McBruce

In this neck of the woods we have the PlayBridge duplicating machine that reads not barcodes but the actual card corners. We also have a supplier who makes excellent aluminum boards and supplies decent plastic cards. I am told that the process is faster with the flip-top boards but I have never used one. But the supplier takes the same 20-40 sets around to various week-long tournaments in the area, perhaps 15-20 in a year, and thus they are used much more than 50 times a year. Most ACBL regional tournaments will see each set used at least ten times over the course of 18 sessions in seven days. I would guess that the cards should be replaced about once every 12-18 months, but this doesn't happen and I spend the first day of every tournament doing two things simultaneously: preduplicating the first 3-4 sessions worth of needed sets (for pair games only, not Swiss or KO), and removing the older cards that the machine has trouble identifying, and putting these into board sets that will be assigned to the KO area of the room for most of the week. I know that in Europe and other non-ACBL areas preduplicated boards are expected, but at the largest regionals here I sometimes make 20-25 sets of boards (1-36 usually) for one day's pair events alone, and this is only half of the people who play: the KO and Swiss events are about the same number of tables. To cover all of them we would need multiple machines and operators. We would also need to teach players and caddies the procedures used where predupes are available for KOs and Swisses, which is something that ACBL players do very poorly (since it would involve listening and following instructions instead of doing it the way we did it in 1958). For the final A/X Swiss I often make five sets of 32 boards for the top ten teams in the Flight A event, so that the top ten teams* can have preduplicated boards. I'm guessing that in Norway, five sets of eight would cover twenty tables (ten matches), each table getting two to start with and pass down a table when done. Here the TDs insist on each match having its own set of boards, because the players would never figure out such an unusual system. *Another interesting problem is that ACBLScore matches teams on the fly, before all results are in, and the TDs actually have to guess what VP Score will put a team into the top ten, meriting predupes! With the PlayBridge machines, and I guess the newer Jannerstens that read the indices instead of the bar codes, the biggest problem with cards becomes fading indices. A missing speck on a spade symbol can make it look like a club or even a diamond (the optical reader does not see colour). Much of the time the card works with a 180 switch, but when you have three or more such cards in a deck, the time it takes goes way up. I think the machines would be much better if they had two optical readers, one for each corner, the second one being used if the first read was doubtful.

I have been told by a TD in the ACBL Tournaments dept that "everyone is responsible for dummy" last appeared in the Laws in 1942, and the removal of "in the same breath" is celebrating its 50th anniversary in 2013. :)

Why, in a Laws version with an Introduction that says "Directors have been given considerably more discretionary powers" must a TD cancel the board? Why not let the players play it out and then decide whether/how the extra information affected the result? If the wrong pair bids 1N P 6N and the new, correct pair starts 1N P 5N we are forced to stop everything and give both sides an artificial adjusted score, unrelated to clear evidence of what was almost certainly about to happen. If opener has a maximum and 13 tricks are ironclad, 15C has just deprived the innocent pair of a well-earned good result. It's no harder to work out how the extra information might affect the result than it is to adjust a score based on many other types of misinformation that we deal with all the time. I think the Lawmakers forgot to update 15C to match the Introduction. The most commonly heard complaint when I am forced to cancel a board is "why is this different from other UI situations where we play on and wait for your decision?" Then later I hear "that ridiculous rule prevented us from getting a good score!" Let's fix this to something sensible for the next version: the vast majority of the times it comes up, cancellation is required but there is such a small variation that rectifying would be easy if even necessary. Consider 16C3, which allows a TD to let play continue if a player receives UI (such as overhearing an auction which must be on the same board from a nearby table) after an auction has begun. Why is hearing part of an auction at another table so different from hearing part of an auction from the wrong opponents and then hearing a slightly different one from the correct opponents? The Laws allow a TD to use his judgment for the former, but do not for the latter. I'm not arguing that the restriction that the pair bidding the same deal a second time make the same calls be lifted; but I think if they have a reasonable bridge reason for the deviation based on the opponents' methods or tendencies it should be considered. I know it will lead to logical nightmares to tell a pair that they are non-offending but have UI from the first auction that they must ignore. But this Law just seems to cause more results to disappear, and quite often the board could be played normally.

