gordontd

The original post is from Australia.

I think we'd be more likely to call 88 "two fat ladies", but it's not the most efficient way to get the job done.

When calling out results for a scorer in the EBU, we say "seven-tie" or "four-tie" to distinguish them from "seventeen" & "fourteen". Not that we often call out results for scorers any more.

Sure, it tells us how to adjust under 64C. It doesn't tell us how to deal with the situation at the table. And of course in practice we're going to end up in the same place whichever view we take.

I think this example would be better if both players had a balanced 12 count. Clearly responder would raise regardless, and 3NT will often make, but absent the insufficient bid both of them would have passed out 2♠

This is not the minute being incorporated into the laws: this is yet another question that is not exactly on point to the original problem. I don't believe we will find a single perfect answer, because nowhere is it stated whether 62C or 63B has precedence, and so I would not consider either view to be wrong. I would however incline towards not allowing an established revoke to be corrected. In holding that opinion and favouring that approach I understand, from having asked him, that I share common ground with the WBF Head TD.

Since you've mentioned this minute a couple of times, let's look to see what it says. I can find two minutes, but perhaps you know of more. Both of these seem to me to be concerned with how we assess equity, not with how we correct unestablished revokes.

See Law 63B: Hence the problem :)

Your economy with words is an example to us all.

What you actually said (your first post in that thread, in its entirety) was:

I think West is using UI in two different ways: he's playing his partner for a stronger hand than would be shown if 2♣ had been alerted, and he's making a call that his partner can't misconstrue. I suspect 3♣ (forcing after a 2NT rebid) is a logical alternative to bidding 6NT, and if he bid that he might play there.

Indeed. I'll blame it on the diagram being too small to see properly!

No, it's a poor slam that happens to make (it needs the trumps to have no losers, and the heart queen onside). I think you should just have bid 4♠.

One might say that there are no other irregularities that may never be accepted, in the sense that the law never says of anything else that it can never be accepted. Of course, in other situations if the players do something they shouldn't, appear to accept it, and reach a point where a problem/contradiction arises, then we will have to adjust or cancel the board. If they don't reach a problem/contradiction, we can happily let them get on with it, and if it's drawn to our attention we might invoke "you didn't need me earlier, so you can manage without me now". But L32 is the only time that the Laws use the words "may never" and I think that's a pretty strong indication that we're not allowed to use sophistry to make it mean "may not, unless the players manage to muddle through and persuade themselves they've reached a proper outcome". It's no surprise, though, that this question arises out of a TD exam and is not based on a real occurrence. In real life we would either be called when we knew what to do, or would never be called at all.

That seems sufficient reason: we have two instances where the law says an infraction may be accepted, and another where it says it may never be accepted. I think that's reason to treat them differently.

The problem is that the word "never" in Law 32 is rather difficult to see past.

To leave aside all other aspects of this thread, I have to disagree with this. When playing a card a five second pause is a very noticeable break in tempo.

No surprise there :)

Some designations are incomplete because they are unfinished. Others are finished, but incomplete because they don't fulfil the requirements of the Laws.

Well, he was called (presumably at the instigation of the overcalling side) to establish whether there had been a break in tempo, and he seems to have done just that. Is he now to say to the side who called him "do you really think there was a break in tempo, as just agreed by your opponents?" As the director in charge, I'm surprised to hear this too since, if this is the case I remember, we agreed that Pass was not a logical alternative. I understood during the discussion amongst the TDs that the break in tempo had been established at the table.

As TD at the Premier League, I had a couple of players from opposite sides of the same match come to me to tell me they had mis-scored a board, so I duly corrected it. This was immediately followed by a player from a different match wanting to know why he doesn't get rewarded for being diligent and checking claims. What I finally worked out was that in both cases an imperfect claim had been made in identical situations; in the first case the players later agreed between themselves what the correct outcome should have been and presented it to me as a scoring error, but the third player had "caught" the imperfect claim at the table and thought he should be rewarded for it.

You, John Crinnion & who else?

The regulations say that a call is made when the bidding cards have been taken out of the box with intent. From your description that had happened before the 1NT bid was made.

Congratulations to Frances Hinden and her team who won the A division of the English Premier League, an achievement all the more praiseworthy because they were the only team in the division with only four players, so played all 420 boards.

I find "like" is worse: I often cannot tell whether the speaker means something is like something else, or is saying that it is that other thing.