gordontd

Yes. Whatever he calls will have a more precise meaning than "any hand I might hold". I might question North further about what he would do with a clear positive with a good suit, but some people really do play that they bid 2D whatever they hold.

Yes, that is what it means.

I think this is just misinformation. They claim to play count, when in certain situations that they are both very well aware of, they don't.

Yes, that's true if you happened to sit the same way and had a similar auction.

On the contrary, it's hard to see how a card can be withdrawn if it was not contributed to the trick.

I want to know where these people are getting their cherries. I tried to buy some yesterday and they seem to have suddenly gone out of season. Unless Fred & Bill have bought them all up.

When I'm polled, I don't find it hard at all just to answer the question, without first trying to guess why I'm being asked it. I suppose it goes with being able to look at an unshuffled hand and not feeling the urge to attempt to reconstruct the play at the previous table. The bigger problem with polling is that often the only people who can be asked are those who have already played the hand, and therefore know what the outcome was. That's why TDs often start by asking each other - we often won't have seen the hand already, and we generally have a good idea, based on experience, of what other players do. I'm not sure that bidding competitions get untainted answers, though they may well be tainted in a different way.

In that case your posts don't adequately reflect your intentions.

They exist to tell us when rectification is given for revokes. L64C tells us how to adjust for damage when L64A & L64B don't apply, or when those rectifications are insufficient.

I agree with this, but it's less extreme than the position you've been taking during most of this conversation.

That's my point - you referred us to a limitation made by L64A & L64B when we weren't talking about those laws, so I did exactly the same thing.

Yes, so let's resolve that question to the best of our abilities, and the rest will fall into place. You seem to want to decide there was no revoke, without trying to find out if that was so.

Precisely. What had L64A & L64B got to do with it when it was about L64C?

The only time limit on 64C is that contained in 92B.

He'll investigate and make a judgement. You seem to want the director not to bother investigating, on the grounds that it wasn't noticed at the time.

Law 63 tells us how to know if a revoke has been established. In this case there is some uncertainty so we investigate; we don't assume without investigation that there was no revoke, and therefore decline to rule, when one side tells us there was a revoke.

They may well not, but they wouldn't decline it on the basis that it was out of time for Law 64A & 64B.

And the assertion is that one was. So you have to decide whether or not it was, and if so use Law 64C. I can't think why you would turn to 64A & 64B and say "these conditions are not fulfilled, so I can't apply a different law whose condition are fulfilled". If you're not going to investigate on the grounds that the players don't agree what happened, do you similarly refuse to rule whenever there is a disagreement over the facts?

No, none.

When you do so, I think you should point them to the relevant law (64C) not to laws that don't apply (64A/64B).

Pran writes: Law 64C itself begins: My emphasis. Nothing here about exceptions for uncertainty. So I think we are only bound by L92B as quoted by blackshoe.

You take the 1H card out of the bidding box and put it on the table. There - you've done it, and it didn't take an agreement to do.

Oh, I must have misunderstood. I thought you were saying that players don't really need to follow the "rule of ..." regulations.

That doesn't sound like a precedent to me.