I do preduplicating at many large ACBL tournaments. The same boards come back to me several times over the course of the week. Because almost all tournaments end with a Swiss teams, at the start of every tournament I have the same problem, one that returns whenever there is a Swiss teams during the week. I do whatever I can to ensure that no two consecutive boards will have the same card backs and in fact try to make groups of three have different colours. But when the players themselves pull out the cards to shuffle, for Swiss Teams (which as noted is almost always shuffle and play in the ACBL) usually all four players work on the process at once, pulling out cards from a board, shuffling and dealing, then looking about for an empty board to place the cards in...which quite often is NOT the board they pulled those cards from. The result is that after a pair game, when I get the boards back, I can be fairly confident that the cards will be different colours in each group of three boards. When I get a set and boards 1-12 have backs of blue, blue, blue, black, black, green, green, red, red, green, red, black -- it is clear that a Swiss teams has happened somewhere...

I once had a player accost me for "writing him up" either here (er, the previous here, before we came to BBO) or on rec.games.bridge (it was a while ago). My great crime, apparently, was in referring to him as ... South. I told him that only he and I knew who South was, and I wasn't going to do anything to change that, but publicly arguing vehemently in South's favour might reveal South's true identity...

Are we sure about this? If West explains correctly, I think South is still likely to bid 3NT. This gets passed around to West who will probably make another call with the 6-6 hand, perhaps 4C, and N-S is at this point going to suddenly assume 5D is better than defending? Why exactly? The non-offenders get the "most favorable result that was likely," not the most favorable result possible.

You were the South who passed boards to the tinfoil cap South. Did you put some foreign substance on them? :)

Darn, I missed that one. :)

[hv=pc=n&s=sk63h96532d2cjt97&w=saq8754h8dk63c843&n=sj92hajdaqjtcaq65&e=sthkqt74d98754ck2&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2h(...he%20claims...)dp2n(lebensohl)p3nppp]399|300[/hv] The game is over, the winners are announced, players are leaving, and South approaches me. "I'd like to report a psyche in the last round." (I didn't add the boldface, it is an accurate rendition.) South gives me the auction in the diagram above, trying to control some sort of seething anger. West and North are experienced enough to know within 5% what their score will be and leave within seconds of the last trick being played; they're long gone. But East, as it happens, is nearby, and overhears the conversation. "No, no, you're mistaken. West opened 2♠, not 2♥." South is "certain it was 2♥." (Again, no embellishment by me.) East says, without any malice (or boldface, or even italics) in his voice, "I remember a 2♠ opener. If he had bid 2♥ I might still be bidding hearts with my hand." South is still not convinced. Trying to be diplomatic, I point out that sometimes a player puts a bid-box card down and then makes a correction, so quickly that you might miss it if you blinked. Perhaps you missed the correction. South retreats to his seat to peruse the hand record further. Now there are only a half-dozen people left in the room, East has left, and South approaches again. Again with the boldface: "I'm very upset that East would simply lie right to my face about the 2♥ call" he says. "We both saw it and there was no correction." Oy vey. I grab a hand record. "Let's for the moment assume that you are correct. Psyches are legal, unless there is a pattern that makes their use an implied understanding. You've reported the psyche to me but I don't recall West ever psyching before, in all the years I have known him...but let's look at the hand. If West indeed opened 2♥, do you think East would pass after the takeout double? East-West are not even vulnerable. No player would pass!" South says that this is evidence that they have a secret understanding about these bids and East knows not to raise. I respond that they both walked in without partners and were put together five minutes before gametime. South is still not convinced. "Well, perhaps we can ask your partner what the opening bid was. I'm away for a week but I will see him before the month ends, and if there is something untoward going on here I can change the score before the results are sent to the ACBL." (There is no chance that this is going to happen: I am by now 100% certain that North will say the opening bid was 2♠...but I'd like to catch my train tomorrow and this conversation is beginning to look like that may be in jeopardy.) Looking at the overall score, I continue by saying that "your score might improve a bit and theirs might go down, if I decide that something was fishy." South now notes that their score on the board was ... wait for it ... tied for top! It is all I can do to keep my eyes from rolling heavenward at this development. One last try. "This was a North American Pairs club qualifying game, everyone at average or better automatically qualifies to play in the District Final, which this year is held in this city. Your opponents' final score was 52% and they got a bad score on this board, so they probably had a decent game going into the last round. West is an experienced player and it is difficult for me to believe that he would jeopardize a likely "Q" just to psyche on the last round. I'm sorry I can't agree with you, but the balance of the evidence that is available to us here and now leads me to believe that you simply misread the bid-box card. But I'll ask around about this when I return." Away goes South without a word. But I doubt this is over...

