gordontd

I think you'll find I haven't commented on the case itself at all, merely brought up matters of procedure, but I'll make this my final post on this topic, and I think you'll find I do a better job of sticking to that than you did when you said the same thing upthread some days ago :)

No, I wouldn't normally consider it so either, but I think we've all been led astray by you saying "The basis of the appeal is that the TD was wrong in Law."

The question was whether there should be a committee (which a referee is) at all, or whether under Law 93B the matter should have been heard by the Chief TD. Save for the unlikely case of an appeal to the national authority, a decision by a referee has the same status as that by an appeals committee and is the end of the appeals process. There is no regulation that there be a further time limit of 12 hours, but perhaps on one occasion you were given such a time limit after a ruling was made, possibly to allow time for all parties to be told of the ruling.

I wouldn't think "pairs" is a movement either - it's a group of scoring methods of which matchpoints is the most common version. We don't say "matchpoints" to indicate a Mitchell movement, which would be the equivalent of what he said. I don't think that's what he did.

Deleted

This would require that players have perfect control over their tempo. They don't - they could deliberately pause when they don't have a problem, but they can't deliberately not pause when they do have a problem - which is why hesitations do suggest something.

Two cultures, divided by a common language. :) To my mind the movement & the scoring method are independent of each other.

Ah that's a different matter - both the ACBL & the EBU have regulations for point-a-board scoring of boards that allow scores to be determined by matchpointing valid scores against the rest of the field. The EBU regs say:

I would allow scores to stand whenever both tables of the match played it in the same form. I think this is supported by the White Book 3.3.3 which says in part "the over-riding requirement is that each board be played in an identical form at both the tables involved in the match, and a valid score (or an assigned adjusted score) be obtained at these tables." It's not really any different than playing a substitute board.

This is one of the questions on matters of procedure that occurred to me reading this thread. The other is whether you should have waited until the matter was no longer sub judice before posting it here (I assume the appeal has not been decided yet?)

Playing rubber bridge my opponents had the auction: 2♣ - 2♦ 6♦ Dummy went down with a balanced 22 count with ♦Axxx and found her partner with ♦KQxxx and a couple of other cards.

Just use all the Bridgemates you have and enter the rest by hand. I've done this before, but maybe your scoring program makes this difficult. Alternatively, at the end of play renumber six of the Bridgemates and enter scores using them.

I think for any player who has failed to mention an outstanding trump and has failed to say they would ruff high, it would be no more than careless to ruff low.

That was the basis of the original post.

Oh yes, that's clear, but I think I need to hear an argument why cashing out is a normal line in this instance. It might be argued that most others will be going off in 3NT, but actually I suspect many of them will be in a making part-score and playing for one-off is playing for a near-zero.

East's intention was clearly to cash the two top clubs at the earliest opportunity and then cross to the winners in the West hand (or cash all the winners in the West hand and then cross to the two club winners with East), but obviously he will discover that's not possible when he's put in hand with the heart. At that moment he can choose to cash out for one off by playing a small club or try to make it by playing the CA, which incidentally is consistent with the line in his claim statement, although I don't think that matters much. I wouldn't think it a normal line to cash out for one off, but I'd be prepared to listen to arguments that it is.

I did that too, but caught myself just before I hit SEND.

Is it normal to cash out for one off when there is a decent chance of making, and when you might still only go one off even if that chance doesn't materialise? I can't really see anyone doing other than playing according to the claim statement.

LOL

And another appears to be from Pakistan. So Nigel was wrong about twice as many of them as he was right about.

Having read and liked the book, I was prepared to be disappointed by the film, which is just as well because I was.

We have a regulation telling Appeals Committees not to just make minor adjustments of percentages, so such appeals would be quite likely to be deemed frivolous. Having the ability to award weighted results actually takes some of the pressure off the TD.

As I once heard Brian Senior say to a client of his: "You were prepared to defend 5H until I said I was delighted to defend 5H".

I suppose the reason it irritates me is that if focuses our minds on something that is not only incorrect but also doesn't help us get a feel for what the bid really shows. I think they should say something like "diamonds, or balanced with at least 2 diamonds, or three-suited with short diamonds". I think it's better to be told what a bid shows than what it denies.

Do they see no contradiction? This is one of my pet peeves - players who say that a minor opening denies a five-card major when it's not true.