campboy

The phrase actually used in the law is "given serious consideration", not just considered.

There aren't lines for 12 tricks without the revoke. The point was that the revoke actually gave declarer a chance to make a 12th trick (11+1 for the revoke), but he didn't take it because he didn't realise there was a revoke.

I don't see the problem. I would think it obvious that the meaning of "should" is different in the context of writing a set of rules than in the context of normal speech. Rules are not recommendations. Anyway, the thing at the front of the lawbook tells us what is meant. I think it would be a bad idea for the laws to refer us to a document written by a third party, and a worse idea to use definitions that are not specifically defined for what is basically a form of technical writing. The distinction between "should", "shall" and "must" in the laws is an important one; the RFC 2119 gives us a meaning we do not need in exchange for two that we do.

Is there an official view on what proportion of bridge players are maniacs? For the original question, fwiw, I would bid 3♠, but would consider pass (am I pushing them into a game?). I would have passed over 2NT for the same reason that others gave.

Agree with Gordon. The case you are perhaps thinking of when it would be right to consider equity including the revoke penalty is when there is a subequent revoke. So if declarer had played a second round of trumps immediately after winning the ace, and LHO had revoked a second time, we might give 12, since that is what declarer would have gotten if LHO had only revoked once.

Do you mean the West hand? If so, I don't understand why the good players are passing (though I don't claim to be one :) ). You have a 9-card fit (which you know about and your partner doesn't) and no-one's vulnerable.

Well, after reading your post, I'm no longer quite so sure it is wrong. But I am not convinced that we can give a split score except where the laws explicitly permit it -- and the only law which explicitly mentions it is law 12.

Well, a ruling isn't the same as an adjusted score. Law 12A says that the director can give an adjusted score when the laws empower him to do so. Several laws explicitly empower him to do so in certain situations; law 85 does not. I read Law 85B as meaning that allowing play to continue is the overriding concern, and if that means making some facts up because they can't be determined, so be it.

I take it we can be confident that "hearts and another" was the correct explanation?We would really need to see your partner's hand to make any sort of judgement. If 3♠ (instead of 3♣) was a logical alternative, then we might consider an adjustment based on 3♣ being illegal under 16B. It is much more likely that passing 3♥x would be a logical alternative (indeed, it is hard to see how it would not be). While partner's 4♣ bid does not seem to have damaged EW, a PP for use of UI might be appropriate if it was particularly blatant. In both cases I think it is obvious that bidding clubs is suggested by the UI.

Bruce has convinced me. We're not giving an adjusted score because Law 79 doesn't say that we can, we're adjudicating how many tricks were won. So it's like a claim; we never give a split score after a claim and we can't here.

What everyone else did really isn't evidence of anything. However, if you looked at the hand -- and perhaps were able to find out from the players what the lead was -- and one number of tricks was overwhelmingly more likely, then that is evidence. Failing that, though, I think Wayne is right.

Polling was available in bridgetalk, though only in certain subforums. So if people wanted a poll for a ruling they would start a separate thread in "The Bridge Table" for the poll.

Ken's suggestion seems quite plausible to me. If we give an adjusted score then it is clear that both sides are non-offending and so each side gets "the most favourable result that was likely " as per 12C1e(i). The problem with the 60/60 approach is: what do you do if either decision leads to more than 60%? The fine for the people having the loud discussion should be a standard amount, though, as Ed says.

The explanation South got does make playing the ♣J more likely to work, but I would probably have played the same way even if told "no agreement". So I don't think there was damage.

There are two relevant laws here: 73D1, which has been posted, and 73F. As Frances says, there was a demonstrable bridge reason and this is enough to allow the score to stand, though Law 73D1 justifies warning East to be more careful.

Win the ace, take two rounds of trumps and two of clubs, then exit with the ♦Q.

Indeed. You seemed to be doing rather better than us B) I guess this one really wasn't as close as I thought. I was surprised that oppo didn't want a ruling, but we lost the match anyway so I don't feel too guilty.

This feels like a bit of a catch-22 situation, in that anyone who is experienced enough to be aware of what the alerting rules are in this situation is going to be experienced enough to be expected to protect himself. Not that that's a bad thing, per se, but it does make alerts rather useless here.

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=s53hkj7653d82ca53&w=sak9842hq8dkj94cj&e=sqj6ht2dt7653cqt6&s=st7ha94daqck98742]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Uh, how do you get an auction in this thing? It went 2♦ - pass - 2♥ - 2♠ - pass - pass - 3♥ - pass* - pass - 3♠ out. 2♦ was alerted as multi, 2♥ not alerted but presumably p/c. The pass over 3♥was agreed as slow. N/S didn't bother to call the TD after the hand. Would you have done? What ruling do you think he should make?

Did anyone ask West why he bid 3♠? In particular, does he not have a penalty double available? If he can't make a penalty double here, why is he so sure he could with correct info?

Would it be worth having a stickied thread for those of us who have moved over from the old forums to say who we were if our userids have changed? I am the same, but many people won't be.