axman

a. Systemically, what is 2SX? b. What makes the difference between the explanations call for X?

I concur that it is unfair for the law to create it. This is the reason that the WBF is wrong to not subject every established revoke to trick penalti(es); as well as creating this comparable call thing and a host of other unfairnesses upon... both sides. These questions can only be resolved by Sally, Dick, Jane, and Harry. Not TDs, not committees, not pundits because only Sally, Dick, Jane, and Harry have the answers and it is their answers that count.

I think this is a black hole best tended to by relying on the 'NOS' to assert a claim of what they would do different but for.... Having been given that assertion then scrutinize the validity of the assertion giving deference to all matters that are legitimately plausible in even the smallest way over objections by the OS- and award the assertion or give reasoning for why the award is less. Such may or not be to the greatest advantage to the NOS score, yet it resolves the hand relative to the skills of the players (even though via a second pass** rather than the first pass). The advantage such as may be is avoiding a search for the impossible to find holy grail. ** well, it would be expected that having seen the cards the NOS would be in the position of making their assertion to their best advantage that their skill can muster. In light that there is the presumption that the hand will be played at the speed of a few seconds per turn, the second time around suggests that it is (abundantly) generous to the NOS that they do not get unlimited time to contemplate their do over and that they do not get a third time around.

hmmmm..... Does it make sense that for a card to participate in a trick it necessarily must be played? Which begs the question..... Where does the law specify dummy's card having not been designated by declarer (by naming or touching) is a played card? Thinking in terms of dummy having touch/moved a card to a played position without instruction (for that matter also including when a defender is co-opted as agent). I thought so. I would believe that such card not having been played cannot participate (be part of a trick) in ownership of a trick even if the players act as if it had won the trick.

By law dummy moves played cards to a played position. It is declarer that plays dummy's cards. (however, there are situations that cause dummy's card that have not been designated by declarer to be played). I suggest that 'was won by the offending player (19)' that for some the winning player can be construed to be declarer (when dummy wins the trick) so the footnote was implemented as clarification of who is such offending player. I am not suggesting that the LC did the best effort.

Does it require the cards to be face down:)

The creation of competent exams is not easy. The above 'question' is an example of an incompetent Q because it implies mind reading: <because he can see two ♠A.> To introduce the information of what is in W's mind as fact it is necessary to say, 'West stated I called because I can see two SA's.' if that is what happened. If the Q is about what the TD is to do- as in ascertain how he finds out (eg if he investigates why he was called and was smart enough to find out what was in W's mind away from the table.)

B>> Pass - 1H - 2NT changed to Double - Director, please! The player bid 2N. He withdrew 2N to X. the X was not accepted- the X was canceled and 2N was reinstated.

My objective was identifying that the remark conveyed that when advancer responds 5D instead of 3D it demonstrably suggests 5D is to make rather than allow the opponents make the last decision.

I understand the theory behind bidding a high contract that rates to go minus when the indicated capacity suggests that every minus score will be disastrous. I also think it is a bad theory.

Doesn't the remark suggest that pard has values to open 2N demonstrably suggest the partnership has the values to succeed in 5D while the inference that 2N by agreement typically has preemptive values in long lower unbid suits that likely will fail at 11 tricks?

I'll point out that merely because it can, it does not follow that it should. The PC indemnity is an attractive nuisance. An example of an attractive nuisance is Houston's mandatory tailgate law which severely punishes drivers for passing cyclists that aren't 3 feet away. The effect of this law is that cars six lanes away slam on their brakes (refuse to pass) upon site of bicycle 200 yards away. It also has the effect of pedestrians and cyclists feeling indestructible since no car dare come close enough to hit them which encourages reckless behavior. I reckon that the law directly kills 5-10 cyclists and pedestrians every year by making reckless behavior attractive (road deaths of pedestrians and cyclists skyrocketed after enactment). By the same route, non PCs attract declarer to reckless behavior such as POOT and revokes. Which begs the question, why should declarer get facilitation to commit the Alcatraz coup but the defenders do not? There is compelling reason to treat all players the same as practical. It establishes the climate of good habits and fair play. In other words it is not obvious why declarer does not have PC. Granted, use of a word to spark a reaction has some downside. Yet, whether or not someone disagrees, there is something grotesque about rules concerning fair play that facilitate the Alcatraz.