[hv=pc=n&s=skt3hqt3daqj9ca85&w=sqj98642h2dt5c964&n=sa75hkj4dk87632c7&e=sha98765d4ckqjt32&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1d2n(hearts%20and%20clubs)3npp4hd5cppdppp]399|300[/hv] Matchpoints. Before bidding 3NT, South asked West to explain the 2NT overcall; West said it showed clubs and diamonds. The auction continued as shown. At the end of the play, with North having led face down, East called the TD (me) and noted that the explanation was not accurate. A correct explanation was given, East agreed that this indeed was the partnership agreement, and North declined the chance to change his final pass. The contract went one down. East had UI from West's mistaken explanation when he chose to bid 4♥. With 6-6 in his suits I have no doubt that he meant to show extra shape by this, but unconsciously he may have realized that 4♥ would help wake partner up. Thus, I thought 4♥ was a logical alternative demonstrably suggested by the infraction. A quick poll found that pass was dangerously close to a logical alternative, but perhaps not quite. Suggestions included 4♣, doubling 3NT (to ask partner to pick a suit), and a very few did admit to considering passing, but most were adamant (not given the infraction) that bidding on was correct. A considerable number felt they would not have bid 2NT and would never face this problem, but that appears to be the trendy thing to say these days when I present players with a written problem and a request for an opinion. :) How do you rule?

On Saturday, 17 August, we had our quarterly Mentor-Mentee game at the local club, a 22-board 30-table game where the area's newer players are paired up with the area's more experienced players, who play for free. I get to play the hands in advance and create a web page with my occasionally-intelligent comments, then act as Vice-Director In Charge Of How The Hell Do We Ensure 120 People All Play Exactly The Same 22 Boards Without Accidentally Repeating Any? (Answer: 4 preduplicated sets and a Web Movement.) Today's new feature was that we were going to use a projector to let people watch four of the Mentees replay some of the hands at a teaching table on BBO. With evil grins on our faces, Jillybean and I planned that the four people who were playing the hands would be seated with their backs to the wall where the projection was being beamed, so that every bid or play the poor saps played, seeing only one or two hands, would be instantly recognizable for its weaknesses by everyone else, who were seeing all four hands! It was a fun time for all, and we'll do it again in three months...but it very nearly did not come off. Once the game got started smoothly, I decided now would be a good time to log into BBO and figure out how to set everything up for the post-game fun. Yes, (P) these ® games (O) are © quarterly, ® which (A) means (S) I (T) had (I) about (N) 92 (A) other (T) days (I) to (O) learn (N) this, but how hard could it be? My BBO chops aren't what they used to be, but I have run tournaments in the past. Anyhow, the first step was converting to LIN from the PBN file I had. Actually, this was the only step that caused problems, partly because of my equipment. I used the Pavlicek command line program to do it, but Windows 7 coughed up a complaint, saying that this 32-bit DOS junk was over years ago and refused even to look at it from a 64-bit pedestal. I switched to Linux and used DOSemu to get the job done, but apparently this wasn't quite right either: no hands imported, check file source. Jillybean decided to search available yellows for help. We were in Round 4 of 11 at the time, and Georgi asked us to send the offending file. We did, and we were in Round 7 when I discovered a response. (Actually, gmail evidence clocks Georgi's response time at all of TWENTY-FOUR MINUTES!) Not only did Georgi send a corrected file that worked like a charm, but also sent enough detail to correct future such problems. I think a thank you and a mention here is the least I can do. Bravissimo!

But what about cases where dummy might or might not have been able to see the card? Is it not easier to simply note this for the next version of the Laws and add to dummy's rights the right to see cards played by the declarer and defenders, and to ask to view the trick again if this is made impossible. Surely this is better than allowing defenders to legally shield cards from dummy's view -- you can detach and face while keeping your hand between dummy and the card, if your hand is large enough. Surely this is better than the suggestion that declarer and dummy should collude before the game and agree to watch for such nefarious practice and call for a shielded card to be exposed for dummy to see.

