pgrice

The director of our morning game sent me: A few players had problems this morning with the Explain box not disappearing and obscuring the dummy. I know this happens form time to time. Is there any sure way to fix it? One pair as a result timed out this morning and would have failed to make their contract, but perhaps the issue affected their play. This seems to happen at least once per game. I don't know if it happens mostly to those using the ap or web clients. Some players have suffered more than once, others not at all so far. When the director goes to the table, everything looks normal. Does anyone have a sure fire way of fixing this? Logging out and back in doesn't always fix it! Thank Peter

For the last days I've been getting two copies when I use the Chat to Tournament either as a player or from the directors tab. Output looks like: >tournament: Thanks for directing >tournament (*2934):Thanks for directing All the chat to tournament appears this way. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks Peter

If you try to start a 8-board team game using a folder containing only 4 boards ... nothing happens ... no invitations are issued until you correct the error. So, you can have a mix but you have to prepare the deals yourself.

I tried this a few hours ago and had much the same experience. One player had computer issues at the start and so his partner was given a robot to play with - this filled a half table. As you found (3) the robot completed the round and then stopped. Trying to sub robot with robot didn't work. Sub robot with a real person (my alterego account) and then back to a robot got things going for that round. When robot stopped again I tried the same process again ... needs a different alterego ... but eventually gave up and subbed a real person for the remaining boards. Tournament was clocked, barometer, play with robots not permitted. My player with computer problems didn't make it back before the end so I have no information on your point 2 Peter

I think you have to have 100+ logins before you can create team matches.

Many thanks this clearly belongs under the heading NYPD BRIDGE Sven, forgive me if you know or don't know ... NYPD Blue was a groundbreaking cop show that started in 1993.

I, of course, in no way would condone LHO rebuking dummy. I had in mind declarer calling for a card in dummy when the lead is in hand and LHO saying "I wish to accept the irregular lead" If (when) the director is called, which law might he use to refuse this and require the lead to be made from the correct hand? We should assume that LHO thinks it is to his sides advantage for the irregular lead to stand. This seems to be a change in the 2017 laws … previously if defenders disagreed about accepting an irregular lead from dummy then RHO's choice prevailed … or have I missed something. Peter

Doesn't L53A explicitly permit this? Peter

The WBFL minute referred to above (which I don't seem to be able to find anymore) says that the "next diamond" becomes a played card when declarer's RHO plays to the next trick. Thus, declarer could decide to stop running the diamonds before that play occurs. Peter

But only if there are tricks to transfer ... if the revoker doesn't win the revoke trick and the offending side doesn't win a subsequent trick, there is no rectification. In such cased we then don't need to consider L64C to restore equity ...

Sounds like the revoke isn't established and partner will have a major penalty card

Once the director is called and has made appropriate investigations, the play of a small spade from dummy may well be the ruling. Until then - as pran says -dummy might say "you have no trumps" (and await developments) or remain silent. Dummy should be under no obligation to move a card declarer has not properly designated to the played position - no matter how clear the intent. Peter

I agree that this could have been a(n)(aborted) claim ... but the ruling probably would be the same, via a different route. Would there be a rational alternative to "keep the suit partner discards" for the non-offending defender? We would need to look at the play to the first 11 tricks to be sure. Peter

L51A covers the basic question: A. Offender to Play If it is a defender’s turn to play and that defender has two or more penalty cards that can legally be played, declarer designates which is to be played at that turn. L50E3 should also be used if NOS are damaged by exposure of the penalty card(s). E. Information from a Penalty Card 1. Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized information for all players. 2. Other information derived from sight of a penalty card is unauthorized for the partner of the player who has the penalty card (but authorized for declarer). 3. If the Director judges that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side he shall award an adjusted score. Peter

Twice … demonstrably occurs 4 times ...

