jeffford76

I think it is absurd to use the average length of time after a skip bid for players as a whole as an indication of the average length of time for a particular player, especially when you are going to rule against a player who is ostensibly following the regulations. I regularly pause in skip bid situations. Online in an ideal world directors would have access to the timing in similar situations for this particular player.

For the purposes of Zoom, all you need to know is how the pairs move, not how they are initially allocated, right? As long as the director tells you which table you started at, it's easy to move each round to the correct table. (I'm assuming here that you are co-hosts so you are moving yourselves.)

This will never happen until ACBLScore supports it, and ACBLScore will not support it because it's not popular.

Cheaper minor as a second negative definitely requires an alert in the ACBL. All artificial bids require alerts unless they are specifically called out as not needing one, and this is not called out.

In the ACBL the alerting rules for the old charts said to pre-alert everything that was not on the general chart. Kaplan Inversion wasn't on the general chart. (Well it wasn't, and then it was, and then it wasn't again.)

I'm sure that procedure will make you many new lifelong friends.

I'm just baffled that people either a) truly think that people who say "play" really do mean "play anything" b) think that people who say "play" mean "play low" but somehow this is so offensive to them that they want to enforce it as "play anything"

Are you seriously going to argue that someone saying “play” doesn’t mean that?

I don’t understand getting worked up about “play”. No one using it thinks it means “play anything”. It is shorthand for “follow suit with your lowest card”.

I think it actually took more than a couple. :) There is a committee working on the new alert rules - I am chairing it. As you suspect, the main goal is not to make major changes, but rather to make the rules more clear, and to make rulings more predictable. It's still too early for me to have any estimate of when a draft might be finished. I'm sure we will provide it for comments once we have it as we did with the new convention charts.

I should have been clear that all agreed the revoke happened. If ruling that the round has not ended and using Law 63A4 can’t the revoking side change their mind and object to the claim?

Last board of the round. An East/West player revokes on a trick won by North/South after which N/S claims all but one of the rest and E/W agrees. All players return their hands to the board. Before anyone moves, N/S realizes that E/W revoked and calls the director. Had play continued with a corrected revoke and a penalty card, N/S would have still won all but one of the remaining tricks. What now? Would it matter if the time clock had expired for the round, but the players hadn't moved? What if the time clock had expired and the director had called the round?

In one of my partnerships we play "Inclusion RKC" after a splinter - So 1S - 4C - 5C is RKC for spades, asking for the club void to be treated as an ace. If it is 1S - 4C - 4N, then we don't show the void. Obviously there's more room for this the lower the splinter.

Seattle has a league. Here's the relevant part of the rules: Bridge Irregularities: In the event of any bridge irregularity, if it is possible the team captains should agree on a ruling. If the captains agree, then the ruling is final. If the captains cannot agree on a ruling, then both should submit written statements of the event to the league commissioner who will make a ruling in consultation with a director. If there is disagreement about a ruling during the knockout phase, the teams should play the playoff boards in case the result of the ruling is a tie.

Sorry - there was a new post in the thread which made it show up in new posts for me and I didn't notice the original was that old.