Evening was mistakenly distributed in Section C! If the ACBL sets up a system, there will need to be a way for errors like this to be corrected from the tournament site. I would guess that it's coming, but for now I would try the thumb drive and charm route. :)

I disagree here too. I think if you have related infractions: dummy hiding the card, and declarer revoking twice in dummy, the Laws say that you give the non-offenders whichever is best for them: the score obtained at the table, or the score after the TD determines what would have happened without the infraction. I think it strains the concept of equity, in multiple infractions stemming from the same irregularity, to give the non-offenders the best of three or more possible scenarios. In this case we left normal when dummy placed only twelve cards visible on the table. It is surely not disputed that with 13 cards on the table declarer would never lead away from KJxx towards Tx in a suit where only one trick can be lost. It simply doesn't make sense to call the play declarer made (thinking dummy had a singleton) evidence toward what declarer would do seeing 13 cards. The "score caused by the revoke alone" is a 'result' that has no chance of occurring unless you ignore the first infraction. I don't believe that is equity.

This incident occurred late in an IMP League match that started at the same time that a short 21-board pairs game began. By the time the incident occurred, there was only the eight players, the husband of the opening bidder (who agreed with me that it was far more likely that a spade to the king would succeed), and me. But since then I have given the hand with the 26 declarer and dummy cards, and the opening lead, to several players. Everyone who has a close look plays a spade to the king, but most delay this decision until they discover where the club honours are; some even mention playing ace and jack of diamonds to see if East will cover (indicating probably KQ♦ I guess). If we start from the position after the clubs have been played, either by the defense or the declarer, we find this: --E-W have 19 points --East, who opened in first seat, has AJ♣, West has the K♣, leaving 11 unaccounted for --East needs both diamond honours if he holds the Q♠ and not the A♠. --Against Q♠, KQ♦, AJ♣ as East's opening bid, we have at least two possibilities where a spade to the king works: A♠, K♦, AJ♣ and A♠, Q♦, AJ♣. So OK, I misinterpreted the position when I said that it was almost certain that East has the ace. However, that's not the question. The question is "what line will South take, knowing that East is about a 2-1 favorite to hold the ace alone over holding the queen alone?" My answer to this is "almost certainly South will lead a spade to the king."

I do too, in your case, but your example does not convince me to change my opinion on the original case. In your case, the result at the table is eight tricks. Declarer has four side suit winners and in clubs he has won three of the first four (revoking in dummy on the fourth) when the missing K♣ is discovered as the fifth club trick is played. The king of clubs wins the fifth club trick, and declarer is now in dummy with eight tricks in and no more coming. The table result is down one. There are two infractions, the hiding of the K♣ by dummy and the revoke in dummy by declarer of the fourth club. Without the first infraction, the declarer would probably have made nine tricks, true, but the table result is eight tricks, so there is no damage to the non-offending side. In my case, the result at the table was ten tricks. Without the first infraction, the result might have been nine only, in which case I would certainly adjust, but in looking closely at the situation I judged that the overwhelmingly likely result was ten tricks, so I did not adjust. What I am trying to state as a general principle here is this: When there are multiple infractions by one side, and it is certain that the first infraction was the direct and only cause of the other ones, equity should be restored by considering the likely result(s) without the first infraction, the departure point from normal.

I used to have a clock program that beeped out the first four notes of the Dragnet theme at four minutes left in the round... :rolleyes: I think that players who have played the first two boards of a 20 minute round in 16 minutes should be at least vaguely aware of that and strive to avoid delays on the third. But, in making the rounds to see who is in time trouble, when I tell people who are bidding their last board that they need to finish quickly, I am often ignored and the pace seems to slow down further. Drives me nuts, almost as much as the player (there are thousands of this type out there) who finishes a round five minutes after it is called and goes off past those waiting to take his seat to get coffee, saying "I'm a fast player." When I reply "so prove it and THEN get your coffee," I get called a dictator. Every TD should have a spiel, much like the OLOOT spiel, that gets said to a table that finishes late. As soon as they have a result, I tell them something like "you've used 26 minutes on a 20 minute round, so you need to catch up over the next round or two. No need to play 'fast' -- just minimize the delays between deals and rounds and you'll be caught up by round six." When players claim the other side was at fault, I tell them that they needed to tell me that when the delay took place. I find the key is to be understanding and positive instead of accusing and sarcastic. (And have a break or two during the game so habitual offenders can get caught up.) Illegal or not, it's just bad customer relations to take a board away that has been started.

I disagree. There are multiple infractions here, the hiding of the card by dummy, and the various revokes made by declarer as a result. It is 100% certain that the revokes would not have happened but for the original infraction of the card being hidden. How is it equity if we cherry-pick which infraction to adjust for and ignore others? How is it equity when we ignore the one infraction that started it all?

OK, get ready to pounce... I ruled +620 to N-S. What nobody seems to have considered is that having already lost two club tricks, no declarer in his right mind leads a small spade from KJxx towards Tx. If we are trying to restore equity, the question we should ask is: without the ORIGINAL infraction (dummy hiding the 4♠), what line(s) would declarer take (consider)? So the result comes down to which card declarer plays from hand when spades are first led from dummy. Outside the ACBL, TDs would probably give a weighted score, and as I looked at the hand I wished I had this option. But the more I looked, the more it seemed to me that low to the jack (or running the ten) was at most 10%. There are very few combinations of the outstanding cards to make an opening bid in the East hand, unless East has the ace of spades. The vast, vaster-that-vast majority of the possible hands East can have for the opener include the ace of spades, and after the defense locates the club honours for declarer it is even more unlikely that West has the ace and East has the queen. I felt that all four players at the table were good enough declarers to recognize this. The standard for the non-offenders is the most favourable result that is at all likely. I don't think 10% comes close to that, and I think it is probably closer to 5%. Similarly, the standard for the offenders is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable, and I think at 80-20 I would adjust, but this is a near certainty. The result at the other table (which I did not check until I'd made the ruling) was 110 to East-West in 3♣, so the ruling cost the non-offenders' team (who won the match) about 2VP (versus the consensus ruling of down one). That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. Have at me.... ;)