Sadly not. I found myself in an situation I had not previously encountered … a slow insufficient bid … so I asked experienced players what they thought of the situation. As far as I was concerned the table result of 6H= was perfectly equitable and I had no real expectation of a ruling that would change that. Doesn't stop me from being interested in knowing if there is any case law for such occurrences or different methodology to be followed. If that is "lawyering" I'll put my hand up.

I find the use of "drooler" as a derogatory term unacceptable in polite company ...

It seemed to me that if I didn't accept the 5♥ bid it would be made good with 6♥ … and give me less justification to ask the question in the OP.

I was south here ... I did not ask E explicitly if it was a mechanical error, my strong impression at the table was that it was not. Having passed his partners splinter bid on the previous board E might have been somewhat distracted. After a very brief discussion W (also a director) concluded that PASS was suggested by the BIT and so bid 6H. I made sure I had a record of the auction and that the BIT was agreed and later asked OP for an opinion. Peter

All the above seem reasonable solutions to the balance/duration/complexity problem you have. Movements for playing 9-rounds at 7, 8, 9 and 10 tables are in Manning and you should be able to print table cards from your scoring program. The 10 table Hesitation Bowman works best with a phantom pair (on table 10) to avoid the need for Table 10 to share with other tables in turn. Of course if you have 2 board sets this problem goes away. Manning doesn't always just arrow-switch one (the last) round, but if balance is not a primary objective this will work fine. Peter

I was paying attention - from the play so far I expected declarer to lead the suit he called for and had worked out the needed to duck smoothly ... so I did ... without watching what dummy played. The infraction was dummy's - [L74A3 if you like] - but I now seem to being punished for not spotting it. If that is what the Law intends then so be it. Peter

My problem with this approach is ... If as a defender, I follow suit to the card Declarer played from Dummy (by naming it), have I revoked - at the moment I play the card? If as a defender, I follow suit to the card Dummy played (misplayed) from Dummy, have I revoked - at the moment I play the card? The answers to these questions should be clear but - following your reasoning above - could change depending on later events. Likewise the "winner" of the trick could be changed by later events (or the lack of them). Such situations I find very difficult to understand. Peter

I don't find this reasonable ... a heart was played from dummy [L45B] ... RHO revoked (though we may have some sympathy since Dummy moved a club to the played position) ... Declarer followed suit and LHO revoked (although as with RHO we may have some sympathy). After LHO leads and Declarer plays to the next trick L45D doesn't tell us what to do but it would seem that the trick just played must remain as played. To now decide that a club was played from dummy and thus Declarer and not RHO nor LHO revoked surely must be wrong. Had, for example RHO played a heart, would he also now be deemed to have revoked?! I agree the situation with dummy's cards is unusual but I suppose we have to put up with this to avoid players having followed suit to the card played from dummy (by Declarer naming it) being deemed to have revoked if attention is not drawn to a card misplayed by dummy in time to correct it. So, the revoke(s) is(are) established L63A1 and one trick (presently) is transfered to Declarer L64A1. Further tricks may be transfered L64C. A PP for Dummy may well be in order. Peter

Highly unlikely, but EBU WB 144.3 defines when such a score would be required ... I had to use this the other week. As ScoreBridge wouldn't allow both real and artificial scores on the same line I used a "fine" to achieve the required scores. Stand-by playesr The TD may, at his discretion, introduce a stand-by contestant to take the place of a contestant who is not present at the advertised starting time. If the late contestant has failed to notify of his impending late arrival, then the stand-by contestant assumes full rights 45 minutes after the advertised starting time. If the late contestant has given notification of his late arrival then the stand-by contestant assumes full rights 90 minutes after the advertised starting time. Once the stand-by contestant has acquired full rights, the late contestant may not reclaim his position. The late contestant may be accommodated only if convenient to the movement and the other contestants. If the late contestant does arrive within the time required to reclaim his place, then his results on any board played by the stand-by are cancelled and he receives Ave–. However, all results obtained by opponents of the stand-by contestant (and – in an Individual – by a partner of the stand-by player) shall stand.

Sounds about right ... Peter