A pair has an uncontested auction where responder's rebid of 2C is the fourth suit. They play fourth-suit forcing but there is no alert. Opener continues with 2NT and responder raises to 3NT. A face-down lead is made (not yet exposed) and responder/dummy now says that there was a failure to alert the 2C 4SF call. Opening leader wants to know whether the defenders have the right to know whether this is a forgot-to-alert situation (meaning declarer will have a club stopper) or whether this is a forgot-our-agreements situation (meaning declarer may not have a club stopper). The actual question: "when you bid 2NT, were you aware that 2C was artificial?" What Law or ACBL regulation makes this question legal or illegal?

Same thing here, evening games are dwindling--except this one, a weeknight game that goes from 7-9:30, 20-21 boards only, $1 less than a full length game. When part of your appeal is a guaranteed finish by 9:30, and it works to the extent that you outdraw the other evening games, you don't screw things up by adding late plays and forcing people to wait for the slow pair to finish the last round so they can watch them agonize for another ten minutes over a claimer. It's not always the TD being lazy: sometimes you need to think about what effect forcing people to stay will have on your game's attendance. If this were an afternoon game everything would be different, of course.

In a three-board ACBL club game with a visible-to-all clock at the front counting out 21.5 minute rounds, a table takes the entire first round (with a few minutes added to round one on the clock for name entry) to complete two boards. They claim that there was considerable difficulty entering names into the wireless scoring units, but even if it took five extra minutes that still leaves them at over eight minutes a board. This being a short club game with an early finish and no desire on the part of anyone to wait for late plays, the third board is scored 50-50 and both pairs are warned. Three rounds later, the N-S pair from round one is late again, about to start board three as the clock expires. Their opponents are prone to excessive chatter between boards and the clock is fifteen feet away, so this one is also scored as 'both sides partly at fault' (50-50), even though it seems that the fault is not equal. Because there were only seven rounds, this was sufficient to get through to the end without further incidents. But suppose the same pair is involved in a third slow-play incident. They will surely get A- for this one and their opponents might well get A+ if they can convice the TD that they were not at all to blame. But... 1) Is it within the Laws for the TD to now review the earlier decisions that both sides were partially to blame, and change the earlier 50-50s to 50-40 or even 60-40? 2) Can the previous opponents of the slow pair appeal the decision and use later evidence to back up their claim that the slow pair was completely at fault to get their adjusted score upgraded to 60? 3) If the slow pair is part of a table that is a full board behind in a future game, is their 'record' in play if there is a dispute as to who is at fault?

Bravo to the responders here; everyone clearly recognized the importance of explaining without scorn or innuendo. At the table I told them with a smile that I was gobsmacked by their methods and I compared it to the old tale of the two players who arrived at a tournament bearing a system card with "lead singletons with left hand" marked in the defensive carding area. They immediately saw this as illegal, and from there we established that two different meanings for the same bid based on whether or not the stop card appeared was in that same ballpark. Today I was concerned when 'Team Stop Card' did not play in the afternoon session, but they did arrive for the evening 0-750 game, and I had a very quick chat with them about the stop card and offered a more lengthy version the next time we meet at the club. 2♠ went two down vulnerable and was a universal zero; no adjustment required. I also privately thanked the player who called the TD for his behavior (and his partner's) at the table during the call: nobody reacted in such a way to scare them into never returning, which is important. So it appears all is well, but with one more day in the tourney we'll see if we can top this one tomorrow...

Novice/intermediate game (0-750 MP, very few Life Masters, for those familiar with ACBL numbers) at a sectional (local) tournament. Opening leader is calling because an auction seems odd: East opened 2♣, West responded 2♠, and after three passes that is the final contract. E-W are very nice new players, possibly at their first tournament, but have been seen at the club a few times in the entry-level lesson-games. West explains that the review is slightly incorrect: actually, the auction went like this: East displayed the Stop card and opened 2♣, West responded 2♠, and after three passes that is the final contract. When you ask how this is different, West explains patiently that with the Stop card they play this as a preempt. Without the Stop card, it's strong and forcing. She is entirely serious, completely without guilt or fear, and East has six losers and seven clubs to the AKQJ. The only thing you have going for you is that these opponents are kind enough to let you handle it. Your move, TD. (Tread carefully.)