It would seem that for some reason (that lowers to grotesque status) that the law requires declarer have no PC. Thus, a trick has begun and declarer's card is on the table (since some previous trick not having been retracted) being a faced card, it is played (a done deal)- not to be retracted except as L47 enumerates. Such an experience is likely to impart indelible memories… and profuse** broadcasts of the news that will suppress the desire by others to have the experience; and correspondingly instill a motivation sooner to find out for themselves what the law says. ** the recent Mike Levine slow play ruling at the Bermuda Bowl trials comes to mind

1. Your idea of what you need to be aware of may not coincide with what others suggest. 2. I think the WBF site lists several versions of the 2017/2018 final drafts. The one that likely is useful shows the ADDITIONS highlighted. I don't recollect if the version (the really useful one) that highlights the CHANGES (new AND deleted) is available. The revisions are numerous to the point of not seeing the forest for the trees. 3. What is likely is that the significance of the changes may be so subtle that one may go his merry way and then get gobsmacked. I've had that feeling.

Something to chew on. Was making a set of boards and having shuffled 3 of the 5 I asked the opponent if #4 had been shuffled and was told yes. Feeling a bit uneasy a minute later I repeated my query with the same result. On #4 the board was concluded in a little over 2 minutes (as it was I who declared 6H overcoming some handling charges. After the session we hurried off for lunch and to walk the pooch. Came back and checked the recap sheet to find everybody declared 4H making 5 except for my zero for failure to shuffle. The main curiosity was that this was the second event that #4 had been played (the 1st time was the previous evening which I did not attend… while everyone else had). The previous evening everyone declared 4H for 11 tricks. The memory of bridge players is remarkable.

Some clarification is in order: The query was ' How do you rule?' When I run a game I post and make these announcements prior to the session: 1. partnership's completed CCs must be presented to receive entry 2. exchange CCs for the round (to minimize the need to ask questions) 3. ALERTS ARE FORBIDDEN as provided by L81C2 & L80B2f I find that L16B1 specifies Alerts are a system of communication other than by call or play and thereby conflict with L73B1 in contravention of L80B2e and thus are forbidden in face to face contests, and, that their use is subject to PP.

This is my take: Voting that failure to alert to be MI does not make it so. First of all, Alerts are proven to be busy work. Busy work that players and TDs get wrong time and again. You have the opponents' CC: you have been informed. No MI therefore no damage from MI.

My experience with protecting myself is first to shoot myself through the heart before torturing the remaining parts of my body.

Rulings ought to be in accordance with law. Here the facts are muddled. I posit that the law is defective and leads no where. I conclude that it is a waste of time to figure out what the facts are since the defective law leads nowhere. Hence, I rule that the law is defective.

1. write down the movements for the possible number of players (layout the boards correctly too) and strive to have experienced players sit at the relay/bye stands etc, and remember to call skips correctly 2. have the instructions to appendix tables and write down the number of an expert on movements in case you need help; also a good idea to have a couple numbers (arrange ahead) you can call if you need help with rulings and bridgemates 3. it doesn't make too much sense worrying about what hasn't happened yet- too much overload- so ascertain the facts, if the parties don't concur investigate till you can rule your finding of facts and tell the basis for the finding, read the law book to the players applying against the facts telling them they have the right to lynch appeal rulings that they think are incorrect. It is a good idea greet the players and in particular introduce new faces that they may easily be welcomed at the table by their opponents, introduce yourself as the TD and describe the movement and instructions. And… Having breaking the ice jitters it is a good idea to resist the temptation to fill-in (to avoid sitouts/ handle singles). Meaning think of your worst enemy (ok you know what I mean) you can impose upon to be available to fill-in in a pinch but probably not play. As a possible enticement offer a free play should you not need him this time after all.

Given the apparent evidence as apparently updated, 67B does not activate.

When I read it, W followed suit AND at the same time contributed a heart. Perhaps the characterization of playing a heart is accurate, perhaps not. But it sounded like having first followed suit it is incorrect to characterize W to have revoked. As to what to do I would think that the first order of business is to recreate the play to ascertain what happened before making conclusions.

Some decades ago there was a very prosperous club in French Canada that had dwindled to the point that it was tenuous whether a game would materialize. It was prevailed upon one of the players to undertake the TD duties. The player knew that the reason that the club was dying was because everybody cheated due to the fact that the TD did not see to it that the rules were enforced fairly. On the basis that he would have carte blanche to enforce the rules consistently he acceded. In two years the club was the go to destination. It takes a threshold investment of effort for the preoccupation of bridge to be worthwhile. Part of that investment is to know one's methods and do what it takes to make them readily available to the opponents which means exchanging CC at the beginning of the round. I vigorously endorse complete CCs as part of the price of admission. If nothing else the players' skill will increase.

Isn't the first thing "How may I help/What is the problem?"

The facts are unsatisfactory. What boards are on what tables and when. etc. what two boards have the same cards and who played/saw them?