gordontd

No, but if we're going to adjust and/or fine, we should be doing it for the infraction that actually occurred.

Indeed, that's why I asked the question.

Was it established that North's opening was a psyche?

Tell that to gwnn

It's specifically allowed by Law 16, if it happens before the board has been started. It's not an option given by Law 13.

I agree it's a practical solution, if the players all agree to it. But the NOS didn't agree, and ought to be able to get their AV+ board if that's what they would prefer.

You must show me where it says that.

The law says the result must be cancelled and an adjusted score awarded, so that's what I'd do. Who was directly responsible for the situation? NS who failed to count their cards. So, 40/60 (which would give the scorer the pleasure of applying the ACBL's byzantine regulation for artificial scores in BAM events).

We have a White Book regulation based on Law 73D that tells us these sorts of decisions are not demonstrable bridge reasons for this purpose. But when a player is genuinely choosing which card to play because it may make a difference, other than in the sense of signalling or misleading (both of which the player should have taken care to prepare for earlier in the play), then that seems to me to be a demonstrable bridge reason. Whether or not that applied in the case that started this thread was for the director to decide.

Actually, my principle is that if West was thinking about a bridge decision, however poor that decision is, there is no redress. An important difference.

Enough that they provided the impetus for BriAn to exist.

The advantage is price. For a small club that can't afford a Bridgemate setup, they can do something similar for a fraction of the cost.

In practice what happens is that the club has a few tablets for use when there's a table with no smartphone. The system is such that a device can either be assigned to a table and it stays there, or it can be assigned to a moving pair. So, sometimes you'll have a spare device at a table, and other times you might have none. I don't think it happens often though that there are four people at a table with no smartphone or tablet.

It already exists. http://www.brianbridge.net. For those who don't have a smartphone, tablets are available at significantly less cost than most wireless scoring devices.

Then why do they sit there? And do they wait for the tray to go back before entering the S & W calls?

If you'll excuse me for going off-topic for a moment, is that standard practice in the USA? In Europe? In the rest of the world? I ask because our operators now usually sit South-West, so that they won't give UI by typing in the calls before the tray has been passed through the screen. I'd be interested to hear other ideas about this.

Those who do this have made the assessment that they are more likely to win when they avoid the randomising effect of a barred opponent. You may disagree with this, but to suggest it's a breach of L72A is ridiculous.

No problem. My misunderstanding.

Then I think you are wilfully misunderstanding what I said. This is now the measure of a real bridge auction? They are not the people I am talking about, and that is not a strategy I ever advise. The Orange Book says: You'd be glad if they did it and you got the normal 4S-1 contract rather than the abnormal 3NT=.

Nobody suggested you should do anything to be considered a nice guy. Indeed, nobody suggested you do anything. I pointed out that there are some players who are inclined to accept such calls because they believe they are more likely to get a real bridge auction that way than through the randomness of making their opponents guess at their first call.

You mean I'm not a regular poster?

I wonder what this change is that I haven't noticed it yet?

Accepting the call out of turn ensures a normal bridge auction, although not the same auction as would otherwise have taken place.

Even if you played them, this surely wouldn't be one.

What makes you think the reviewers will be directors and not players?