gordontd

On the contrary, the WBFLC issued guidance some years ago that they favour a liberal interpretation of 27B1(b). I think we'll have to wait to see what they come up with for the next set of laws, although I doubt they will choose to reduce the application of this aspect.

Which one is it Sven? Is it irrelevant or does its truth make a difference to the ruling?

I remember thinking this would be useful when I was directing tournies. I'd also have liked a way of seeing the current ranking, mainly because I'm used to if in offline tournies scored with Bridgemates.

It wouldn't be for most people.

I guess I better not say anything :)

I think the point, with which I agree, is that if you have started to enter before the tourney begins, you should be able to finish the process rather than being chucked out when you are clearly there.

And your point is? :)

Perhaps Phil & Lurpoa are one and the same.

You used to be a mainstay of the YC Tue/Thu afternoon games, to say nothing of afternoon sessions at congresses!

You don't play bridge in the afternoon?

Robin's summary is correct, but note that sharing with three board rounds is no great hardship, so you wouldn't really need a third set in those cases, especially since they only share for a few rounds. I have utilities to make Web Mitchell movements in Scorebridge or Jeff Smith format, with rovers if necessary. If you email me I'll send you them.

Yes, I'm including taking the old cards out the boards and putting them in the machine, which I do find I can just about do while the previous board is being dealt. I asked Gill Pain who deals most of the EBU's boards and she said the best she can do is about 360 boards an hour, with a well laid out workspace and serviced machine, but more usually does about 240 an hour because of loading files, printing hand records and marking sets for identification.

Whether or not it would be "simpler" is yet to be demonstrated.

Quite so, although only last weekend my partner and I had the following hand with all of those features in the Commonwealth Nations Swiss Pairs: [hv=pc=n&w=sak6haq2dcakqt875&e=sth93daqt983cj963&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2cp3dp4cp6cp7cppp]266|200[/hv] 3D was an old-fashioned positive showing 1.5 quick tricks and a good suit and 6C showed good trump support - hence East's shortages in the majors were known as well as a diamond trick or two.

I agree with these comments about COOTs, but the difference between them and opening leads out of turn is that the COOT laws are in one place whereas the OLOOT laws require cross-referencing back and forth through the law book.

You assume it would pass your double. In my experience one of the worst things about GIB's bidding is its interpretation of clear penalty doubles as an invitation to make an inexplicable, wild bid.

deleted

You started by saying that if we simplified the rules, the dangers of players deliberately using UI would be reduced. Since nothing that you have said since seems to back this up, I think you were just trotting out one of your little mantras. I don't disagree with you that some rule simplification would be a good thing, but you do rather go overboard with your wild, simplistic claims.

And which rule would be simplified by this?

Which rule would you simplify, and how would it avoid such dangers?

One of the regulars when I ran the Young Chelsea was a woman in her late 90s who had been a good player and as she had become deaf her (usually correct and concise) analysis became louder and often spoiled the boards for others. My favourite of hers, for getting the most information into a short sentence, was when she said loudly to one of her husbands: "Darling, if you'd pinned the ten of spades you'd have made your six clubs"!

Plan B has already failed.

It certainly seems to me from the discussions that followed this case that it would be a good idea for the TD to investigate this. If it turns out not to be this board the players can be reassured, although of course that might just transfer the problem to another board.

That takes a very particular reading of these words.

And apparently I have to spell out the problem with this: Law 16C1 requires the information to be "about a board he is playing or is has yet to play". Does that apply to this board?