Me too. This is getting interesting and I always enjoy your posts. In the rare case that someone gets a Zero Tolerance ticket at a Regional, the form (which actually looks a bit like a traffic ticket) is waved about with pride after the game. (I guess this is half-bad, half-good: the small matchpoint fine is ignored but the offender rarely offends again when he knows this will mean expulsion.) I talked to someone who was told to speak into a tape recorder at an NABC with his reasons for appealing and told the next day he had earned an AWMW. He practically bragged about this, but I suspect the next time he tries to appeal something at an NABC he may be asked for a deposit in advance. Other than that I know little about ACBL AWMWs. I freely admit that I don't know all of the Laws by number either, but if a player quoted one I would certainly look it up. Even if I don't have the book with me I have a copy on my iPod Touch, although I might need the actual book if I ever get to direct at an NABC, based on the ACBL's electronic devices policy. I'm not a big fan of the type of behavior you describe from this TD. I suspect she did consult with someone who pointed out that you may be right and she should look up that Law! One thing I sometimes find difficult in a busy tournament situation is keeping track of several rulings where the TDs have been consulting, and there are times where I have changed some scores after several rounds, and then had trouble tracking down everyone involved. She probably changed the score and told your opponents but forgot to let you know. The C-word, unless it is clearly spoken in a joking manner, is the nuclear option in games where I direct: if you use the C-word, you take it back and apologize or you don't play any further, and the Unit CD&E (Conduct, Deportment and Ethics, although the middle one seldom gets cases) committee chair gets a full report. But it's a different situation when the complaint describes, or tries to describe, what happened and merely insinuates, without saying so directly, that there was cheating. There is a difference between a direct accusation of cheating, and what you need to say to let the TD know your impression of what happened. Some are better at this than others at phrasing it delicately and separating fact from opinion, others are so sure they've been robbed that what sounds like a cheating accusation is just a bungled attempt at describing what happened. The TD certainly has to get in there and calm things down before things get ugly, and "we're just going to let that slide" was probably meant as an attempt in that general direction, although not a very good one. You're ahead of us then, although I imagine if there were more appeals at club games some sort of committee might be formed. As our Unit's IMP League commissioner for many years I set up several appeal committees and there was even an AC consisting of the Unit Board for an appeal committee to decide a championship match at one point. I am surprised that Rochester NY has sectional tournaments run by only one TD; your metro area is about half the population of Vancouver BC's but our sectionals, until very recently, had two or three TDs each session (for 30-45 tables per session: with scoring machines we can handle that many usually with only two TDs). We are actually pretty lucky to be in an area that has always had many excellent ACBL TDs, and I myself am quite fortunate to have been able to associate with great regional staffs in my Daily Bulletin work in District 19 even before I became an ACBL TD. Contestants have a right to appeal, but not necessarily a right to an appeal committee, unless one is available and will not delay the event (93A paraphrased). I am baffled by the last sentence of 93B1, which says that if the TD makes a ruling based on Law or regulation you can appeal this to the committee, which according to 93B3 is forbidden to overrule the TD on a point of Law or regulations! Maybe this is the small difference in our opinions on ACs: I have the notion that they should be ruling almost exclusively on cases where there is a judgment call made by the TD, whereas you seem to feel that at the club level there are often times where one should be able to appeal a Director's error in law to an AC. I think danger lies ahead there: players have enough misconceptions about the Laws to give them the option of forming an AC whenever they think the TD has erred and the TD disagrees. The TD is supposed to know the Laws, or at least be able to find the right ones and use them properly. If a TD disagrees with a player about a Laws ruling, I think it is best to consult another TD or some authority and make sure the ruling is correct, rather than ask an AC to do your job for you.

In many once-a-week games in this region, the club-owner-director (and often fill-in-player) is the norm and the unwritten rule is to not call the TD unless someone needs medical attention (or the bridge infraction equivalent). :) There's little that can be done in ACBL-land about the type of rulings they are capable of on a bad day. I direct at a club which has about 100-120 tables a week and no situation involving an appeal has come up in five years. Players at the club level tend to accept it and move on. One way to reduce the litigation is to offer to post a ruling here and change it if it is clear that I'm wrong. Other TDs have called for assistance to ACBL TDs in the area (not in the recent past though, as far as I know). But it's a good option. As for learning from a AC ruling, I think it's possible, especially if the AC bases its decision on some factor the TD had not considered. Often we are huddled around a hand record and someone remembers that two sections need to be told to skip a table next round, or there is an announcement scheduled soon from the local organizers, or some other technical matter than can distract us from thinking about the ruling. If the AC comes up with something we couldn't see on the floor, we might remember this next time. But I agree that when it is judgment, an AC overturn is usually not implication that the TD should have ruled differently.

