gordontd

Certainly it would. It would give VP scores that don't add up to 20, as specifically allowed by Law 12C1f. I'm surprised you don't know this - it's not an unusual procedure.

I think that's what 86D tells us we don't have to do. That's what it's there for, why it was introduced.

Which is precisely the situation we have here.

Then when do you think it is applicable, and what do you think prompted its inclusion in this lawbook?

What do you think the director has done?

What about Law 86D, Sven?

The question is what is a normal line when you think you have all the tricks. In general we don't know, because when you have all the tricks you...claim. However, there is one situation in which you don't claim, you always play it out, and that's when playing against robots. I notice that in that circumstance, when I would like to claim but can't, I pretty much do play cards in a random order while ensuring I don't block suits, and I sometimes discard aces when I know they are superfluous. Does anyone else have any observed data about how players act when they know they have all the tricks but can't claim?

We get a report from BBO once a month, and then we update your record. As far as I can tell, you didn't get any points in September, so it'll be next month before yours show on your record. Incidentally, they aren't Net Points, but are Local Points exactly as you would win at your club.

As I understand it, the argument is that since proper procedure involves consultation with and/or polling of appropriate people, and will often have involved the judgement of more peers of the player than would an appeals committee, as long as this has been done then there is no need to consider overturning the ruling.

I have the impression that they would go straight to the reviewer, but as I say I haven't experienced the system first hand. As to appeals advisors, I'm not even sure that they ever had them at EBL & WBF events. Maybe there will be an EBL director here (jhenrikj?) who can answer more fully.

The way the system works (as I understand it, not having worked under it) is that a reviewer (or more than one) is appointed for an event. The reviewer will not be a TD at the event. I believe that Grattan Endicott was the one for the first EBL event under this system. If a team is unhappy with a ruling, they go to the reviewer who will consider whether the TD followed the correct process in coming to the decision - eg consulting, polling, asking the right questions. If it is felt that the ruling was not based on correct procedure, the TD will be asked to make the ruling again.

While the first part of this answer is correct, I wonder what your reference is to "director-panels". I have never heard of them. Where do they exist? Or are you mis-representing the EBL & WBF's review system, to try to make it seem as though it was introduced by directors, or administered by them?

I agree too, to the extent that I don't think I've ever seen anyone make one of these support-showing bids after a weak takeout, even though it's always presented as the obvious meaning of the bid, whenever consulting about a ruling.

It's surprising how often it happens that a team has a good card at both tables when both pairs have played in the same direction.

Or South might have been trying to recall if they had such an agreement, which is not uncommon.

That's true, and it's something I try to ensure as far as possible. Perhaps you've been spoiled by me? :) But sometimes it's unavoidable, and it certainly doesn't mean the teams are each playing in a different competition.

Damn! How could I have overlooked that?

You seem to misunderstand a lot, to the extent that I wonder whether you are looking for things to complain about. Clearly we did not know how many teams were competing, since we had to expand the number of sections in play at the start of the event. Secondly, I wonder what you would have done differently with as many boards available as you like? Remember the number of boards to be played was fixed, as advertised, at 24. 25 teams to play 24 boards - your choice. Thirdly, in multiple teams events it is always the case that there is at least one more board-set in play than the number of teams. In this case the teams playing three-board rounds had one more set in play than the minimum possible, and those playing two-board sets had four more boards in play than the minimum - not anything that anyone else would consider the least bit problematic - and nor did they.

This sounds like precisely 1,2,3 in that order.

No-one bid 4♠

I think that's a myth. You do need to play once a month on average to get enough Magazine Points to be sent a printed copy of English Bridge every two months, so perhaps that's where it originated.

That's just a default. It's clearly stated that you can play any Level 4 system you like.

You are welcome to play in these games without being a member, and if you have previously been a member and have an EBU number, your masterpoints will accumulate until you rejoin. As to affiliating, I think you misunderstand the nature of the relationship between BBO & the EBU. These games are not run by BBO as an affiliated club of the EBU; they are run by the EBU itself using BBO as the "venue" & service provider. As such, the organisation you need to join for your accumulated master points to have some value is the EBU itself, either directly or by joining an affiliated club. As I say though, you are very welcome to come and play in these games even if you are not an EBU member, and that has been the case with a fair number of players in our games so far.

Players who have been following this thread may be interested to hear that in response to feedback we have adjusted the schedule of these games and they will now be at: Wed 4pm & 11pm Sun 4pm, 6pm & 9pm All UK times

Sorry, I should have said EBU affiliated clubs.