Before we go too far down this road leaving perhaps the impression that the original TD in the Auken-Monaco incident must have erred somewhere, since the result was overturned, let me remind everyone that (at least according to what I read in the Bulletin) the original TD went over the hand with the players and asked where they thought they might have been damaged, and at that time the defenders thought they might have led a heart instead of a spade. The original ruling seems to have been based on a player poll of some sort, result stands, we don't think anyone would choose to lead a heart with correct information. It was after the segment and the dinner break that they appealed this ruling, focusing now on South's carding. The original TD may not even have been on duty by the time this new information came to light. There's very little here to point at a bad initial ruling by the TD. The non-offenders felt that there simply wasn't time to consider all the effects of the misinformation right away and came up with something later that the committee agreed with (I do too), but that the original TD never heard about. I can tell you from my very limited experience directing clubs and sectionals that the vast majority of 'steaming' players who hotly demand an appeal of a TDs ruling are not asking for a new set of ears to hear the story the TD has been given and make a judgment. Usually they simply disagree with the ruling and have invented all sorts of new (usually bogus) information that wasn't presented at the table to support their case. That's not the way ACs are supposed to work: it's a waste of everyone's time to get an appeal committee together and hear someone claim that "I was always planning to bid on, even before my partner hesitated," or "this TD always rules against me," or some even sillier argument refuted by the hand records. Such appeals should be handled by the DIC before a committee even gets formed. There are very, very few appeals at sectionals or regionals that hinge only on a decision based on judgment and do not try to change the basic facts to spin it for the appealing side. When we get one we are happy to set up an AC, and a good Director will try to learn from the decision if his ruling is overturned. Are there TDs at sectionals and regionals and club games who make mistakes, sometimes very basic mistakes? Of course there are, myself included -- but at tournaments there should always be a DIC present (or a suitable TD who can be contacted if needed) who has enough experience to review the case, sort things out with the players, and go over the mistake with the TD, if the ruling actually is incorrect: quite often the ruling is correct but the explanation leaves a bit to be desired. I think most DICs I have worked under have given me enough rein to make mistakes that I could learn from, while making it clear that I shouldn't be making any judgment rulings without consulting other TDs. Can a new TD learn the mistakes to avoid without being allowed some latitude to possibly make them? Perhaps, but not as easily. At the club level it is much harder to get mistaken rulings corrected, because many club TDs are running a business and know that many club players (paying customers) just want a pleasant game without the hassle of rules arguments. A judgment-only ruling by a club TD is only rarely heard by a committee. I would imagine every TD has been through this no-win situation that happened to me about a year ago. A new N-S pair in the game, a youngish couple with no masterpoints, but enough bridge experience to have a good time and not hold up the room, until North clearly used UI after 1♥ - 4♠ - ...Pass - Pass, bidding on with a 2=5=4=2 15 count that nobody in the world would take for a spin at the 5 level and finding a miracle dummy. The opponents, as far as I was able to determine, were perfectly polite as they called the Director when play ended, and even said as they explained the situation that they understood that the N-S pair was new. But to the North player this was like suddenly being called a cheater (of course this did not happen) just at the moment of her Greatest Result Ever, and there was just no way to avoid an ugly scene. As a TD you learn to handle these as best you can, using all the diplomacy and sympathy you can possibly muster -- but there are some situations that a new player will not accept. Even after allowing a few rounds to go by before returning to try to calmly explain that no accusations had been made or insinuated, this player had made the unbreakable decision never to return to the club, perhaps never to play duplicate bridge--even while admitting that my explanation was correct and reasonable and that the opponents had in fact not been at all abusive as it seemed at the time! I adjusted the score and they never returned. Some club TDs would find a reason not to adjust, deluding themselves from the real reason: "we want them to come back." The point I'm trying to make with this true tale is that if we establish a procedure by which club TDs rulings contrary to law can be appealed and scores changed, the net effect is more negative than positive. Perhaps the best remedy is to accept the unjust result (it is only a club game after all) and have the Unit Recorder look into the situation and speak to the Director after some time has passed. Once, as editor of the Unit newsletter I ran an article about a particularly bad ruling at a club, no names, no identification of the club, but even this was enough to stir up a lot of bad feeling. Of course the club manager remembered the deal and assumed he was being slandered, and demanded equal space in the next issue. (I wriggled out of that one somehow, I forget how, too long ago.) It seems likely to me that we will see a few more ACs demanded at the regional/sectional/club level, as players read about the Auken-Monaco decision and assume that an AC is a "right." I'm sure few of these will have merit.

I like the idea of 6.5 minutes per board plus two minutes to change, which is a good standard for club games. If you think two minutes is too long for a move of two or three meters, I will show you some East-Wests who take five, laden with purse, snack, drink, convention card, glasses, pencil, and twelve other things. But if the championships are taking 8 or 9 minutes a board, without anyone having to move, is it really the same game? Not a complaint, just an observation: other sports do different things for their championships. They came to the golf club where I run a ladies game and turned all the rough into a well-mowed fairway nearly indistinguishable from the actual fairway for the Canadian Open last summer. And as a Vancouverite still reeling from 2011, don't even get me started on what happened to the idea of what constitutes a penalty in the Stanley Cup Finals and how it contrasts with the rest of the season...

Here is an entirely different take on the situation: I agree with the ruling although I had to read about six digits worth of words to understand it. But if the Committee ruling took place at 4am, that is SIXTEEN HOURS after the scheduled start of a 64 board match. Even allowing for a short dinner break of 90 minutes and another delay of 90 or so while a Committee was assembled, convened, and deliberated, this still leaves 11 hours -- 660 minutes -- to play 64 boards, which is over ten minutes a board, almost 40% more than we mortals are normally given! OK, they had screens in use, but does this require more than two extra minutes each board? What on earth is going on in these matches? We play 28-board matches in our local IMP league and the matches are over in 3.5 hours tops -- and the boards are shuffled each half! Three such matches: 84 boards, could easily be played at that pace well-within the time apparently allowed for a Vanderbilt match. The schedule for the NABC for the round of 16 day (Thursday) says 12:00 noon and 7:00 pm for the Vanderbilt. If, even with screens, you can't finish 32 preduplicated boards, a few more than a normal 3.5 hour session, fast enough to get but a quick dinner break out of what's left of SEVEN FREAKING HOURS, it seems quite clear that bridge at the highest levels has ceased to be a timed event.

I did consider doing something like that. But really, how difficult is it to simply say: oops, I may be wrong, let's get the Director, instead of bidding 3C and changing the explanation simultaneously? People do this all the time when RHO bids before they slow-alert partner's call, and it is well understood that RHO's bid can be changed. This is similar enough that I don't think East deserves the benefit of the doubt here.

My bad, sorry. East and South hands have been corrected in the original post.

[hv=pc=n&s=s952hjt762da832c8&w=sj64ha93dk94cqj62&n=sakqt73h5dj75ck73&e=s8hkq84dqt6cat954&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1sd2sdp3cpp3spp4cppp]399|300[/hv] Club game. North asked East about the second double. East told North the second double was a penalty double. North thought for a short time and chose to pass. East now did two things simultaneously: he placed the 3♣ bid-card on the table, saying "...or maybe responsive." Director (me) summoned. I should have rolled back the auction to let North rebid with correct information, but I allowed the auction to continue, and E-W eventually made 130 by refusing to take the club finesse in 4♣. North objected that with correct information about the second double he would surely bid 3♠ and did not think either opponent would venture a vulnerable bid at the four level. 3♠ can be beaten with careful defense, but seems odds on to make against normal defense. East was adamant that he would bid 4♣ over 3♠, and argued that he would bid clubs at the three or four level whatever the double actually was. They did not seem to have an agreement about this, based on the look East gave West when he saw the dummy. Two East-comparable good players were given the East hand and chose pass over a hypothetical 3♠ call as a standout. I ruled +140 to N-S based on the misinformation. East-West wanted this to see the Internet for more opinions. I know I can count on you to provide them.